Friday, May 9, 2025
Home Blog Page 2

Movie Review: ‘Until Dawn’ is a Flimsy Offshoot of a Great Video Game


Director: David F. Sandberg
Writers: Gary Dauberman, Blair Butler
Stars: Ella Rubin, Odessa A’zion, Michael Cimino

Synopsis: A group of friends trapped in a time loop, where mysterious foes are chasing and killing them in gruesome ways, must survive until dawn to escape it.


David F. Sandberg’s adaptation of Supermassive Games’ Until Dawn is an adaptation in name only. Instead of directly transposing the 2015 interactive movie of the same name to the screen, and its “butterfly effects” to fit cinematic conventions, Sandberg and writers Gary Dauberman and Blair Butler create an original story set within the world of the game. That would’ve been fine if the story actively expanded upon the mythology that Larry Fessenden and Graham Reznick (unlike Sony, who did not credit the writers of the game during the end credits, I am giving them their proper recognition) built upon in the video game. However, it chooses to ignore all of that completely and instead make a conventional time loop movie that fundamentally misunderstands the core mechanics of terror at the heart of Until Dawn

Until Dawn: release date, reviews, cast & everything we know | What to Watch

The only tangible connection we have to the video game is the appearance of Peter Stormare, who reprises his role as Dr. Alan J. Hill, and traps a group of teenagers inside an endless time loop that forces them to relive their deaths over and over again, unless they survive the evening until dawn and break the loop. That’s about as far as I’ll go in describing what happens, because, to Sandberg’s credit, the movie does have some neat connections to the game within that specific story itself, and how each death brings them closer to something they do not want to become. 

That said, transforming the “butterfly effect,” which meant that players could make critical choices at pivotal turns in the game that would affect the story, with a time loop, may be the single most significant mistake that entirely sinks this supernatural horror movie. Of course, making an interactive live-action film is complicated, as illustrated by David Slade’s Black Mirror: Bandersnatch, which makes it understandable for Sandberg to want to stay away from doing something like this on a large scale. Yet, in not wanting to stage sequences that showcase how each choice the protagonists make affects their survival of the time loop, the movie becomes nothing more than a repetitive series of over-the-top deaths with very little thrills, and little to no tangible connections to genuinely titillate fans of the game. 

Sure, the use of nifty practical effects to visualize the most agonizing end for our protagonists is certainly fun, notably a sequence that sees them violently react to the water they’ve drunk in the most explosive fashion. It certainly has the most creative use of blood I’ve seen since Coralie Fargeat’s The Substance, but even the funniest – and most unexpected – sections of the movie become increasingly tiresome when they’re frequently repeated, diminishing the intended effect they had when first employed. What remains is a series of haphazard connections to the video game, which seem to have been added at the last minute instead of being integral to its plot development. 

Without giving much away, the integration of these elements is only there for the audience to artificially point and clap at the screen when they recognize something they’ve heard from the video game. There’s no tangible desire for Sandberg to genuinely expand upon the mythos of its creatures, or in the repercussions of a “butterfly effect.” It’s a time loop movie that has Until Dawn connections in it. If you removed those altogether, it wouldn’t make a difference in the plot, and in how the story eventually wraps up, fundamentally misunderstanding the core concept of Fessenden and Reznick’s approach to horror, not only in the cinematic aesthetic it appropriates, but also through its ludonarrative. 

Throwing all of that out of the window in making an Until Dawn movie seems as pointless as the idea of making a film based on what is essentially a movie, where the subtle choices you make affects the overall story. It also doesn’t help that its ensemble cast, comprised of burgeoning stars, can’t hold weight to the shoddy material they’re given, often producing unintentional bouts of hilarity rather than imbuing them with the same emotional textures the protagonists in the video game had. Even sequences with significant dramatic power fall flat, as they contain more than one jumpscares to keep the viewer on edge instead of letting the drama speak for itself. 

Until Dawn' review: Meta-horror based on game brings gore - Los Angeles  Times

The end result is sadly insulting for gamers who have spent their time examining the lore beneath the actual game, and doesn’t feel like it holds as much reverence to the source material as Jared Hess did while making A Minecraft Movie. That’s something I never expected to say, since Sandberg does hold a formal edge over his contemporaries, and he does possess great skill in crafting neat transitions, particularly one at the top of his movie. But Hess understood something that Sanderg sadly doesn’t. When making a video game adaptation, of course you want to appeal to a broad audience, but your primary targets are the people who have played it and hold great appreciation for the game. That’s why Minecraft did so well – it understood that it specifically needed to target the gamers first before anyone else. If you fail the fans at the top of your Until Dawn film, who is this offshoot for?

Grade: D

Movie Review: ‘Another Simple Favor’ is Unrelenting Camp and Not Much More


Director: Paul Feig
Writers: Darcey Bell, Jessica Sharzer, Laeta Kalogridis
Stars: Blake Lively, Anna Kendrick, Allison. Janney

Synopsis: Stephanie Smothers and Emily Nelson reunite on the island of Capri, Italy, for Emily’s extravagant wedding to a rich Italian businessman, which is interrupted by murder and betrayal.


A Simple Favor introduced audiences to mommy vlogger Stephanie Smothers (Anna Kendrick) and her increasingly twisted friendship with the urbane and impeccably stylish Emily Nelson (Blake Lively). Paul Feig’s movie managed to balance satirical camp with a relatively satisfying thriller, proving that the Venn diagram between zucchini and chocolate muffin recipes for mommies and true crime obsession was, in fact, a circle. Warfield, Connecticut, a sweetly suburban town was hooked on the mystery surrounding Emily, her former novelist husband, Sean (Henry Golding), and Stephanie’s “problem solving” mind being put to use not only in providing handy hints for mommies and caring for Sean and Emily’s son Nicky (Ian Ho), but also “Nancy Drew-ing” Emily’s disappearance. 

Blake Lively's 'Another Simple Favor' Movie Gets a Trailer

By necessity to engage with Another Simple Favor, spoilers for the original movie follow. Emily Nelson turned out to be Hope McLanden who, with her twin sister Faith, killed their abusive father by burning him alive in the west wing of their sprawling home. On the run since the age of sixteen, Hope took on many aliases and formed close relationships with people who could give her money and security. Her sister, Faith, was less successful in shaking off her demons and re-emerged, only for Emily to have to put her down. Faith’s death provided an opportunity for Emily to collect on a large insurance policy Sean had taken out. It all would have been perfect if Emily hadn’t chosen to befriend Stephanie who turned out to be darker, cleverer, and more cynical than her cutesy “super-mommy” exterior belied. Long story short: Stephanie solved the mystery, Emily and Stephanie developed a grudging respect for each other (with the exception of Emily being happy to kill Stephanie), and Emily/Claudia/Hope ended up in prison.

Cut to years later where Stephanie’s son, Miles (Joshua Santino), is now on the edge of puberty and Stephanie is about to launch her book “The Faceless Blonde” about her experiences with Emily, when the woman herself enters the event – out of prison and about to be married in Capri. An event she rather forcibly invites Stephanie to attend by threatening a large lawsuit. “I’m the best thing to ever happen to you,” Emily tells Stephanie, along with a strange promise that she is going to spend the rest of her life trying to find ways to “thank” Stephanie for blowing up her life. The first act of “gratitude” is picking Stephanie to be her matron of honor — making it clear that this time Stephanie won’t be able to sleep with her husband.

The film opens with Stephanie under house arrest speaking to her mommies on her vlog. How did Stephanie end up arrested in Italy? Funny you should ask. Even funnier if you try to care. Feig and the screenwriters, including Darcey Bell, who wrote the novel the first film was based on, have decided that extreme camp trumps any form of actual plot. Someone decided the movie contains Blake Lively wearing impossibly glamorous outfits trading coded quips with Anna Kendrick there’s little else required to keep audiences entertained. Throw in Capri looking gorgeous, some hunky mafiosi, a sassy literary agent Vicky (Alex Newell), and a couple of gruesome murders that was enough. “Someone” was wrong.

Another Simple Favor': Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick Head to Capri

Gathered at the wedding are Sean (Henry Goulding overacting), Nicky, Emily’s resentful mother-in-law to be Portia Versano (Elena Sofia Ricci) and Emily’s new beloved, crime family scion, Dante Versano (Michele Morrone) and rival Matteo Bartolo (Lorenzo de Moor). As a barbed “treat” for Emily, Portia also invited Emily’s mother Margaret (recast with Elizabeth Perkins taking up Jean Smart’s mantle) and Emily’s Aunt Linda (Allison Janney). Stephanie is clearly concerned Emily might be using the wedding as an excuse to exact her revenge, and Emily hints that could be the case if her mood goes that way. Once again the two “besties” feel each other out (verbally, no kissing this time) and the absurd behavior of almost everyone around them seems to be par for the course. 

Sean has taken to day-drinking and bitterly complaining about being present at the wedding of his ex who shot him; apparently forced to attend due to the “magic lawyers” who were able to get a self-confessed double murderer out of prison and able to travel internationally (don’t question how the magic lawyers work). Nicky is now a pre-teen with dyed hair who missed his mom and slightly resents his dad. Grandma Margaret is more gin soaked than the first film. Only Aunt Linda seems to be functioning on Emily’s side of the wedding aisle. Perhaps, considering the McLanden family, a little too functional.

If people found the first film to be a little too twist heavy they’re in for even more in Another Simple Favor but this time the twists are so ludicrous that the movie feels almost like a comedy sketch sending up the original. There’s an extremely green FBI agent (Taylor Ortega) on Capri whose original presence back in Warfield makes little sense. Stephanie has become very friendly with Detective Summerville (Bashir Salahuddin) presumably because of her amateur sleuthing adventures, but he, like Andrew Rannell’s fellow mommy, Darren, is back in America while all the action is in Italy. The action being Emily’s outfits, insane people, veiled and real threats, Stephanie’s “not that nice” side being brought out by Emily, and corrupt police serving the various Napolitano crime families whose fantastic wealth is the higher stakes game.

Another Simple Favor' review: Blake Lively is at her best bad and mad |  Mashable

Trying to describe the plot is akin to welcoming an aneurism with every sloppy and ludicrous detail putting further pressure on a previously functional brain. Stephanie, who is supposed to act as the audience’s stand-in witnessing the shenanigans, doesn’t have enough quips to illustrate how overwhelmingly stupid the entire proceedings are. When she tells Emily she might be overdoing it on the outfits (there’s a hat that basically requires tent struts to keep it up), she’s underplaying how surface the film is. Jokes are dry and dusty, characters are profoundly stupid, and a sense of actual danger is missing because it’s impossible to care what happens to anyone in the movie.

A Simple Favor wrapped itself up quite nicely in the post movie “what happened to” epilogue. Forget everything they stated for Another Simple Favor. Forget subtlety, mystery, black comedy, social commentary on the suburbs and secrets… in fact forget almost every positive aspect of the first movie and be prepared for bonkers and badly done. The simplest favor you can do for yourself is to ensure you’re six martinis deep before you hit play on Another Simple Favor – you’re going to need them.

Grade: F

Episode 634: Summer Preview / Midnight Cowboy

This week’s episode is brought to you by Koffee Kult. Get 15% OFF with the code: ISF25

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we preview the summer movie season and conclude the 1960’s portion of our Best Picture Movie Series with Midnight Cowboy! We also discuss the new Academy rules in regards to members and voting.

Sinners Box Office / New Academy Rules (3:39)
To begin the show this week, we rave about the continued box office success for Ryan Cooger’s massive hit Sinners, which had a record-breaking drop off of 10 percent. The film is still making waves and creating remarkable discourse on social media. Additionally, we had to discuss the new rules set by The Academy and how it will affect awards season later on in the year. These rules now mandate that members have to see the films before voting and treating AI on a case-by-case basis. 

– Summer Movie Preview (29:15)
The summer season is upon us. May is typically when Hollywood kicks off the summer and this year we begin with another Marvel outing in Thunderbolts*. Summer 2025 might not lack the appeal of other years, but there are still a few blockbusters worth being excited about. The smaller movies on the other hand might be where the summer has its stranglehold on cinemagoers. Wes Anderson, Celine Song, Mike Flanagan, Ari Aster and many others have films coming out that look very promising. 


RELATED: Listen to Episode 610 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed our Top 10 Movies of 2024!


– Best Picture Movie Series: Midnight Cowboy (1:29:13)
We continue this series by rounding out the 1960s with the iconic American New Wave film Midnight Cowboy! This is a film that features some of the most memorable lines of dialogue and performances in all of cinema. It’s also a work of art that took New Hollywood by storm, cementing for good that we are in a new era of filmmaking. While very accessible in its emotion, it’s a film that is experimental in its filmmaking and storytelling. There’s a lot to love about Midnight Cowboy and we had a great time breaking it all down.

– Music
Fantastic Four – Michael Giacchino
Everybody’s Talking – Harry Nilsson

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 634

Next week on the show:

Thunderbolts*

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Movie Review: ‘The Accountant 2’ is Entertaining and Uneven


Director: Gavin O’Connor
Writer: Bill Dubuque
Stars: Ben Affleck, Jon Bernthal, Cynthia Addai-Robinson

Synopsis: Christian Wolff applies his brilliant mind and illegal methods to reconstruct the unsolved puzzle of a Treasury chief’s murder.


The Accountant 2, the sequel to the modest 2016 hit, is less structured, more fun, and big on action. It’s not nearly as exciting or well-crafted as the first, which featured a fascinating exploration of backstories and a mythology reminiscent of a graphic novel. The sequel is more interested in watching its neurodivergent protagonist step out of his comfort zone, engage in social situations, reunite with family, and follow wherever the wind may blow.

The Accountant 2 (2025) - IMDb

You could argue that The Accountant 2 is more fun—maybe even unpredictable—with a decent twist involving the film’s main villain. But throughout, I kept wondering: what was the point of the experience? The result is a film that feels more like one of those ’80s action sequels made just to cash in. The thing is, those movies were usually rushed to meet a deadline. Yet this Gavin O’Connor film took nine years to make, making it all the more puzzling that they couldn’t develop a stronger script that further explored the characters’ histories and how they got to where they are now.

The new chapter continues to follow Christian Wolff (Ben Affleck), our favorite accountant who is also a hitman with autism. It’s quite the gig—a killer for hire who can also launder money for some of the world’s wealthiest criminals. After moving on from a dinky strip mall and flying under the radar, he relocates his silver Airstream to a lot full of them. We can only assume he bought an Airstream dealership, living the dream under the cover of shiny silver anonymity.

However, Wolff is pulled back in when an old friend, Raymond King (Academy Award winner J.K. Simmons), the former Director of the Treasury Department, becomes the target of unknown assassins. King’s replacement, Treasury Agent Marybeth Medina (The Lord of the Rings: The Rings of Power’s Cynthia Addai-Robinson), contacts the Harbor Neuroscience Institute—a kind of Bat-Signal for Wolff. He reconnects with Justine (Allison Robertson, replacing The American’s Alison Wright, who is on the autism spectrum, bringing authentic representation to the role), his childhood friend with nonverbal autism, and communicates using a supercomputer-assisted system.

Where The Accountant 2 finds its groove is in turning the film into, essentially, a buddy comedy. That’s where the magnetic Jon Bernthal comes in, reprising his role as Braxton, revealed at the end of the first film to be Christian’s long-lost brother. Bernthal is electric here, effortlessly shifting between action star and comic relief—you just can’t get enough of him. His character is the foil to Affleck’s straight man, who still delivers his signature deadpan, dry humor through a neurodivergent lens. Braxton tags along with Christian, working alongside Medina as they hunt for an assassin tied to King’s case.

The Accountant 2' review: Not a total write-off | AP News

The script, written by Bill Dubuque, who also penned the original and several standout episodes of the Netflix series Ozark, leans more heavily into comedy this time. Affleck continues to display his dry wit, while Bernthal proves to be a natural comedic presence. The fact is, Braxton is the more compelling character here, often overshadowing Affleck’s Christian, and easily merits his own spinoff. However, the film’s central plot feels like a contradiction. It hinges on a convoluted setup meant to elicit emotional investment through a murder in the first act. Still, the reveal is well-executed, delivering a satisfying twist reminiscent of the best moments from the first film.

However, the film is incredibly uneven, becoming frenetic and shifting to a melodrama while wavering in tone and substance. One third plays as a buddy comedy, another as an ultra-violent action thriller, and the final portion aims for something heartwarming—bordering on manipulative—as it tries to showcase a team of students at Harbor working together to help Christian advance his mission. Unfortunately, the subplot involving the mysterious henchman is so underdeveloped and inconsequential that you’re left wondering why it was included at all.

You will undoubtedly be entertained by The Accountant 2—Lord knows there are worse ways to spend your cinematic escapism. Yet the film is so uneven, so lacking in a clear point of view, that it feels like an action-packed version of Whose Line Is It Anyway?—a story unfolding without a clear destination. You begin to wonder: if not for the likability of the actors, would the film hold up at all? Strip away the charm, and what’s left is a movie riddled with plot holes, coasting more on charisma than on meaningful, escapist substance.

You can watch The Accountant 2 only in theaters starting April 25th!

Grade: C

Movie Review: ‘Yadang: The Snitch’ is an Admirable Revenge Thriller


Director: Hwang Byeng-gug
Writers: Kim Hyo-seok, Hwang Byeng-gug, Yoon Soon-yong
Stars: Kang Ha-neul, Yoo Hai-jin, Park Hae-jun

Synopsis: In drug crime circles, ‘Ya-Dang’ informants sell criminals’ info. Criminals use this to reduce sentences, while law enforcement uses it for arrests. Ya-Dang, police and prosecutors form a key triangle.


Yadang: The Snitch begins in media res, introducing us to its protagonist, Kang-su (Kim Hyo-seok), in the middle of an interrogation as he attempts to extract critical information on a drug deal being made. Kang-su is now an expert informant, or “snitch,” in extracting the most important details before intervening with prosecutor Koo Kwan-hee (Yoo Hai-jin). After being framed for a crime he didn’t commit and getting a second chance at life with the prosecutor, Kang-su seems to be at the height of his “career” of swindling people and looking immaculate while doing it. 

Well Go Takes U.S. Rights to Yadang: The Snitch Starring Kang Ha-neul

All of this changes, though, as Kang-su becomes embroiled in a political scandal, which reveals that Cho Hoon (Ryu Kyung-soo), the son of South Korea’s top Presidential candidate, is a massive drug addict, and a video showcasing this is on the verge of getting out. With Kwan-hee being the candidate’s right-hand man, he silences Kang-su. The people surrounding him who also knew of Cho Hoon’s drug addiction, including police detective Oh Sang-jee (Park Hae-jun), and Uhm Su-jin (Chae Won-been), an actress caught in a similar drug scandal, after taking an unknown substance she thought were “vitamins” and testing positive for drugs, are also in trouble. 

A few months pass, and Kang-su finally regains the strength he needs to take all of the people responsible for his downfall out, leading to a classic revenge thriller that, while not reinventing the wheel, still ends up being admirable enough for a Saturday evening watch. What sets its apart from other revenge thrillers of the sort is its incredibly precise use of swift, invisible transitions that pull us further into its world than a line of dialogue would, especially when being tasked to visualize how the character feels inside a spiderweb of corruption that keeps expanding, making it impossible for Kang-su to fully eliminate it. 

This verve gives Yadang: The Snitch some formal edge that compels us to watch the film until the very end. Even if the beats are familiar and one knows that, once Kang-su teams up with Oh and Su-jin, they have more than one trick up their sleeves to bring the prosecutor’s entire corrupt operation down. In fact, the dramatic crux of the movie is its biggest weakness, despite Squid Game’s Kang Ha-neul modulating tangible comedic and dramatic registers. Sadly, the material he has to work with is fairly nonexistent, even when representing how difficult it is for an addict to quit drugs altogether. 

Yadang: The Snitch' Readies For North America Release With Clip

It gets even worse when a tragic event drastically changes their mission, a telegraphed moment that would give some emotional heft to the rest of Kang-su’s desires to see the prosecutor behind bars. Yet, that shockingly violent moment is quickly brushed aside in favor of an Ocean’s Eleven-like climax that, while perfectly executed, still leaves us with a sour taste in the mouth. It also doesn’t help that the narrative is frequently jumbled, between flash-forwards and flashbacks in time in rapid succession, one can easily lose sight of what exactly director Hwang Byeng-gug wants to discuss in his 122-minute thriller. 

It’s only when it reaches that aforementioned climax that one knows what Byeng-gug wanted to talk about all along, and he provides a potent anti-corruption message that hits much truer in this era. It also helps that this entire finale is slickly shot and edited, deceiving the audience to the very end until its denouement gives us the biggest smiles on our faces. No matter how corrupt the powerful may be, the people always have the last word and have the power to stand up, even if the ones on top may seem unstoppable. Spoiler alert: no one is, and if there’s anyone who will demonstrate this inextricable fact, it’s Kang-su, who will give power back to the hands of the people deciding the country’s ultimate fate, before being forced to make the wrong choice.

Grade: B

Movie Review: ‘The Surfer’ Threatens to Lose Itself In Its Own Wake


Director: Lorcan Finnegan
Writer: Thomas Martin
Stars: Nicolas Cage, Finn Little, Julian McMahon

Synopsis: A man returns to the idyllic beach of his childhood to surf with his son. When he is humiliated by a group of locals, the man is drawn into a conflict that keeps rising and pushes him to his breaking point.


Despite what our culture, especially when involving men, teaches, singular focused obsession is dangerous. Although there is a disturbing focus on “the grind” and getting what we are supposed to crave, that can be just as dangerous as consistent laziness. The car, the job, the perfect family image. All of these things are both worth striving for and a poisonous addiction. As we try to undo our mistakes and mistakes that we are saddled with, we must consider that sometimes it may be better to just walk away, or in the case of this movie, surf away.

The Surfer follows our eponymous protagonist (Nicolas Cage) as he has returned to a scene seemingly out of a perfect postcard. The film opens with him giving an obviously prepared monologue to his son (Finn Little) tying the idea of surfing to life. It is revealed soon after that he has traveled here to live, to buy a massive house on the hill overlooking the beach. Further, it was the house that his own father had owned before everything went south for the family.

Seems like a nice father-son moment, but it doesn’t quite work out that way. At this beach during this time, only locals can surf. As is repeated constantly in a threat, “Don’t live here, don’t surf here.” And no, no one cares that he used to live here and is in the process of trying to live here. This creates immediate tension which provides an enjoyable contrast from the idyllic setting. The visuals, shot by Radek Ladczuk, gives us an immediate understanding of why The Surfer wanted to return.

Due to this awkward situation, his son eventually leaves and the film quickly spirals into a trippy, strange, confusing journey into our protagonist’s mind and into the world of toxic masculinity. This toxicity is mostly shown through “The Bay Boys,” locals who run the beach, led by Scally (Julian McMahon). The film tries to thread two very difficult needles, and is only moderately successful with both.

The idea of these toxic men, many of them quite young, only works in moments. The violence and anger is so over-the-top that it borders on too comical. McMahon is the best of the bunch, as he offers at least a manipulative presence that has minor shades of grey, as opposed to literal screaming closeups of angry, young, white men. His sense of intimidation, aided by his striking voice and facial features, sells this much better than any amount of yelling possibly could. Additionally, there is so much room to explore this toxicity and have something to say, but The Surfer consistently falls short of this lofty goal. 

This is likely because the film also chooses to have Cage slowly lose his sense of reality. He stays in this horrific situation because of his desire to reclaim his place in this paradise as we are slowly shown some of the history he and his family have endured. This could have been an interesting character piece, but the decision to focus on a Cage spiral robs us of any real deeply felt emotion. That is not necessarily a net negative. There is no one better than Nicolas Cage to play an unraveling man. His performance, along with some clever use of fish eye lenses and unmooring camera angles certainly makes us feel as uncertain of the truth as The Surfer, himself. 


The Surfer is a strange movie, caught somewhere between being in love with the B-movies it idolizes and wanting to say something about family, home, and masculinity. It becomes an enjoyable watch as the performers go for broke, regardless of whether the audience is on the same page. There is certainly a joy in the absolute extra that director Lorcan Finnegan is able to pull from even these picturesque surroundings and actors. There are interesting questions initially posed (What does home mean? Can we fix our parent’s mistakes?) that deserve more focus than a starving, confused man, but through sheer force of nature, The Surfer, is still worth the experience.

Grade: C+

Women InSession: Favorite Vampire Movies

This week on Women InSession, we get our fangs out as we discuss our Top 3 favorite vampire movies! A staple of the horror genre for decades, the vampire film holds a lot of appeal for many reasons. They’re often slick and stylish. Sexy and seductive. Aesthetically evocative given the periods that are often associated with them. We had a lot of fun discussing how these attributes apply to our favorite vampires that has braced the silver screen.

Panel: Kristin Battestella, Athina Clark, Megan Loucks

On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Women InSession – Favorite Vampire Movies

Interview: ‘Allen Sunshine’ Director Harley Chamandy

“Don’t Go To Film School, Or I’ll Hunt You Down With A Hatchet”: Harley Chamandy on Werner Herzog, Artistic Influences, and Self-Distributing His Breakout Indie, ‘Allen Sunshine’

After 11 years in the filmmaking business, Harley Chamandy has yet to tire of the “grind,” as they say. Perhaps that’s because he only recently turned 25 and because the previous decade of work unfolded in the short film space until his feature debut – the 2024 gem Allen Sunshine is now available on VOD, and is screening at New York City’s Roxy Cinema on Friday, April 25th – was introduced to the world last year. Or maybe it’s because grind is all he knows as a first-time feature director who has handled the distribution and marketing of Allen Sunshine on his own. Even with the now-Oscar-winning Alex Coco (Anora) as an executive producer, getting Allen Sunshine in front of audiences fell (and still falls) on Chamandy’s shoulders. His hustle is only part of the reason this interview took place. The other? The film—which centers on a grieving music producer (Vincent Leclerc) who relocates to the Canadian woods to mourn and rediscover himself— is a special piece of work.

Chamandy first messaged me on X/Twitter within 24 hours of me logging his film on Letterboxd, thanking me for watching the film and offering his availability for a potential interview. He’s done the same with writers and editors at publications like Sight and SoundThe Guardian, and Paper Magazine, with each review helping the film’s visibility and each chat more illuminating than the last. My curiosity was piqued by his film and his methods, not least because he had won the 2024 Werner Herzog Film Prize after Allen Sunshine’s premiere at the Munich Film Festival. (Past winners include Chloe Zhao and Asghar Farhadi.) “Why on earth is this award-winning director reaching out to me directly?” I wondered. When we finally met over Zoom, I raised that fact to him straight up. He offered some insight, not just on his self-distribution efforts but also on his filmmaking influences, his plans for the future, and the Montreal-born filmmaker’s thoughts on how his home country has all but rejected his feature debut. Here are excerpts from our long chat, which have been edited for context and clarity.

Will Bjarnar: First of all, I love that you reached out directly to me. I think that’s really cool. Because while I learned about your film through coverage in outlets like The Film Stage [Allen Sunshine was included in their 2024 round-up lists of “The 50 Best 2024 Films You Might Have Missed” and “The Best Directorial Debuts of 2024”] and obviously soon saw the film, it was cool to have the director of a truly independent film showing how much they care about their work by reaching out to people that have seen the film.

Harley Chamandy: Sight and Sound took me, like, six months of [pushing for coverage]. At one point, [the S&S editor] was like, “Please stop.” And I was like, “Nah, I gotta make this happen.” I think [winning the 2024 Werner Herzog Film Prize] opened more doors, but I just wanted people to know about this thing. I think that this is something really important that I’ve learned as a young, emerging filmmaker. It’s more than just making a film. It’s being your own press. It’s the end of the era of the “mystical filmmaker,” like a young Terence Malick. That was a really cool thing, but it could never exist anymore. Society has changed, and so much is getting put out there; there’s so much noise. So, seeing that, I realized, “I’m going to have to do this all on my own. It’s gonna be a freaking grind.” And it is a grind. I just got a one-week theatrical release in Miami. I’m about to screen at the Roxy Cinema on April 25th in New York. I just really want people to see it in the cinema. I’ve been self-distributing, and it’s paid off. 

Will Bjarnar: Well, let’s talk about that. When was the film officially released last year? I know it was at the Munich Film Festival first for its world premiere.

Harley ChamandyRight, but we basically released it on November 12th on Apple TV+ and Amazon. Simultaneously, it was screening at Lincoln Center, the Angelika, the Curzon in London, a theater in Montreal, etc. 

Will Bjarnar: So, you did all of those screenings, plus the release on VOD platforms. But now it’s going to the Roxy. You were just in France, and then in Miami… Is it just because you are self-distributing it that it’s had this untraditional rollout? Technically, it’s a 2024 release, but now we’re well into 2025, and it’s still getting programmed. That has to be exciting, to have it play wherever it can be played, no matter when it was released.

Harley Chamandy: Honestly, it’s just that people don’t know about it. This is the problem: Not to get on my high horse, but most people who watch the film like the film. It’s speaking to people, it’s crossing borders. I also showed it at a festival in Siberia that’s run by [two-time Palme d’Or-winning director] Emir Kusturica. They had like seven films in the whole festival, and they found mine somehow. It’s a good film, people just need to know about it. Truthfully, if I had someone like NEON or A24 pushing it out, it would be a whole other situation. But that’s just how the industry works, and that’s okay. You have to be patient. I’m also about to show it in Maine at “Space,” this arts museum kind of vibe, and then we’re going to Prince Edward Island, so it is, like, keeping the movie alive in a sense, you know?

Will Bjarnar: I think you touched on something really interesting there. In the current cinematic landscape, a new film could be coming out and getting coverage before anybody other than a very select few people have actually seen the movie. And then the movie comes out, there’s some more reporting on it being a big hit or something of that nature, and then after a week or two, it dies. Or, at least, a broad conversation about it goes dormant until we reach the end of the year. I say all of that to say that I think what you’re doing is important, and it can’t be easy, not least because of all of the travel it requires.

Harley ChamandyYeah, these are all great things, but they lead to burnout. I’m exhausted, but I have to keep grinding and getting the film out there. I wish more critics were able to write about the film. Maybe don’t quote me on who I was close to convincing. [He laughs; I comply.] 

But one thing I would really love for you to quote is that I’ve gotten zero coverage in Canada. I’ve tried everything you can imagine, from reaching out to every single freakin’ critic, the Toronto [International] Film Festival, and everyone refuses to cover my film. Canada has zero support for a young Canadian filmmaker who has not only won the Werner Herzog Award but has also been on best-of lists, covered in Sight & Sound, etc. I can’t even get one review in the Globe & Mail. And to me, that’s the most frustrating thing.

Will Bjarnar: I remember seeing you tweet about that a while ago, but when I went back to look for the tweet so I could ask you about this specifically, I couldn’t find it.

Harley ChamandyI probably deleted it. I don’t even care at this point. I’m gonna say how I feel, you know what I mean? 

Will Bjarnar: Why do you think that has been the case with your lack of Canadian coverage? Honestly, I think there has been a gamut of excellent Canadian cinema in the last few years that goes beyond the David Cronenbergs of the world. In the last few months, we’ve seen Philippe Lesage’s Who By Fire and Kazik Radwanski’s Matt & Mara receive extensive coverage. I’m curious if you have an idea why your film hasn’t been given the same treatment.

Harley ChamandyThey’re a little more tapped in, for sure. Like, [Kazik Radwanski] is on like his fifth or sixth movie, and Philippe Lesage is Quebecois. That’s another thing: It’s very political. I’ll say it how it is; I don’t care at this point; I’m too far gone. But being an English-speaking person in Quebec is like having everything against you. They’re not going to support you. If your movie’s not French and if you’re not Quebecois, it’s not the vibe. Dude, I’ve been able to get a screening at Lincoln Center, and I can’t even get a local arthouse in Montreal. That, to me, is the most defeating thing. I feel like I’m kind of rambling, but it feels good to talk to you about this ’cause you’re a critic; you understand it’s a grind. I’m reaching out to you; that’s still a grind. But for Canada to not even be down to give me the time of day is extremely frustrating. Like, what other 22-year-old kid do you know that is getting awarded by his idol? 

Will Bjarnar: Let’s talk about the Herzog connection. You won the Herzog Foundation prize last year, but long before that, you participated in his first-ever young filmmakers workshop when you were 17 and had started embarking on a filmmaking career even earlier. How has Herzog’s work influenced you in that journey? What did you learn from his workshop that has since influenced you?

Harley ChamandyWell, just to make it super clear, I did his workshop when I was 17, and I completely lost contact with him after that. I just thought I was another student and that he would never remember my name. So, with the award, it seems like there was some tie-in, but you don’t understand: This guy wanted nothing to do with me. I tried to get his email, and he was like, “It’s time for you to move on, dude.” I tried to have that rapport, and he was just not into it. Honestly, I think that might have helped me grow as an artist. He actually said to me when I was 17, “You have to grow your own wings and fly. I’m just a guy here to give you a little bit of advice.” But I think the most important thing he said to me at the workshop was, “Don’t go to film school, or I’ll hunt you down with a hatchet.” I had just applied to film school, and I was like, “Fuck.” I called my mom and said, “We have to cancel the applications.” I ended up doing one semester at Pratt and absolutely hated it. I transferred to NYU to study global liberal arts, and I think what Herzog was really saying to me was, “You should be friends with someone like a butcher. You shouldn’t be around film people because you’re never going to be inspired by film people. You’re gonna be inspired by real life.” He told me to read classics, to learn a language, to go abroad. 

Since I was a kid, I’ve always felt like I was making movies to compete with my idols, not to compete with a film student. I never felt like a film student. [Filmmaking] is just this natural thing, right? When I did win the Herzog award, someone asked me how I was able to deal with these heavy topics, and I didn’t know how to answer it because it’s always been something to me that has been more of a divine, secretive thing when I write a script. But Herzog answered for me and said, “You wouldn’t ask Mozart how he knows how to play the piano so young.” So, it’s inherent in you, that understanding, but then to hear Herzog saying it, it felt like I was truly being understood by a peer. My whole life, I’ve wanted to be at the level of the people I looked up to. This was the tap on my shoulder telling me that I was on the right track. It doesn’t mean I made it. It just means that I’ve trusted my gut long enough that now I’m on stage with the person who made me want to make films. He’s been so uncompromising and true to his voice for 60-plus years. He’s a singular artist. 

Will Bjarnar: I mean, between Grizzly Man and Aguirre, the Wrath of God… Come on.

Harley ChamandyI just thought of something. I think how it really all started was that I was really into fashion as a young kid. You know how kids have that stage where they dig Supreme and skating… Through that, I found Kids by Harmony Korine, and then through Harmony Korine, I found Werner Herzog. I think Herzog to me was the source for someone like Korine’s work.

Will Bjarnar: That’s fascinating because I don’t see those influences in your work. At least not in Allen Sunshine.

Harley ChamandyYeah, I’m not necessarily influenced by their films. I’m more influenced by any movies, honestly. I’m more influenced by painting, fashion, stuff like that… I actually wrote my college application essay on how the world had too many collage artists that everyone is taking from one another, and that’s why art is really uninteresting. I know you’re a critic, but I really believe that I wouldn’t be making films if I thought there were that many good films out there. 

Will Bjarnar: Would you not classify yourself as a cinephile, then?

Harley ChamandyI’ve never said that I’m a cinephile or anything, but I live for art and film. When I think of a cinephile, it’s too boxed in. To be a great artist, you have to be a file of the arts or whatever. I don’t know if there’s a word for that. But you have to see something in everything. That’s why I think there are so many lousy movies these days. It’s not just about the storytelling. It’s about what the characters are wearing, what the music sounds like, etc. To me, film is the most divine art form, and it seems like all these filmmakers don’t understand. They have this blank canvas, and they waste so much of it just trying to make some narrative movie. There’s so much more to film than that. I’m really frustrated by it. I don’t know how you feel, but I’ve left some bad reviews about movies that most people think are great. And now that my own film is getting a bit of press, people are saying, “How could you write such a bad review on a film?” But it’s just how I feel. Am I not allowed to have my opinion on how films should be? 

What I tried to do with my film, and what I hope audiences do with it, is surrender to it and just be present with it. Someone came up to me after a screening once and said, “This film is very Buddhist.” I never thought of it that way, but I guess there’s something very meditative about it. Look, I love movies. I’ll watch anything from any country, but I always viewed filmmakers as artists, not as filmmakers. I don’t even like saying that I’m a filmmaker. I feel more like an artist who uses the medium. 

Will Bjarnar: You said that you think about things like paintings and pictures. Is that, then, how you’re structuring your films? Are you thinking about the process through that lens, that you’re making a moving work of art with images that move as opposed to something still, like a painting?

Harley ChamandyOh, that’s interesting. Maybe the best way to answer that… Sometimes, I don’t even understand where something is coming from when I’m writing a script. I just love cinema and everything about film, but I guess I don’t actually love “technical” filmmaking. I do love filmmaking in terms of the actual process, but I’m not as excited talking about camera gear. I don’t care about that stuff as much.

Will Bjarnar: Your shorts are even more interesting to think about then. You made The Final Act of Joey Jumbar and Where It’s Beautiful When It Rains

Harley ChamandyThere’s one in between that I removed offline. [Laughs.]

Will Bjarnar: Why is that? 

Harley ChamandyI was, like, 16. It was called The Maids Will Come On Monday. It was a family drama. At the time, I knew nothing about how short film festivals worked or anything. And I felt with Joey Jumbler, I gave it my all and didn’t get the results I wanted. And I thought maybe I had to follow more of a formula. I went against my gut and made a film that was trying to be commercial. It looks beautiful and all that, but it’s not really me. 

Will Bjarnar: Aside from the obvious – the size of the crew, shoot duration, script, etc. – what are the key differences for you when you’re making a short versus an Allen Sunshine?

Harley ChamandyAllen Sunshine is what I feel like I had to say. It felt like something that had been dormant in me for years, and I just never had the way to say it. I think it’s an accumulation of my aesthetic point of view of the world and also just my point of view of what and how a film should be. I think if I died tomorrow, I would die very happily knowing that I made a film I am 110 percent proud of. On the artistic level, I truly would not change anything. What I’ve learned is that the best method for me is keeping the people that you really love on your set. My girlfriend [Samantha Vocatura] does the costume designs; my mom [Chantal Chamandy] does producing and editing; one of my best friends, Kenny [Suleimanagich], shot the film. It’s a feeling having this energy where the people around you are excited about making great art. No one’s there for just another day at work. I think that’s really important. But to answer your question, I made Joey Jumbler at 17. What do I know yet? With Where It’s Beautiful When It Rains, I made a short film in three days because I really liked this child actor who was about to go on Broadway, so I wrote the script there and then, and we went out and had fun. That short was a reminder of why I love film. We went against all the rules: No permits, no crew, and it was just really exciting. The difference is that with Allen Sunshine, I was able to say what I really wanted to say in the film.

Will Bjarnar: Where did it come from, then? I know you had this image of a man on a boat in the middle of a lake. Was that all it took?

Harley ChamandyI think that at the end of the day, no matter how you cut the cake, I view art as a sport. I think it’s very competitive. I want to be the best at what I do. I feel like that’s some Timothée Chalamet shit, but like, it’s really how I’ve always viewed it. I believe in objective good taste. And I think that the larger your toolbox is, the more you can inform yourself. And that’s why I’m so specific about what I think a good film is. I think that’s the accumulation of my toolbox, right? It’s a film where the image is at the forefront. The music plays such a strong role; the quiet, the delicate details like [the scene where] the little girl takes the bow out of her hair and puts it on a dog. That’s what I think makes great cinema. If you go back to all the work that I think is great work, that’s what these artists were doing. It’s a sensitivity that I feel is lacking in modern cinema. That’s something I’ve been chasing. The scene when [Allen] eats the pie, and the kids he’s with are doing magic tricks with a coin? These are all ideas. There are all these little things I want my films to have. I really want to push this agenda that all art comes from the same place, whether you’re a fashion designer, a poet, a musician, or a painter. I am really trying hard to make conceptual, modern art more welcoming to cinema because I think they exist in the same way, but society divides them in a sense.

Will Bjarnar: Another quote of yours from the past: You had the desire to “want to tell a story about love and friendships, and what it means to live with and without them. Thematically, that’s omnipresent in modern cinema, especially of the independent variety. You take that and broaden the scope of it while remaining intimate, crafting the story of a 40-something widower, and you’re only 25. How do you go about shaping that while writing the script? Are you working with your actors? Going off of life experiences, yours or others?

Harley Chamandy: It’s me alone. I am getting inspired by the music that I was listening to throughout and just trusting my gut. If you want to know how I really feel, it’s just that in every scene, I’m trying to make a fire scene, and somehow, it all kind of comes together. Like, that’s it. I’m not an intellectual. I’m not thinking about how the character feels. I’m just going with, “What’s the most fire thing he could say?” And I know it’s weird, and  it’s the least obvious thing someone would tell you, but I’m writing it, and I’m like, “I want him to play chess now because I think it’s going to look great.” It also works on an emotional level because [Allen] can’t connect with a woman at that moment. But I’m not thinking about the emotional thing. I know it’s right, and I’m never doubting myself. And the minute I do doubt myself is the minute that I know it’s wrong. Here’s an example: In the film, you never see flashbacks. I actually wrote them at the last minute and put them in, and I shot them, but I never put them in the movie. I should have trusted my gut there because I wasted a whole day shooting flashbacks that I knew, deep down, were not right for this film. It’s a film about the now, about the present, and it didn’t matter if you ever saw [Allen’s late wife]. It’s just about his feeling in that moment.

Will Bjarnar: Who’s your therapist?

Harley ChamandyI don’t have one. I’ve never been to therapy.

Will Bjarnar: Screw you. I had therapy at 8:45 this morning.

Harley Chamandy: Herzog says never go to therapy! It’s better that we never talk about the dark stuff of humanity. 

Will Bjarnar: I think it’s impossible for you not to be thinking about the emotional, thoughtful side of it, though. It’s almost offensive that you’re not. 

Harley ChamandyWell, it’s a very deep thought. I do really love humanity, and I know that it’s a really hard thing to love, especially in the modern world. But I really believe that choosing optimism is choosing happiness. I think I learned that really early on. I read a book by this Vietnamese monk when I was in my junior year of college, and there’s one thing that stood out to me. He just says happiness is a habit. That clicked with me. I was like, “Fuck. Why is everyone chasing this shit? You can just convince yourself?” I feel like something happens [within you] where everything becomes beautiful. I’m trying to view everything in a beautiful way. Now I feel like you’re my therapist because I’m saying this out loud, and it’s kind of hitting me back, but I’ve never really been able to understand why I know these things. 

Huh. That got deep.

Will Bjarnar: Let’s get deeper then. It’s ironic to ask because I know you didn’t necessarily like getting technical, but it’s important to do this. The film’s look and sound feel like narrative choices just as much as they are stylistic ones. Why are you inclined to make these choices, like shooting on 16mm film and sourcing synths for Allen‘s music production? Those are specificities that a great many films wouldn’t care to make. 

Harley ChamandyThat’s literally where I think modern cinema has gone wrong. No one cares about that stuff much anymore. I really wanted to make a film that felt timeless. That was one of the biggest things for me. I wanted to make something where there wasn’t a time period where everything in it could exist 10 years from now or 10 years ago. I don’t want any of my films to be dated at any time because if a film is dated, for me, it loses emotional resonance. There aren’t any iPhones or computers. Even the clothes are all secondhand.

I really wanted to explore an artist that was making art for themselves. That’s a very rare thing that is not really portrayed in modern media. There is something really beautiful about the artist who just makes the work for themselves and is not thinking about the audience. And you know, that was always something for me. When I would go to Q&As and ask filmmakers something, I’d always ask the same question: “Do you think about the audience when you’re making a film?” I would always ask that because, to me, I figured that all these great artists would never think about the audience. Especially Lars von Trier; he was big for me. The same goes for Harmony Korine, Vincent Gallo, Michael Haneke, Abbas Kiarostami, etc.

Will Bjarnar: Would you say that’s how you approached this film?

Harley Chamandy: With this one, I was really trying to make a movie that I liked. But from now on, what I really want to do is go to Hollywood to make a film that can keep the same sensibilities but be more populist and have a broader fare. As in, “How could I make something like Allen Sunshine, but for the masses?

Will Bjarnar: I think Allen Sunshine should be something considered “for the masses,” if you will. For audiences who have seen it or are going to see it soon, what do you hope they take away from the film if there’s even one specific thing?

Harley ChamandyMaybe if you learn to live like a child again, you can realize what really matters in life. Or, once you rediscover how to live again through the eyes of a child? I don’t know. Something like that. I don’t even know; honestly, there is probably nothing. Whatever you take from it, you take from it. I think the truth is that you have to stay curious, like a child, about the generosity of life. It opens up to you more, and you see things for what they are. So many kids these days are depressed and have so many issues. And I think that once they understand that having gratitude for the small things in life, like a conversation or having a piece of pie, that’s really what life’s about. It’s about playing with your dog, and everything else is extra.

Allen Sunshine screens at the Roxy Cinema in New York City on Friday, April 25. It is also available to rent on VOD.

‘Kill Bill:’ A Tale of Two Films – From Revenge Rampage to Regretful Reckoning

She emerges from a coma with a single, burning purpose etched onto her soul: revenge, or as she says, “Kill Bill.”. Beatrix Kiddo, “The Bride,” codename Black Mamba (Uma Thurman), cuts a swathe through Kill Bill: Vol. 1, armed with righteous fury and a Hattori Hanzo sword. Quentin Tarantino’s 2003 masterpiece is a dazzling, blood-soaked homage to martial arts, spaghetti westerns, and exploitation cinema, driven by one of the most visceral quests for vengeance in film history. The structure, although not chronological, has a clear set of milestones to be met, the targets numbered on her “Death List Five,” the violence is balletic and brutal. Vol. 1 is a pure, uncut shot of adrenaline, a roaring rampage executed with stylistic flair.

Yet, Kill Bill: Vol. 2, released just six months later, represents far more than a mere continuation; it’s a fundamental reframing of the narrative. Crucially, the division results not merely in a split narrative, but in two films possessing strikingly distinct identities and rhythms. While viewed by some as two halves of a whole, this essay argues that they function most powerfully as standalone experiences. 

Vol. 1 delivers the undiluted thrill and stylistic bravado of the revenge quest in its purest form. Vol. 2, on the other hand, decelerates, embracing a different aesthetic and tone, making space for reflection, consequence, and the pervasive counter-theme that defines it: regret. Appreciating each film’s unique atmosphere and tempo allows the profound shift between the adrenaline-fueled rampage and the melancholic reckoning to fully register.

It’s within this second, distinct film that the layers of stylized violence are peeled back to explore the squandered potential and the inescapable weight of the past haunting nearly every major character. By delving into the sorrow beneath the swordsmanship, Vol. 2 transforms the Kill Bill saga, particularly when considered as complementary, yet separate, works, from a superlative revenge fantasy into a richer, more complex, and ultimately tragic meditation on violence, identity, and the devastating cost of choices made.

Vol. 1: The Roaring Rampage (Standalone Thrill)

To appreciate the depth of the second film’s shift, one must first acknowledge the laser focus and self-contained power of Vol. 1 as a cinematic entity. Its brilliance lies in its commitment to the revenge narrative as the primary driving force. Beatrix’s mission is presented with absolute clarity. The list – O-Ren Ishii, Vernita Green, Budd, Elle Driver, Bill – lays out a tangible roadmap. The film employs stark black and white sequences in which Beatrix directly addresses the audience, leaving no ambiguity about her motivations. The hyper-stylized action, culminating in the breathtaking carnage at the House of Blue Leaves, creates a visceral, almost cathartic release for the audience, aligned perfectly with Beatrix’s drive. The visual language is sharp, often saturated; emphasizing impact and objective. It’s a film designed to make you root for the rampage, to feel the righteousness of the cause, even amidst the stylized gore. Vol. 1 is the finely honed edge of the blade, a complete and exhilarating experience in its own right, perfectly distilled action cinema.

Vol. 2: The Shadow of Regret Falls (A Separate Reckoning)

Vol. 2 functions as its own distinct piece, announcing its different intentions almost immediately. After the cliffhanger ending of the first film, the second installment opens not with immediate action, but with a crucial flashback: the wedding rehearsal massacre at Two Pines Chapel, El Paso. Here, placed strategically early, we witness the event that ignited Beatrix’s fury, but crucially, we see it through a different lens. We see Bill (David Carradine), not just as the monstrous mastermind, but as a man wrestling with complex emotions. His interaction with Beatrix) reveals layers of shared history, affection, and pain. Carradine’s portrayal imbues Bill with a palpable melancholy; his line, “I’m trying my best to be sweet,” delivered with a world-weary sigh, hints at the tragedy already unfolding. This scene immediately complicates the narrative. Bill isn’t just Target #1; he’s the man Beatrix loved, the father of her child, and his actions, while unforgivable, are colored by a sense of loss that permeates the rest of this distinct film.

This undercurrent of sorrow soon finds an explicit voice. In the desolate Texas landscape, Bill’s brother Budd (Michael Madsen) asks Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), “Which ‘R’ are you filled with? Relief or regret?” While directed at Elle concerning Beatrix’s supposed demise, the question hangs heavy in the air, introducing regret as a conscious theme for this volume. From this point on, Vol. 2 deliberately explores the internal landscapes of its characters, revealing the rot beneath the surface caused by their past actions and lost possibilities, embracing a slower, more contemplative rhythm than its predecessor.

Budd: Squandered Potential and Symbolic Demise

If any character embodies the corrosive nature of regret in Vol. 2, it’s Budd. Once a member of the elite Deadly Viper Assassination Squad, codenamed Sidewinder, we find him working as a disgruntled bouncer at a grimy strip club (“I gotta clean the toilets after you?”), living in a dilapidated trailer choked by dust and decay. Madsen plays him with a slumped, weary physicality that speaks volumes of defeat. His clothes are stained, his mannerisms careless, even the way he makes a margarita screams apathy. This isn’t just a fall from grace; it is a self-imposed exile, a deliberate wallowing in squalor.

His dialogue drips with resignation and bitterness, most tellingly when Bill visits to warn him about Beatrix’s approach. “That woman deserves her revenge,” Budd states flatly. “And we deserve to die.” It’s a stark admission of guilt, an acceptance of consequence from the chapel massacre, or perhaps other unnamed sins. Budd is notably the only character that appears to openly express any remorse about the life he has lived. He seems to have chosen this life as a form of penance, a purgatory while awaiting damnation, convinced of his own lack of worth.

The handling of his Hattori Hanzo sword, a gift from Bill, symbolizing his past prowess and their fraternal bond is deeply revealing. He lies to Bill, claiming he pawned it for a pittance, partly to hurt his brother by feigning disrespect for the gift, partly to project indifference to the life and skills he left behind. But he kept it hidden away. This retention hints at a connection to his former self, his skills, and his brother that isn’t entirely severed. It’s a relic of squandered potential, a tangible link to a past he simultaneously regrets and perhaps misses, a symbol of the warrior identity he couldn’t fully discard even in his deliberate seclusion from civilization.

Budd’s brief, brutal victory over Beatrix, achieved not with finesse but with a pragmatic shotgun blast (“Bang bang!”) to the chest filled with rock salt and a subsequent live burial is a final flicker of his old competence. It demonstrates a grounded, if crude, effectiveness, anticipating her rather than meeting her head-on like O-Ren. His approach reflects a man stripped of pretense; unlike O-Ren seeking honor in combat, Budd simply seeks an end, mirroring his own resignation. His choice to bury her alive, while seemingly ensuring her death, leaves a sliver of chance, perhaps hinting at a subconscious reluctance to do the deed.

However, his death soon after is steeped in pathetic irony and potent symbolism. Having bested the legendary Black Mamba, Budd grows complacent, blinded by greed as Elle arrives with a suitcase supposedly full of cash for the Hanzo sword. He fails to see the betrayal coming. Elle, ever the opportunist, has hidden a deadly black mamba snake inside the suitcase. As Budd reaches for the money, the snake strikes, killing him swiftly. The symbolism is crushing: Budd, the Sidewinder, is killed by a Black Mamba, the namesake of the woman he thought he’d conquered. He’s undone not directly by Beatrix, but by the greed and treachery of another Viper, using Beatrix’s symbol. It underscores the nature of the violent world he inhabited and serves as a grim commentary on his ultimate defeat – defeated by arrogance, greed, and by the force he underestimated. He is a truly tragic figure, crushed by his past choices and dispatched by an emblem of his failure.

Elle Driver: Ambition Untouched by Remorse, Tormented by Symbol

Where Budd drowns in regret, Elle Driver, Codename: California Mountain Snake, actively rejects it, embodying ambition curdled into pure, venomous bitterness. Her defining characteristics aren’t regret, but ambition and contempt. Her rivalry with Beatrix is palpable, fueled by deep-seated professional jealousy and personal insecurity. She hates Beatrix but respects her skill and sets out to prove herself superior, especially in Bill’s eyes. Her relationship with Bill is forever shadowed by Beatrix’s ghost.

Elle’s cruelty is most evident in her treatment of Pai Mei (Gordon Liu), the legendary martial arts master who trained both her and Beatrix. She boasts of poisoning him as revenge for plucking out her eye, calling him a “miserable old fool.” This isn’t an act born of regret or complex motivation; it’s pure spite, likely stemming from her inability to meet Pai Mei’s exacting standards, unlike Beatrix. Killing him was an act of pathetic rebellion against a master she couldn’t conquer, and gloating about it to Beatrix is designed purely to inflict pain. Her actions suggest a festering resentment, perceiving Pai Mei’s harshness towards her contrasted with his respect for Beatrix as a personal slight worthy of lethal punishment.

Elle represents the path of violence without introspection or remorse, let alone regret. Consequently, her fate feels less like tragedy and more like chillingly direct karmic justice, again laced with potent symbolism. After a vicious fight in Budd’s trailer, Beatrix plucks out Elle’s remaining eye, mirroring Pai Mei’s fate at Elle’s hands. But Beatrix doesn’t kill her. Instead, she leaves the now blind Elle thrashing and screaming inside the trailer with the black mamba still loose, the very snake Elle had brought to kill Budd. Like Budd, Elle is undone by the Black Mamba, Beatrix’s symbol. While Budd’s death felt like consequence meeting greed, Elle’s fate is arguably crueler: left alive, blind, and tormented by the physical embodiment of her rival and her own treachery. It’s a grimly satisfying, symbolically resonant end for the viper consumed by her own venom.

Bill: The Melancholy Monarch

At the heart of the saga’s turn towards regret stands Bill himself. David Carradine’s performance is a masterclass in understated complexity. Beneath the suave exterior, the philosophical musings, and the moments of genuine paternal warmth towards B.B. (their Daughter), lies a profound melancholy. It’s visible in the weariness in his eyes during the wedding rehearsal flashback, the slight hesitation before critical lines, the calm yet heavy tone of his voice.

His use of truth serum on Beatrix in their final confrontation speaks volumes, not just of his mistrust born from hurt, but of a desperate need to understand the woman he loved and tried to kill. His famous “Superman” monologue, ostensibly about Beatrix’s killer nature, can also be read as Bill rationalizing his own inability to live a “normal” life, perhaps regretting that his inherent nature, his “Superman” identity, prevents him from ever truly being “Clark Kent” and finding simple peace.

Beatrix’s understanding that Bill was capable of extreme violence and revenge, but her almost naive belief that he could not, would not do that to her is an important statement about their relationship. They believed that together, they were protected from their own natures, they could be “normal”, but the fantasy of living like Clark Kent could never last.

During their final, extended conversation, regret surfaces repeatedly. His question, “Are you calling me a ruthless murderer?” seems less a denial and more a pained query about how she ultimately sees him. His description of the massacre (“I overreacted”) is a chillingly detached admission of his catastrophic emotional failure. His genuine interest in her life during her coma hints at the future they lost. Ultimately, his calm acceptance of death after Beatrix employs the Five Point Palm Exploding Heart Technique is steeped in this melancholy, a quiet resignation to the consequences of his actions and the tragic trajectory of his love story. He is the saga’s sorrowful king, haunted by the kingdom he himself destroyed.

Beatrix: Victory’s Heavy Toll

And what of The Bride? Having carved her path through Vol. 1 with near-mythic determination, Vol. 2 reveals the woman beneath the warrior, grappling with the emotional weight of her necessary violence. The relentless killer evolves into a more complete and complex figure, marked by sorrow and exhaustion.

The scene in the hotel bathroom after finally killing Bill is pivotal. She doesn’t strike a triumphant pose. She collapses, weeping uncontrollably, repeating “Thank you.” This is more than just relief; it’s the shattering release of years of trauma, grief, and the sheer psychological burden of her quest. It visually confirms the profound cost of achieving her revenge.

Does she regret killing Bill? Likely not his death itself, given his unforgivable actions. But the film allows space for a deeper sorrow. Seeing Bill interact lovingly with their daughter, offers a glimpse of the fractured family life that might have been. Beatrix’s quiet observations suggest a regret not for Bill the monster, but for the lost potential of the connection they once shared, a life stolen by violence, his and, necessarily, hers.

The discovery that B.B. is alive reframes everything. Her rampage wasn’t just punitive; it was restorative, reclaiming her future. This forces Beatrix to confront the seemingly irreconcilable parts of herself: the nurturing mother she longed to be and the lethal killer she had to become. Her journey concludes not with the erasure of her past, but with the challenge of integrating these identities. The Beatrix at the end is a survivor, acutely aware of the price of that survival, forever marked by the sorrowful necessity of her violent path.

Structural and Stylistic Reinforcement 

This thematic deepening in Vol. 2 is intrinsically linked to its identity as a separate film from Vol. 1. The changing structure deliberately encourages reflection. The non-linear flashbacks aren’t just exposition; they provide emotional context specific to Vol. 2‘s contemplative mood. The chapter structure, focusing significant time on characters like Budd and Bill, shifts the emphasis from pure plot progression to character study. Most importantly, the pace slows dramatically compared to Vol. 1, allowing for long stretches of dialogue that delve into philosophy, history, and internal states. Unlike the kinetic energy of the first film, Vol. 2 makes you listen, makes you consider the weight behind the words, creating the necessary space for themes like regret to resonate within its own distinct cinematic framework.

Conclusion: Beyond Revenge, A Dual Legacy

To view Kill Bill solely as a singular revenge film, or even just through the lens of Vol. 1, is to miss the profound shift and thematic depth offered by its counterpart. By embracing the complexities of regret, loss, and consequence, Kill Bill: Vol. 2 elevates the entire saga, functioning as a powerful, contemplative film in its own right, as well as a fitting conclusion. This deliberate divergence in tone, style, and focus across the two volumes underscores why they arguably function most powerfully as distinct entities. Vol. 1 provides the kinetic thrill and stylistic fireworks; Vol. 2 offers the resonant emotional payoff and space to absorb the human cost. Appreciating them separately enhances the understanding of the journey from adrenaline-fueled rampage to melancholic reckoning.

Tarantino suggests through Kill Bill Vol. 2 that even the most righteous seeming violence leaves indelible scars, hollowing out perpetrator and survivor alike. The ‘coolness’ of the action, so central to Vol. 1, is haunted in Vol. 2 by the melancholy aftermath. Revisiting Kill Bill in 2025, this focus on the emotional fallout feels especially resonant. In an era increasingly conscious of trauma and the long-term consequences of violence, this exploration of regret offers a richer, more enduring experience than simple admiration for its stylish surface. It remains a potent story about the cycles of violence, the near impossibility of escaping one’s past, and the sorrowful weight carried even by those who win the fight. The Bride gets her revenge, yes, but the silence that follows Bill’s final steps in Vol. 2 echoes not with simple triumph, but with the profound and lingering ache of regret, a feeling best contemplated within the distinct space that the second film provides.

Podcast Review: The Assessment

On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss the first feature from Fleur Fortuné in The Assessment! While film has some interesting world building and sci-fi aesthetics, there’s a massive disconnect between its fundamental premise and execution that leaves something to be desired. And boy do we dive heavily into that in this conversation.

Review: The Assessment (4:00)
Director: Fleur Fortuné
Writer: Dave Thomas, Nell Garfath-Cox, John Donnelly
Stars: Elizabeth Olsen, Alicia Vikander, Himesh Patel

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – The Assessment

Movie Review: ‘The Trouble With Jessica’ is Irritatingly Unfunny


Director: Matt Winn
Writers: James Handel, Matt Winn
Stars: Alan Tudyk, Shirley Henderson, Rufus Sewell

Synopsis: Sarah and Tom are in deep financial trouble. Their situation takes a terrifying nosedive with the shocking behavior of their uninvited dinner guest, Jessica.


The title of Matt Winn’s black comedy of manners, The Trouble with Jessica immediately brings to mind Alfred Hitchcock’s classic comedy The Trouble with Harry but other than a somewhat inconvenient dead body compelling the plot, there is no comparing the skill of good old Hitch with Winn’s underdeveloped and predominantly under-acted farce. The audience might find themselves wishing to be in Jessica’s (Indira Varma) position – oblivious to what is happening around her.

They were already in trouble… then she turned up”: A Review of 'The Trouble  with Jessica'

Sarah (Shirley Henderson) and Tom (a muted Alan Tudyk) are having a special dinner party with their closest friends, Beth (Olivia Williams) and Richard (Rufus Sewell). Tom gets a call that Beth and Richard will be bringing Jessica. They all knew each other at university and Sarah is particularly bitter that Jessica has invited herself along. Jessica has just published a successful book and Sarah fears, or rather, knows that somehow, in true Jessica fashion, she will ensure the evening is all about her. 

Sarah and Tom’s beautiful North London home is due to be sold to cover debts incurred by Tom trying to finance his dream architecture project. Sarah hoped that the last dinner in their house will be a celebration. Instead, it becomes a night that will strip away all the middle-class politeness that existed between the group of friends: as Jessica says, “Stop the bullshit.”

Jessica has some acidic things to say about her friends. She calls Sarah an “adult fuck up,” criminal defense lawyer Richard a “charming amoralist,” his wife Beth who works in domestic violence support is “a po-faced do-gooder,” and Tom a “pathological dreamer.” Dinner heats up as Sarah and Jessica face off. Sarah resents Jessica’s narcissism and constant flirtations with Tom. Sarah reveals that Tom’s dream project has bankrupt them and the only way they can survive is to sell the house immediately. With two teen children to support, she snipes that Jessica has no idea what it’s like to have real problems that can’t be exorcised by a memoir of travel adventures and illicit love affairs. 

Whatever Sarah may think, Jessica has enough problems that she takes herself out to their garden and hangs herself. An act that leaves the group astonished and confused. It’s also an act that puts the essential sale of Tom and Sarah’s house in jeopardy. Sarah convinces Tom that calling 999 will lead to their ruin. They now need to convince Beth and Richard pretend Jessica’s suicide didn’t occur in their home, but rather at her own, and Sarah isn’t above blackmail to do so. A visit from the police due to the disconnected 999 call places everyone as an accessory to failure to report a death. From there, the cracks in the relationships between them all come to the surface in a pseudo-comedic “move the body” gambit.

The Trouble with Jessica' UK premiere | Liselotte goes to Hollywood | Medium

Matt Winn and James Handel’s script had the potential to be a wicked farce, especially when it appears that night is when everyone wants to knock on Sarah and Tom’s door. From their elderly neighbor, Miranda, who wants to meet and congratulate Jessica (now deceased) on her book, to the buyer of the house; a German oil lobbyist named Klaus (Sylvester Groth). The problem is that only Rufus Sewell seem to have understood the tone of the work, meaning he stands out as apparently overacting because everyone else is underplaying their characters. There’s no great statement being made by The Trouble with Jessica – the fact that middle-aged couples grow tired of each other, and long-term friendships collect grievances over the years is hardly a revelation. Thus, the satire is almost non-existent, and the farcical elements get tiring quite quickly. A late attempt to add honest emotional weight to the film fails.

Of unfortunate note is the music composed by Matt Winn and Matt Cooper. It tries desperately to tell the audience that a scene is funny, chaotic, or serious in such an overbearing manner that the rest of the film is competing with it. Not that there is much competition offered with the all too obvious twists and the one running joke being a clafoutis made by Richard. When a cherry pudding is the gag the film keeps returning to, bland fare is the menu.

Other than Sewell trying to keep the energy and engine of the movie running, there’s very little else to recommend it. Shirley Henderson and Alan Tudyk are both accomplished comic actors, but they do extremely little to make anyone invested in their fate. Tudyk is particularly floundering as Tom whose main personality trait is “no personality.” Olivia Williams comes out of the film with her dignity intact, but Beth isn’t her finest characterization. Indira Varma manages to play movable corpse just fine – but as a living character, Jessica’s main trait seems to be “a bit of a bitch.”

The Trouble with Jessica - International Films - Independent Films | Music  Box Films

The Trouble with Jessica not only misses its farcical marks, but it is also irritating when it’s trying to be funny and uninteresting when it’s not. Middle class hypocrisy is rote in British cinema and Winn’s work doesn’t manage to mine anything of consequence. I’d like to write something witty about The Trouble with Jessica but I don’t want to rub further salt in Matt Winn’s wounds by proving critics can be funnier than he is. The Trouble with Jessica isn’t pithy, it isn’t surprising, and it isn’t worth coming to the table for.

Grade: F

Movie Review: ‘Bullet Train Explosion’ Admirably Reinterprets Classic Japanese Film


Director: Shinji Higuchi
Writers: Kazuhiro Nakagawa, Norichika Ōba
Stars: Tsuyoshi Kusanagi, Kanata Hosoda, Jun Kaname

Synopsis: Tension mounts aboard the Tohoku Shinkansen Hayabusa No. 60, bound for Tokyo, where a bomb is rigged to instantly detonate if the train’s speed drops below 100 km/h. As panic grips the passengers following the announcement of conductor Takaichi, the crew, passengers, and the Shinkansen General Operation Control Center race against time to avert disaster.


If you’ve seen Jan de Bont’s Speed, chances are you didn’t know that Junya Satō’s 1975 classic The Bullet Train was the precursor to such a movie, where a simple premise (in this case, a bomb planted in a high-speed bullet train that is set to explode automatically if it slows down below a certain pace) delivered high-stakes, non-stop thrills. Its revolutionary use of miniatures to visualize moments of pure, agonizing terror, as the train continues to encounter bumps while unable to slow down, still holds up to this day as a significant example of creativity that we seldom see in the filmmaking sphere anymore.

The Bullet Train Explosion' Review: Netflix Remakes Original 'Speed'

The funny thing about the film is that the miniatures are incredibly obvious, so much so that it breaks our suspension of disbelief. Yet, we become so riveted by Satō’s precise employment of crash-zooms and whip-pans to establish palpable, textured suspense in its sequences of walking-and-talking as a revolving door of characters attempt to defuse the bomb that we completely buy into the artifice of it all. That’s because Satō spends a good amount of his runtime giving personality and a tragic, urgent backstory to the antagonist, Tetsuo Okita, played by Ken Takakura, one of the great actors of Japanese genre cinema.

The final shot, while logical in its development and building up to its natural conclusion, acts like a true shock to the system. The frame turns pink and immediately slows down, giving the police the victory they wanted in apprehending the criminal responsible for such an ordeal. However, to the audience, such a denouement could’ve been prevented, and likely would’ve prevented unnecessary suffering. It’s an image that’s stuck with me ever since I saw the original, which is used as the foundation for Shin Godzilla co-director Shinji Higuchi’s Bullet Train Explosion, releasing on Netflix this week.

Part remake and reboot, this repurposed story for contemporary sensibilities stays excitingly tense and kinetic from the moment characters learn a bomb has been planted on the Tohoku Shinkansen Hayabusa No. 60. A key scene from the original film is modernized, as the bullet train must avoid clashing with another locomotive without slowing down, and its impact is much more visceral and intense than in Satō’s picture. Gone are the miniatures, we now have expensive CGI visualizing massive, larger-than-life explosions and crashes that are so death-defying it looks like a thrill ride plucked straight from the depths of Hell. Whereas the 1975 film had more realistic action based entirely on mounting tension, Higuchi’s reimagining is more explosive, and cartoonishly over-the-top. 

It simultaneously acts as a feature, especially when adrenaline-fueled scenes inside the train exaggerate the sense of tension at play to ridiculously silly heights, and a bug, when explosions are unrealistically large and defy all laws of physics. However, I’d be lying if I said none of it is terrifically entertaining, even if the reliance on CGI to craft the exterior sequences lacks the artistry of miniatures, where the limitless imagination of the director made us forget we were watching entirely plastic creations, as chintzy as it may look to viewers who have no sense of creating strong images with their mind.

Bullet Train Explosion' Review: This Solid Reimagining of a Classic Doubles  as an Innovative Action Thriller

That said, Higuchi is a smart enough filmmaker to at least prime us that this film is more digital than its analog predecessor, with its stacked cast of characters consistently “plugged in” on their devices and eventually utilizing them to document what’s happening in the train, while the political establishment attempts a diplomatic solution to end the bomb instead of acquiescing to the perpetrator’s demands. The social commentary doesn’t break any new ground, but it’s executed well enough that we do ultimately become invested in the large number of people who populate both the internal (on the train) and external (outside the train) conflict of the story.

However, Bullet Train Explosion eventually loses steam (pun absolutely intended) when it reveals the identity of the bomber. I will not spoil it in this review, but let’s just say that the differences are night and day between this version and the original, which spent more than half of its hefty 152-minute runtime to develop our connection with the antagonist, making the final shot all the more heartbreaking, despite the array of bad decisions he makes. Bullet Train Explosion is slightly leaner than The Bullet Train and doesn’t spend a good amount of the runtime on flashbacks, which could be a good thing if focused solely on the meat-and-potatoes of its primary story. Yet, it also barely develops the villain, despite a shocking moment introducing us to the character that could’ve worked in its favor, but isn’t at all fleshed out to its fullest potential.

From there, my interest in the film shockingly dwindled, because Higuchi doesn’t give us the same attention that Satō gave when creating a layered and complex villain that wasn’t simply a mindless terrorist who wanted to blow up a train. He had his reasons, and we completely understood his side of the story by the time we’re caught up to speed (this review contains many train puns for a reason) on his perspective. In Bullet Train Explosion, we have the motivations, but they’re so paper-thin that it won’t take long for you to unplug as it reaches a generic, paint-by-numbers climax with little to no emotional stakes for us to hold onto, despite well-mounted action scenes that are always a shot in the arm with adrenaline.

And then, the movie suddenly ends, without a final shot that’ll live in your retina forever, despite Higuchi’s gift at image-making, as illustrated in Shin Ultraman and his incredible short film Giant God Warrior Appears in Tokyo. It’s a rather unceremonious way to conclude a pretty agreeable time at the movies, despite its obvious inconsistencies dampening the enjoyment significantly. Truth be told, I never expected the movie to be as good as Satō’s original. However, I didn’t expect to feel completely indifferent by the time the credits rolled, despite having a good time in its opening sections with the bevy of thrills and mordant humor Higuchi offered, until it was completely nonexistent by the time it reached its climax. I won’t remember it by the time I’ve finished writing this review, while I may think about the final shot of The Bullet Train for the rest of my life…

Grade: B-

Podcast Review: Sinners

On this episode, JD is joined by Megan Loucks and Isaiah Washington to discuss Ryan Coogler’s new vampire movie Sinners! Coogler is a filmmaker we already adored, but it’s clear that he found a completely new gear with Sinners. This is a film people will be talking about all year and for good reason. It’s a stunning work of art and we had the greatest time talking about what makes it so special.

Review: Sinners (4:00)
Director: Ryan Coogler
Writer: Ryan Coogler
Stars: Michael B. Jordan, Hailee Steinfeld, Miles Caton

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Sinners

Movie Review: ‘Magic Farm’ Reaches for Satire, Falls Short of Insight


Director: Amalia Ulman
Writer: Amalia Ulman
Stars: Joe Apollonio, Camila del Campo, Guillermo Jacubowicz

Synopsis: A media crew mistakenly ends up in the wrong country while trying to profile a musician. As they collaborate with locals to create a viral trend, relationships form amid an unfolding health crisis.


Argentine-Spanish filmmaker Amalia Ulman made a name for herself in the independent film scene and film festival circuit with her feature-length debut, El Planeta. Drawing from the aesthetic of ’80s indie flicks and Noah Baumbach’s writing—especially Frances Ha—Ulman explores Spain’s economic crisis through two women navigating a faux high-end lifestyle. Their experiences are conveyed through absurdist and darkly comedic dialogue set pieces. Ulman has used that tone as her trademark or calling card for her directorial and writing voice. And she ups the ante in her sophomore feature, Magic Farm, to the point where Ulman unfortunately loses the personal element and smartly witty quips that her debut contained. 

Magic Farm follows a film crew that works for a Vice or MTV News-like, edgy, teen-oriented media company called Creative Lab Network, in search of a musician named Super Carlitos, an internet sensation who performs with bunny ears, with a fascinating background worthy of a profile. The crew consists of a ragtag team of scandalous, narcissistic characters that are heightened portrayals of dysfunctional journalists during travel expeditions. There’s the tired, annoyed boss Edna (Chloë Sevigny), her boyfriend and manager Dave (Simon Rex), lover boy Jeff (Alex Wolff), blank canvas Justin (Joe Apollonio), and the camera operator who has secrets of her own, Elena (Ulman). 

As a team, they don’t function properly; individually, they are even worse. They are so unfit for their roles and duties that it is hard to believe they have a functioning media company. In their latest assignment, during the search for Super Carlitos and his fascinating grooves, the team heads to San Cristobal, Argentina, for a chance to interview him and the locals who have championed the local musician. However, as expected from their inability to make anything work out, they manage to book a flight to the wrong San Cristobal. Edna bears a headache from the strenuous, constant mistakes, especially when it matters most. Since they are already there, Edna and company decide to talk to the townsfolk in search of another worthy story for a piece. 

They seek outrageous stories, focusing on the town’s “weirdness” rather than its authenticity. Most interviews reveal the governmental injustices affecting San Cristobal, as well as the effects of agrochemicals that corporate businesses pollute the city with. As expected, none of them is the least bit interested. Elena is the only one who pays attention to the locals’ worries, being the only morally bound character in the film. Ulman provides a path for her characters to grow and become more empathetic towards the locals later in the narrative, as the conversations become more personal and the crew reaches a level of understanding. However, for the most part, these characters are absent-minded and out of touch with reality. 

Their scopes are limited to the experiences they undergo in their supposed high-class lifestyle back home—a theme that Ulman utilizes once again for her sophomore feature. And that thin layered satirization of the characters causes the film to feel weightless in most of its runtime. Ulman places them in unfamiliar territories, where they must interact with their surroundings and the townsfolk to uncover a story worthy of telling. Their ignorance gets the best of them, causing them to dismiss everything except their well-being. There are many stories ready to be told to the world, and yet these opportunistic “journalists” ignore them for ones that deliver more traction. 

In the case of those on Magic Farm, they are there to exploit the people they deem “weird” for clicks and likes, to be the first to hop on the trend train. While the film nods to decades of exploitative journalism, it often sacrifices realism for exaggerated, comedic beats. However, only one sequence reflects that theme in a more nuanced manner. Elena points out that the crew is taking advantage of the people they cover on their profiles and pieces. She is then told that, if she feels that way, she has picked the wrong profession and company to be in. The rest of the film is more heightened and comedy-dependent, lacking the subtlety that not only that key scene has, but also Ulman’s debut contained. 

In El Planeta, Ulman focused on making her characters feel grounded, relatable, and multilayered as they went through the ups and downs of their economic struggles, seen via comedic, sometimes too fictional scenarios, inspired by the New Wave and Noah Baumbach, whose early work served as the voice for the lost, mid-20s adults that have trouble speaking their minds and spilling their emotional guts. (Much like Ulman, who takes that aspect and transcribes it for a contemporary audience, brilliantly so.) Meanwhile, Magic Farm has characters who are difficult to sympathize with due to their constant frivolity. You don’t want to be near them or hear them; they become annoyances for the film rather than characters that elevate the story and its satirical viewpoint of faux journalism and modern-day content creator culture. 

The only character that you want to hear more from is Elena; Ulman herself explores the thematic thread without the help of her cast of unmerry journalists. Elena is the vessel of morality and integrity, from which the crew slowly and gradually learns. However, her character is sidelined, with the key focus shifting to Edna, Jeff, and Justin, who are less interesting and become tiresome. There is a fascinating thematic thread within the care of Magic Farm regarding the blinded media and their ignorant actions when covering struggling communities. Unfortunately, it all gets lost in the work’s comedic pandering and the disparity between the various plot lines. Magic Farm aims for sharp satire but falls short, settling instead for caricature. Ulman’s gift lies in empathy and intimacy—when those are lost, so is her voice.

Grade: C-

Episode 633: Sinners Success / Oliver!

This week’s episode is brought to you by Koffee Kult. Get 15% OFF with the code: ISF25

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we discuss the incredible success of Sinners at the box office and with critics / audiences, giving us a defining cultural moment for 2025! We also continue our Best Picture Movie Series with the 1968 musical Oliver!

Sinners Success (12:23)
After some opening banter, we begin the show this week by discuss the remarkable success of Ryan Coogler’s new film Sinners, a movie that dominated the cultural discourse over the weekend. The film opened to great numbers at the box office. For the longest time it sat at 100% on Rotten Tomatoes. It’s the first horror film in a really long time (maybe ever?) to get an “A” CinemaScore. Simply, Sinners will be a defining film of 2025 when it’s all said and done. 


RELATED: Listen to Episode 610 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed our Top 10 Movies of 2024!


– Best Picture Movie Series: Oliver! (1:18:51)
We continue this series with a film that might not have the historical legacy as others in the ’60s, but it’s not a complete bust either. Oliver! might be a weird step backwards in that it doesn’t fit the American New Wave that had already begun, however it is more in alignment with the rest of the ’60s than it isn’t. It’s also a fun little musical that is really well crafted. You can see the appeal and why it was popular at the time. Even if it’s a far cry from the best of the Best Picture winners in totality.

– Music
Magic What We Do (Surreal Montage) – Ludwig Göransson
Consider Yourself – Oliver! Cast

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 633

Next week on the show:

Best Picture Movie Series – 1960s: Oliver!

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Women InSession: Intermissions in Film

This week on Women InSession, we are joined by our own Brian Susbielles and Matthew Anderson of The Lone Screenplay Nominee Podcast to discuss intermissions in film! Are they simply bygone or can they make a comeback in modern cinema? With The Brutalist having a popular intermission that made the rounds on social media last year, perhaps they could be on the way back into the current landscape. It could also be a one-off and that’s all it will ever be. We debate.

Panel: Kristin Battestella

On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Women InSession – Intermissions in Film

Chasing the Gold: New Best Stunt Oscar / Emmy Season

On this episode of Chasing the Gold, Shadan and Erica discuss the exciting news that the Academy is starting a brand new Best Stunt Design Oscar and all the chaos of Emmy Season with so many great shows out right now! It’s been a long time coming, but we’re quite thrilled to see The Academy finally embrace the greatness and skill of the stunt. It’s a game-changer that will surely bring a great new dynamic to the ceremony.

On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Chasing the Gold – New Best Stunt Oscar / Emmy Season

Movie Review: ‘Sinners’ is a Sultry, Seductive, Southern Genre-busting Blockbuster


Director: Ryan Coogler
Writer: Ryan Coogler
Stars: Michael B. Jordan, Hailee Steinfeld, Jack O’Connell

Synopsis: Trying to leave their troubled lives behind, twin brothers return to their hometown to start again, only to discover that an even greater evil is waiting to welcome them back.


Ryan Coogler’s syncretic masterwork Sinners combines elements of the Southern Gothic, the diaspora of Black identity, Delta blues, hoodoo and rootwork conjure, Juke joints, sharecropping, prohibition bootlegging, the KKK, and… vampires. Set in a Mississippi town called Clarksdale, which is built on cotton picking for exploitative white landowners in 1932, Sinners explodes genre expectations by embracing multiple folkloric mythologies and tales of the American South. 

Sinners' Review: Michael B. Jordan in Ryan Coogler's Juicy Horror

Author Flannery O’Connor wrote in 1960, “I have found that anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the Northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic.” Although she was writing of the tendency for audiences of a certain class and comfort level to be attracted to a literature and history, they could maintain a distance from; while still marveling at the margins they experience vicariously through the tales of “The South,” O’Connor’s observation is prescient in its description of Coogler’s authorial mode in Sinners. In the same essay she continues, “The Southern writer is forced from all sides to make his gaze extend beyond the surface, beyond mere problems, until it touches that realm which is the concern of prophets and poets.” Coogler merges the real social conditions of Mississippi sharecroppers and broken Black communities – traditionally and continually othered in American history with a gaze that opens itself to ecstatic possibilities through rebellion and a sustained belief in self-determination. Although Ryan Coogler himself is Californian, his modality in Sinners embraces the South as a core aspect of the Black experience in creating the historical, contemporary, and future identities of Black Americans.

Twin sons of Clarksdale, Smoke and Stack Moore (Michael B. Jordan) have been absent for years. They fought in the trenches of World War One and then tried their luck as gangsters in Chicago working for Al Capone. In one day and night the ambitions of the brothers to create a Juke joint (Juke itself originally stemming from the Gullah word juk) for the local Black community to gather, turns into an epic fight for survival. It isn’t only a battle for the safety of the people against racist abusers, but one for the survival of the soul conducted outside the confines of Christian dominance. Smoke and Stack are sinners who have given up the idea of redemption through the church run by their Uncle Jedidiah (Saul Williams) and imagine a more earthly garden of delights to uplift the all but in name cottonfield “slaves” still working under white landowners who lynch and burn crosses. The brothers are charming and dangerous tricksters whose braggadocio belies two wounded and intertwined hearts that beat for their Delta home.

Sinners' 100% Rotten Tomatoes Score Makes It the Highest Rated Vampire Movie  Ever - ComicBook.com

Coogler sets the scene with precision and patience. His opening gambit places a bloodied and scarred Sammie “Preacher Boy” Moore (newcomer Miles Caton) stumbling into his father’s church clutching the fretboard of a resonator guitar. Jedidiah exhorts his son to finally give up the “Devil’s instrument” and devote his prodigious musical talents to worshipping the lord. As Sammie wordlessly stands shocked and shaken the film goes back a day to fill the audience in on the world of the Devil and sin that Sammie has potentially witnessed.

The arrival of the Smokestack twins back in their hometown sparks several conflagrations. The prodigal sons of Clarksdale have a plan to use their particularly ill-gotten gains from Chicago to make money for and from the town. They buy a disused sawmill from the sneering Hogwood (David Maldonado) and warn him that they will shoot any White man that comes on to the property. Hogwood smiles and assures the brothers that they don’t need to worry about the KKK as that’s “all done with.” Smoke especially understands that the past is never done with and wears the burden slightly more heavily than his younger and more chaotic twin, Stack. They pick up Sammie and go their separate ways preparing for the opening of “Club Juke” which will be the premier barrelhouse offering music, dancing, gambling, food, and drinking. 

While Smoke takes care of the money side of the business, bargaining and bartering with Bo (Yao) and Grace (Li Jun Li) Chow, two Chinese Americans who have successfully set up the fresh and dry good groceries in town; Sammie and Stack find the talent who will light up the club. Sammie’s skill as a bluesman is untested for a large audience, but whispers of his skills reverberate around his rural home. Stack introduces him to the old-school jaw harp and piano player Delta Slim (Delroy Lindo) who is convinced to tickle the ivories with the offer of unlimited Irish Beer. A chance meeting on the train platform where Slim is busking with Stack’s former girlfriend, Mary (Hailee Steinfeld) is hilarious, foulmouthed, and lust-filled, but also speaks to the Jim Crow segregation and anti-miscegenation laws where a woman perceived as White cannot be seen engaging in a sexual relationship with a Black man. Mary isn’t the type to give up, forgive, or forget and with the swagger of a woman who refuses to be denied ensures she will be at Club Juke come hell or highwater. Another beautiful young woman is standing on the platform, the married songbird, Pearline (Jayme Lawson) who has captured Sammie’s young eye and heart.

Sinners (2025) Review: A Magnificent, Horrifying Film You Must See In  Theaters

Slim and Stack educate the eager Sammie on the ways of the wider world, from the joys of cunnilingus to the pains of the chain gang (in an incredible audio sequence which turns Slim’s telling of a lynching into the soundscape of it). Sammie is at a crossroad (a deliberate allusion to the Robert Johnson story) wanting to escape his hardscrabble life and become a dedicated bluesman, which in itself is a hardscrabble life in 1932 but carries with it the dream of becoming legendary. In Coogler’s South (as in the real post-emancipation South) there are few routes of escape and self-determination for Black folk and music is one that promises a self-made and collective legacy.

The other two legacies are money and family. It is these legacies that Smoke struggles to reconcile. He meets with his ex-lover and mother of his deceased child, Annie (Wunmi Mosaku) a Hoodoo conjurer and rootworker who fears that Smoke is once again hurtling into danger that her mojo bag and prayers cannot save him from. Their pent-up desire for each other is as palpable as the pain that has separated them. Annie agrees to be the cook at Club Juke if only to keep her on her beloved. Smoke convinces a soon-to-be father, Cornbread (Omar Miller) to act as the bouncer for the club and the night of their collective lives is coming together. What none of them expect is that night they will be fighting for their lives against a centuries-old Irish vampire named Remmick (Jack O’Connell) who hungers to create his own mind-controlled flock of the undead.

Ryan Coogler throws so many references and subplots within Sinners it can be dizzying just to keep up. The vampires, which at first would appear to be the core story, become almost a set-piece subplot to illustrate the voracious appetites of those who crave ownership over individual cultures through violent means. Coogler has Remmick waiting in the background seeking to feast on Club Juke after a failed attempt to “convert” Mississippi Choctaws. He quite easily finds his way into the home of Klan members Bert (Peter Dreimanis) and Ruth (Lola Kirke) who later turn up at the door of Club Juke asking for entry and playing Irish folksongs. Coogler adheres to vampire lore that the revenants must be invited in. The friendly and “brotherly” demeanor of Remmick soon turns sour as he speaks of another “Brotherhood” who will arrive to erase the revelers in the club.

Sinners' Review: Ryan Coogler's Vampire Saga Is His Best Movie So Far

Although bloody and action filled, the vampire attack is nothing compared to what precedes it. A musical sequence which is so ecstatic it reaches through time connecting Sammie’s pure bluesman’s voice with the rhythms and songs of shamans, tribal priests, rappers, DJs, futuristic guitar players, and Chinese Kunqu performers. The spectacle shot by Autumn Durald Arkapaw, edited by Michael P. Shawver, scored by Ludwig Göransson and choreographed by Aakomon Jones represents not only the finest set piece of Coogler’s film, but also the essence of the erotic, wild, and unburdened freedom of expression that creates a resonant guiding rhythm that pulsates beyond all worldly limits.

It would be hard to find a film quite like Sinners in contemporary blockbuster fare because few creators would be brave enough to attempt such a wild and potentially unwieldy cinematic behemoth. It is particularly difficult to make a genre-busting horror/action/musical/historical fiction piece and sustain characters that people care about. Improbably and impressively, Ryan Coogler has done it. Collaborating with his longtime leading man, Michael B. Jordan, and entrusting him with two distinct roles as the Smokestack twins more than pays off as Jordan creates believably different and inextricably connected men each striving for a “home” to protect. Hailee Steinfeld and Wunmi Mosaku each inhabit their characters as women who are not adjuncts to the men they love but are filled with their own desire and reasons for needing connection. Delroy Lindo and Omar Miller add levity (and tragedy) to their characters. Jack O’Donnell’s vampire certainly kissed the Blarney Stone when it comes to offering a “life without pain” in eternal night – it will only cost your “self”.

Sinners is a lot to take in and it keeps pushing boundaries until Coogler has the audience in their own timeless revelry. Could the film have been tighter and more focused? Absolutely. Should it have been? Probably. But the massive scale of the movie is what makes it touch “that realm which is the concern of prophets and poets.” Sweaty, sultry, and seductively Southern – Sinners is an ambitious masterpiece that raises roofs and burns brightly as it thrums with its infectious rhythm.

Grade: A

Classic Film Review: ‘Kill Bill Vol. 2’ is Tarantino Unbound


Director: Quentin Tarantino
Writer: Quentin Tarantino
Stars: Uma Thurman, David Carradine, Michael Madsen, Daryl Hannah

Synopsis: The Bride continues her quest of vengeance against her former boss and lover Bill, the reclusive bouncer Budd, and the treacherous, one-eyed Elle.


When Kill Bill was unleashed upon audiences, it was famously split into two volumes. Vol. 1 was a whirlwind of stylized carnage; a lean, mean, genre-bending revenge machine. Vol. 2, arriving months later, offered something different: a slower, talkier, more contemplative conclusion that delved deep into the backstory and emotional core of The Bride’s bloody quest. Revisiting it today, Kill Bill: Vol. 2 stands as a fascinating counterpoint to its predecessor.  Baggier and more prone to Quentin Tarantino’s signature self-indulgence; but ultimately a richer, more emotionally resonant experience that cements the saga’s complex legacy.

Kill Bill: Vol. 2 Review | Movie - Empire

The shift in tone is immediate. Where Vol. 1 sprinted, Vol. 2 ambles, taking its time with extended dialogue scenes, flashbacks (including the full wedding chapel massacre), and character moments. This pacing, controversial upon release, feels more rewarding now. Watching it years later, in my case, through the lens of parenthood, or even simply different life experiences, allows the emotional stakes to land with greater force. Unlike Vol. 1, where enemies often felt like stylish obstacles, Vol. 2 fleshes out the relationships more – the twisted sisterhood with Elle Driver (Daryl Hannah), the weary resignation of Budd (Michael Madsen), and crucially, the complex history between Beatrix Kiddo (Uma Thurman) and Bill (David Carradine). It trades some of Vol. 1’s visceral thrill for a deeper, more satisfying character study.

At the center, Uma Thurman delivers a career-defining performance across both volumes, but Vol. 2 truly showcases her range. Beyond the convincing physicality required for sequences like the brutal trailer fight or the iconic Pai Mei training montage, Thurman navigates Beatrix’s emotional labyrinth with stunning dexterity. She embodies the righteous fury, the moments of vulnerability (especially when buried alive), the maternal instinct, and the conflicting tangle of love and hate that defines her relationship with Bill. In the final confrontation, you feel not just her thirst for vengeance, but the painful history and undeniable connection that makes the inevitable conclusion so potent.

Review: Kill Bill: Vol. 2 - Slant Magazine

Much of the film’s power hinges on the eventual arrival of Bill himself. Withheld for most of Vol. 1 and much of Vol. 2 – like Colonel Kurtz in Apocalypse Now his presence looms large. When David Carradine finally takes centerstage, he doesn’t disappoint. His Bill is captivating – charming, folksy, philosophical, dangerous, and undeniably cool. Carradine crafts such a compelling antagonist that he risks overshadowing the other members of the Deadly Viper Assassination Squad. The film’s structure, however, deliberately dedicates significant chapters to the remaining Vipers, allowing them substantial space. Michael Madsen is entertaining as the washed-up Budd, and Daryl Hannah effectively channels venomous rivalry as Elle, each making a strong impact in their respective confrontations. Rather than serving as detours, these encounters feel like crucial, distinct stages on The Bride’s journey, serving to further heighten the anticipation for the final encounter with Bill.

This volume feels unmistakably like Tarantino unbound, perhaps for the first time since Pulp Fiction. While Jackie Brown adhered more closely to its source material and Vol. 1 was a tighter genre homage, Vol. 2 luxuriates in QT’s signatures: lengthy, quotable monologues (including the infamous Superman speech), playful directorial flourishes, deep-cut soundtrack choices, and loving nods to Westerns, Kung Fu flicks, and ’70s exploitation cinema. This indulgence occasionally leads to a looser feel compared to Vol. 1’s relentless momentum, a trait seen in later Tarantino films, but it’s also where much of the film’s unique flavor resides.

Beneath the surface of revenge, the film is saturated with a powerful sense of regret, a theme arguably more pervasive than vengeance itself. Nearly every character reckons with past decisions and paths not taken. Budd laments his squandered potential, Elle seethes with bitter jealousy, and even Bill seems tinged with a melancholic awareness of how things went wrong. The Bride’s final act feels less like triumphant revenge and more like a necessary, almost sorrowful, closing of a chapter – an acknowledgment that things had to end this way, but tinged with the sadness that they ever reached this point.

Kill Bill Volume 2 Review: A Worthy Sequel With Hidden Depths - Incluvie

How does it hold up in 2025? Tarantino’s work consistently walks a fine line regarding violence, representation, and cultural homage versus appropriation. Kill Bill, with its pastiche of genres and sometimes provocative content, remains a point of discussion. For many, (including me) it manages to stay on the right side of the “depiction vs. endorsement” line, functioning as homage rather than parody, but your mileage may vary. While perhaps less tightly constructed than its predecessor, Vol. 2’s strengths – Thurman’s phenomenal performance, Carradine’s magnetic presence, and its surprising emotional depth , ensure it remains a vital, fascinating film. It might be the more indulgent volume, but its willingness to explore the complex heart beneath the carnage makes it essential viewing and a journey well worth revisiting.

Grade: B+

Classic Film Review: ‘Mad Max’ is a Perfect Entry Into the World of Fire and Blood


Director: George Miller
Writer: James McCausland, George Miller, Byron Kennedy
Stars: Mel Gibson, Joanne Samuel, Hugh Keays-Byrne

Synopsis: In a self-destructing world, a vengeful Australian policeman sets out to stop a violent motorcycle gang.


It’s October 2023, and my friends and I decide to go see a Mad Max marathon playing at a local theater starting at 10PM and going till around 6AM the next morning, with breaks in the middle of each movie. It is a night we remember fondly to this day, particularly in terms of how it completely ruptured our sleep schedules for a long while after, but it doesn’t change the wonderful night that preceded our insomnia, or the fresh coffee and breakfast we got at a cafe only minutes after they had opened for the day. Sitting in a 100-year-old theater surrounded by several dozen people, some even dressed as characters from the movies, and watching each movie play on the gigantic canvas in front of us, was an unforgettable experience. 

Mad Max (1979) - Turner Classic Movies

Ever since its inception in 1979, the Mad Max series has become a pioneering force in action cinema, with incredible chase sequences and vehicular carnage showcased with incredible direction from the mastermind of the franchise, George Miller. While the series may have reached its zenith in 2015 with Mad Max: Fury Road, and its prequel Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga; the first movie remains an interesting look into how the world began to lose its way and turn into the Wasteland audiences will come to recognize it as. Shot on a rather shoestring budget of $350,000 in Melbourne over six weeks, the first Mad Max tells the story of Max Rockatansky (Mel Gibson), a police officer in the Main Force Patrol (MFP) trying to keep law and order in place as war and chaos have overtaken everything and led to criminals on the streets committing more heinous crimes and causing more reckless damage and stealing commodities like fuel, eventually clashing with a motorcycle gang run by Toecutter (Hugh Keays-Byrne).

46 years since its release, it’s interesting to revisit Mad Max, especially as the scale of the franchise has radically transformed, while also appreciating its standalone nature within the series. Each movie feels like its own separate tale as Max moves through the wasteland and society crumbles further, though it is fascinating seeing the ideas chronicled in The Road Warrior, Beyond Thunderdome and Fury Road be introduced here, such as the importance of fuel as more and more of the environment is pillaged and reduced to ruins, with machines and vehicles creating a religion of their own. Tying in Max’s V8 Pursuit Special to an almost holistic version of V8 by the time Fury Road happens is a particularly fun detail, as well as the inclusion of Keays-Byrne, who appears later as Immortan Joe in Fury Road.

Mad Max (1979) | film freedonia

As Max, Gibson is cast well, not quite the version of the character he eventually becomes, but teetering on the edge of it more often than not, though still reserving a chunk of his sanity and rational thinking for his wife, Jessie (Joanne Samuel), and son, “Sprog” (Brendan Heath). This is tested, however, by Toecutter, whose gang also wants to eradicate the police officers after them like Max and his partner “Goose” (Steve Bisley). Keays-Byrne plays Toecutter in menacing fashion, expressing his disdain for everything through his extreme actions such as eventually killing Goose by having his gang burn him alive and run down Jessie and “Sprog,” acts which eventually make Max lose his moral compass and hunt down the gang in more lethal ways. As entertaining as it is to see Max go after everyone who has wronged him, it also comes with a sense of tragedy and sadness over seeing someone like him losing his sense of humanity, which leads to his change in later movies. The action that ensues is brutal, often more grounded in nature than its future installments, and loaded with the hyperactive editing unique to the franchise, making for an effective visual spectacle.

While Mad Max may not be the best movie from George Miller, given his work in The Road Warrior, Fury Road and Furiosa, it serves as an incredibly effective entry into the world of fire and blood Max sees on a daily basis, a world past the brink of almost all sensitivities and emotion and one built almost solely on people watching everything burn while having a smile on their face. Cynical and dark in its approach, but more tragic in its aftermath, showing the audience a man who embraces being the man he is nicknamed to be at the MFP: Mad.

Grade: A-