Kleber Mendonรงa Filhoโs The Secret Agent is a film informed by the directorโs own memories. Itโs not unusual for Kleber Mendonรงa Filhoto pull from his personal experience and specific perspective in his work. Neighboring Sounds was partially shot in the apartment he lived in with his family in Recife. Born in Recife in 1968, Kleber would have been a similar age to Armandoโs son, Fernando ,in 1977.
Nadine Whitney speaks with Kleber about how his life informed the film.
Nadine Whitney: I watched The Secret Agent, and then I watched Pictures of Ghosts, and then I rewatched The Secret Agent. I can see how many personal stories you’ve put into the film. For example, your mother, Joselice Jucรก, recorded oral histories. And you have that aspect as part of The Secret Agent, and the projector that you worked for, Alexandre Moura is given a character in the film. Can you tell me about how you’ve used your own memories to create a portrait of Recife in that time.
Kleber Mendonรงa Filho: It is how I work, and I’ve never planned this, but I can only begin to write something new if I have it in my heart. I think once you work out the plot and the storyline, that’s technical, and that’s something that you can do. I really felt that I could write the script for The Secret Agent after so many years looking at archive material in Pictures of Ghosts. That film really reconnected me, in a very emotional way, to Alexandre the projectionist at the cinema, and to my own mother, because I found archive material of her.
When you lose someone so early, my mother died quite young at 54, and years go by and then you find a treasure trove of archive material with pictures and audio and video and film of her speaking it becomes a major emotional punch. I was very moved to see that her work as a historian so many years ago was basically talking about the same things that I do now as a filmmaker. I found that really moving. I think it probably explains the young historian character in The Secret Agent.
And with Alexandre I spent many hours looking at literally 16 hours of video footage that I shot with him, and this was about six years ago. So, twenty years after his death, I was spending mornings and afternoons watching myself talk to a friend who had died a long time ago. All these things gave me an expanded mind in terms of going into The Secret Agent. One thing is the storytelling, which is fine. I enjoy it. But the other thing is, you need to bring in the emotional basis on which you are going to build a story. I’m so happy that this year so many people have felt, I think, what I felt when I was writing and making the film.
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we dive into a Sam Raimi movie draft, breaking down and discussing one of the most inventive directors in modern cinema. We also talk about the recent passing of comedic legend Catherine O’Hara and we also revisit one of our all-time favorite scores from Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End as one cue has been trending on social media recently!
– Send Help Box Office / Catherine O’Hara (0:30) After some opening banter, we begin the show this week by briefly discussing the box office for Sam Raimi’s new film Send Help, which is off to a hot start. There is still some work to do, but it appears to be the first major success story for 2026 with an original horror film making waves. We then shift our attention to comedic legend Catherine O’Hara and her unfortunate passing last week. She was simply one of the very best and this one stung heavily.ย
– Hans Zimmer ‘s Pirates Score / The Way of the Wind Update (21:38) In what might JD’s favorite segment in a long time, he takes a victory lap on the recent virality of Hans Zimmer’s score for Pirates of the Caribbean: At World’s End. Specifically, the “love theme” from that film, a cue we have raved about several times here on the show. It’s a piece of music that has become trendy on TikTok and Twitter, and boy do we have fun taking credit for it. Also, we might be getting Terrence Malick’s new film The Way of the Wind this year. A recent interview suggests it could premier at Cannes, so fingers crossed.ย
– Sam Raimi Draft (55:48) With Send Help now in theaters, it was the perfect time to talk about one of our favorite directors working today in Sam Raimi. His Spider-Man trilogy is untouched and what he did with the Evil Dead films was incredibly inventive. Not to mention his other great films in-between those trilogies. This one was only five rounds, but we talk about some really great movies and had the best time doing so. That said, who do you think won this draft between JD and Brendan?
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!
Director: Walter Thompson-Hernรกndez Writer: Walter Thompson-Hernรกndez Stars: Danielle Brooks, J. Alphonse Nicholson
Synopsis: A boy sees ghostly figures of other boys in his neighborhood while grappling with his father’s distance. These visions uncover hidden connections between them and their shared heritage.
The new era of rising filmmakers has come back around. Filmmakers with their own style that arenโt afraid to put their tools to use and in some thoughtful and heartfelt ways pay homage to the great filmmakers that came before them. In If I Go Will They MissMe, director Walter-Thompson Hernandez uses the tools that heโs been given to craft a film that doesnโt hold back on its portrayal of parenthood and how someoneโs past traumas can really affect their relationships with their children. As a parent, I know that past trauma can somehow come up in your present with your kids and in building a relationship with them. This story being told from a child and his fatherโs perspective was really alluring. Seeing both the past and the present told in these ways was an added detail that was implemented by the great performances from the actors, the wonderful cinematography, and the direction from Hernandez.
Big Ant (J. Alphonse Nicholson) has recently been released from prison. Life on the outside is strenuous to get used to but fortunately he has his wife Lozita (Danielle Brooks), their daughter Acacia, and sons Lil Ant and Trae. Ant gets back to his regular life on the outside by hanging out with his best friend JJ (Myles Bullock), working at a local stable with horses and trying to be a good man for himself and his family. His son, Lil Ant (Bodhi Jordan Dell), is very bright with a lot of skills in the arts. Heโs not shy when it comes to his drawings and school projects. A subject of his drawings is his dad as the Greek god, Poseidon. He thinks of his dad as a literal god so much that he constantly draws him in school and at home. Big Ant sees this as a distraction from his school work and he doesnโt want Lil Ant to champion him.
Ant doesnโt feel like a hero to his family because heโs been in and out of prison. As kids, he and his friends teased a janitor that they happened to come across while hanging out. Ant assaulted the janitor with a deadly weapon. The police came to his house, chased him through the hood and arrested him. A moment of stupidity as a youth cost him his innocence and ultimately, his freedom. Lil Ant starts to get into fights at school and his parents become worried that heโs doing it for attention. From then on, Ant agrees to talk to their son about the multiple chances that we donโt receive as men of color and how being like our parents isnโt necessarily something to strive for. Being your own person is the real thing to want to be. Lil Ant takes his dads advice and applies it to everyday life. The chemistry between Nicholson and Dell as father and son is favourable. Lil Ant (Dell) looks just like his mom but he has traits of his father.
The portrayal of Lozita by Danielle Brooks is all too familiar with me. She works a lot so sheโs not able to be there for all of her kids, she takes advantage of her free time and she has to deal with the fact that her husband is still distant from her after being away from their family multiple times. Lozitaโs sister Jenn (Bre-Z of television’s Empire and AllAmerican) pleads with her to start a new life with her kids but Lo is hesitant. She wants Big Ant to be there for her and the kids but sheโs had it up to here with him continuously being distant with Lil Ant and his continuous infidelity with other women. Brooks is an actress that isnโt afraid to really go into her character’s psyche and bring out emotions that can wash over her scene partners, directors, and an audience. This movie is a real love letter to mothers all over the world. Most importantly, mothers of color, who have to take on a lot of responsibilities teaching their kids that they donโt have the same privileges that other kids in better class and economic conditions have.
Bringing the film all together is Lil Ant played by our young lead, Bodhi Jordan Dell. Dellโs sporadic narration gives us more insight into him loving drawing like his dad and airplanes, also like his dad. While showing these similar interests he doesnโt receive the same attention and care from his dad like his siblings do. This upsets him and heโs overcome with self doubt and little love from Big Ant so much that at the end of the film he tries to do something that can completely alter his families lives. The direction from Hernandez in his scenes with Dell and the other kids is really pleasant because not every director can work with kid actors. He gives all of them the assistance that they need to bring out performances that arenโt outmoded.
If I Go They Will Miss Me is a real achievement that must be seen when itโs officially released in theaters. It shines in all aspects of filmmaking from the performances from its lead actors (Nicholson, Brooks, Bodhi), supporting actors (Bullock, Bre-Z, etc), wondrous cinematography from Michael Fernandez, and the combination of fantasy and real life story elements by writer/director Hernandez. I was happy to see that this wasnโt a typical story about a Black family living in the inner city of Watts, CA. The characters have bold personalities, beautiful personal interests, and theyโre keen to do better for their current lives and their futures. This movie will be a hit amongst people that are looking for something original that has excellent mobility, and a story thatโs familiar but told in a respective way.
Emilie Blichfeldtโs debut feature, The Ugly Stepsister, is gloriously gross, as the โugly stepsisterโ of the Cinderella story goes to extremes to be beautiful enough for the facile Prince to take note of her. Bone-crunching plastic surgery, sewn-in eyelashes, and eating a tapeworm are but a few of the horrors Elvira (Lea Myren) goes through to be the belle of the ball.
Nadine Whitney spoke with Blichfeldt; Anne Cathrine Sauerberg, the filmโs primary makeup and hair artist; and Thomas Foldberg, who designed the prosthetics that caused audiences to squirm and brought the movie to the attention of the Academy Awards.
Nadine Whitney:ย Hello again, Emilie. I interviewed you ages ago whenย The Ugly Stepsisterย was first coming out, and Iโm so pleased that you have an Academy Award nominationโand gosh, I wish it could be for more than hair and makeup. Apologies, Anne Cathrine and Thomas!
Thomas, you were responsible for most of the prosthetics work. Can you tell me a little bit about how you worked with Anne Cathrine to create a kind of merger between your prosthetics and her makeup, especially for Lea Myren as Elvira?
Thomas Foldberg: The prosthetics for the Elvira character were definitely the most challenging part of the film, but also the most fun to execute, because theyโre such a big part of it. We had to be with Lea for so many days. Itโs interesting, because the whole design phase I actually did without Anne Cathrine. That was me working together with Emilie to find out what actually had to be done. Anne Cathrine came in later and then came up with this wonderful look for the character, as well as the makeup sheโs wearingโeye makeup and so on. You build the character from the beginning with the director. Iโd never worked with Emilie before, but she had this really clear universe and some really good mood boards, so it was really easy for me.
Anne Cathrine Sauerberg: Sometimes, especially when you have a really short time, you just have to decide, โOkay, weโre going this way,โ and it worked out really well. Emilie and I needed a lot of character work before we started shooting. The strange thing is that sometimes a movie has a will of its own, and itโs very much driven by Emilieโs visionsโbut thereโs also always something you canโt quite explain when youโre making a movie. We didnโt have to say very much to communicate while shooting. When you say, โIโm going to make it a little mush-mush,โ they know what you mean, so we donโt see the edges or whatever.
I wish I could say that I sat down and said, โItโs going to be like that,โ but looking at Emilieโs smooth parts, it kind of came together. Maybe thatโs also part of the creative processโitโs kind of hard to explain when it happens.
Also, you have a team. I had two wonderful Polish girls whom Iโd worked with before. I had to explain a look to them, then show certain pictures. I found reference images, but I think something happens thatโs very intuitive about doing it. The great reference pictures were presented by Emilie.
Nadine Whitney:ย Emilie, Iโm guessing you probably provided a lot of pictures from films likeย Morgianaย (1972) by Juraj Herz and hisย Beauty and the Beastย (1978). Iโm also going to guessย Fruit of Paradiseย (1970) by Vฤra Chytilovรก.ย The Ugly Stepsisterย has a very strong Eastern EuropeanโCzech aesthetic, especially with the blonde wig that Elvira is wearing.
Emilie Blichfeldt: Yes! It is absolutely in that universe. A lot of those wigs are quite terrible because theyโre made in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, so theyโre very artificial and plastic. We wanted to go camp, and we wanted to give it this timeless look by filtering it through the 1960s and 1970s. When Anne Cathrine brought in images of Cher for the eye makeup, I thought, โOkay, I met the right person.โ I think thatโs the chemistry Anne Cathrine is talking about.
When I saw Anne Cathrineโs workโshe did a great TV series set in the 1960s, all about curls and curlers, called Carmen CurlersโI knew. She also made this amazing wig for a photo shoot of a big model in the 1960s that doesnโt exist. The way she curated that was just immaculate. We wanted to go with the (sur)realism found in these Eastern European movies, but theyโre also camp. Thatโs the fine balance we had to thread to build a universe.
Nadine Whitney:ย I rewatched the film last night, and I was amazed at how certain things were crafted. For example, Lea is wearing a wig of hair falling out on top of her own hair, and then another wig on top of that. I donโt know how many noses she ended up having to wear. Anne Cathrine, were there any specific challenges you encountered?
Anne Cathrine Sauerberg: I sat in a basement for two weeks in Warsaw [laughs]. I cast my mind back to the blonde wig, and it kind of just happened. I think it was more like running a race, given the tight shooting schedule. I tend to get very absorbed in what Iโm doing, and having to change directions on set wasnโt so easy to get into.
Thomas Foldberg:ย I think, yeah, there was a lot that was really challenging. But the most challenging part was actually the shooting. We had such a short time, and we filmed somewhat chronologicallyโbut not alwaysโso it ended up being a continuityโฆ nightmare is the wrong word.
Emilie Blichfeldt: Itโs the right word!
Thomas Foldberg: I mean, it was crazy. Weโd have to switch from Elviraโs first look with braces to without braces, or have different noses. We were switching back and forth all the time. I had to make printouts, change things on my phone, and label my makeup mirrorsโnot with a complete plan, but just to communicate what was needed so my assistant could keep track.
Nadine Whitney:ย What about ensuring the actors can act through the prosthetics, like the fake teeth and braces?
Thomas Foldberg: Nobody has really asked, but itโs fairly simple because the dental prosthetics are very thin. The braces only attach to the side of the cheek, so Lea didnโt really have anything in her mouth. The broken teeth were very thin acrylic teeth placed on top of her own, so it was quite simple and very standard in many ways.
Anne Cathrine Sauerberg: If you go to Thomasโs Instagram page, itโs really great to see all the things that happened and how the effects were made. Some of the things look simple, but theyโre actually quite complicated.
Nadine Whitney:ย One of the best visual jokes for me throughout the whole film is Otto, Agnesโs father, slowly decomposing over the course of the movie. Itโs funny, but itโs deeply grotesque.
Emilie Blichfeldt: I came to Thomas with a long, long list of things I wanted him to doโcreate Elviraโs character, change it throughout the movie, show different stages of healing or hurting, Elviraโs chubbier-appearance prosthetics. I had body parts, a tapeworm, a dead corpse rotting away, and popping pimples. Thomas thought I was crazy and didnโt think it was going to happen. Chopping off toes, sewing eyelids.
As a director, having only 28 days to shoot, and then seeing Thomas make all of these things from that long listโputting in so much work and designing them to perfectionโand then only having time on set to shoot one frame of an object was hurting me so badly. I really felt that itโs both an honor and a horror as a director that your work is based on other artistsโ work.
Iโm the boss of the whole thing, and I know we have to compromise, but here was this artist who made these art pieces, and I could shoot them for five minutes. Itโs insane!
Nadine Whitney:ย Thatโs the beauty of finding the right collaborators, though. I imagine trusting that these things people think are crazy can be done, even if theyโre only on screen for a few frames. Theyโre still impactful.
I think the film is incredibly timelyโand it was timely when you were writing and shooting it. Thereโs also another film,ย Toxic, a Lithuanian drama written and directed by Saulฤ Bliuvaitฤ, about two contemporary girls, one of whom also swallows a tapeworm egg. I think these films are in conversation, because these beauty standards just havenโt gone away.
Emilie Blichfeldt: Yeah, itโs insane how the tapeworm is arriving at the same time as Ozempic and all these other weight-loss drugs. Ozempic simply wasnโt a thing when I wrote the scriptโand it makes you lose your hair. I researched a lot of data and saved one example that I found especially funny. Thereโs one that lists anal itching, hair loss, epilepsy, and other things as possible side effects of tapeworms.
Nadine Whitney:ย Iโm keeping that in the interview! I wouldnโt be ashamed of itโit has quite a bit of girth.
Emilie Blichfeldt: I know. I had to be quite specific about a lot of things. As a director, sometimes youโre like, โOh shit, did I write that?โ Now I have to talk very explicitly about something. I had to be very explicit about the amount of hair on Agnesโs body doubleโs butthole. My Google searches were not very suitable for workโbut it was my work.
And with this penis thing, I really debated it. Iโm very specific about how bodies are represented in movies. I had a friend draw a very crooked penis, and I thought a lot about penis representation, but it didnโt end up in the movie because I felt it took away from the moment, which was about the more glorious parts of sexual life. It shouldnโt be gross or weird, but more like a pure experience. I asked Thomas to make his finest work.
For the past decade, Timothรฉe Chalamet has been on a steady ascent from promising indie talent to full-blown Hollywood fixation. Breaking through with Call Me by Your Name, a performance that earned him an Oscar nomination at just 22, Chalamet quickly became shorthand for a new kind of leading man: sensitive, stylish, and emotionally open. Since then, his rรฉsumรฉ has swelled with prestige projects (Little Women, Bones and All), blockbuster credibility (Dune), and an awards shelf that includes a SAG and Golden Globe win, BAFTA recognition, and multiple Academy Award nominations. Alongside the acclaim, his cultural presence has grown louder: red carpets, viral moments, fashion headlines, and drones of social media followers; it seems the admiration has blurred into something closer to reverence. Enter Marty Supreme, a film buoyed less by its substance than by the gravitational pull of its star.
On paper, Marty Supreme sounds like awards-season catnip. A sprawling character study centred on a volatile, brilliant, and deeply flawed man, the film follows Marty across nearly three hours of ambition, self-destruction, and emotional chaos. Directed with evident seriousness by Josh Safdie, and framed as a โbig swing,โ it premiered to immediate buzz and a predictably divided critical response. Some reviewers praised its scale and Chalametโs commitment, hailing the performance as fearless and operatic. Others were more hesitant, noting its indulgent runtime and uneven pacing, though these critiques were often softened by deference to Chalametโs star turn. The consensus, such as it is, seems to be that Marty Supreme matters, even if few can articulate exactly why.
The problem is that significance has been mistaken for quality. Strip away the aura, and Marty Supreme reveals a script that too often mistakes mood for meaning. The dialogue is sparse to the point of inertia, not in a purposeful, tension-building way, but in a manner that leaves scenes feeling underwritten and emotionally unfinished. Interactions and conversations with Marty end in two waysโobedience even when itโs against the personโs self-interest, or confusion or offence at the sheer arrogance and entitlement. The script opts for shock one-liners rather than allowing characters to speak to one another. Great for bursts of laughter, but bad for a script that feels organic and for ensuring the audience is intellectually or emotionally invested in Marty or his story.
Most strikingly, Marty himself never truly develops. Across three hours, the character cycles through variations of the same emotional beat: petulance, volatility, wounded ego, repeat. There is little sense of progression, reckoning, or transformation. Scene after scene presents Marty acting out, lashing against perceived slights, or spiralling inward – but without accumulation. Instead of building toward insight, the film stacks moments beside one another, hoping intensity alone will imply depth. The result is a series of disconnected episodes that never quite cohere into a meaningful whole.
This is where the โTimothรฉe Chalamet effectโ comes into playโ a phenomenon not unlike the one that followed Leonardo DiCaprio for years. DiCaprio, undeniably gifted, was long treated as an Oscar inevitability before the right role arrived. When the win finally came, it was for The Revenant: a performance that was physically gruelling, loudly transformative, and symbolically overdue, but far from his most nuanced work. The sense was not that it was his best, but that it was his turn.
Chalamet now appears to be on a similar trajectory. He is talented enough to deserve an Oscar someday, possibly several. But Marty Supreme feels like a performance being anointed rather than earned. It is grand, showy, and exhausting, the kind of role that signals โserious actorโ in capital letters, yet it lacks the emotional precision and narrative grounding that define truly great work. The danger of rushing this coronation is that it rewards scale over substance, intensity over insight.
None of this diminishes Chalametโs potential. In fact, it underscores it. His finest performances have often been his quietest, his most attentive, his most collaborative. Marty Supreme asks him to dominate the frame rather than interact with it, and the film suffers as a result. Admiration, when left unchecked, becomes distortion. And while Hollywood may be eager to crown its next enduring star, cinema, and Chalamet himself, would be better served by waiting for a role that actually earns the weight weโre so keen to place upon it.
Director:Yvonne Russo Writers:Christine La Monte, Yvonne Russo Stars: Claudio Giombi, Chitose Matsumoto, Tina Aliprandi
Synopsis:At Milan’s Casa Verdi retirement home, elderly opera stars and musicians mentor young students while sharing their remarkable lives. Built by Verdi in 1896, this unique residence unites generations through music and passion.
Every once in a while, there is proof that awards actually do matter. Not so much in the winning, but in the awareness. Recently, Viva Verdi! received a nomination for Best Original Song at the Academy Awards. This, I am sure, has led many to seek out this film, yours truly absolutely included. This is not as important for major awards players that made a large impression at big film festivals. But for a small documentary to get this kind of recognition outside of awards for that type of film, the difference is immense. And it is appropriate that this film was noticed for its music, and this becomes apparent from the opening frames (or notes).
This film tells the story of Casa Verdi, a retirement home built by Giuseppe Verdi in Milan, Italy. Verdi was, of course, one of the most influential composers of his time (the 19th century) or any other time. The twist here is that it is not just any retirement home, in fact it was built specifically for aging musicians, as many of them had no retirement or back up plan options to support them in their old age. Thankfully, it is still not only operational, but thriving today. Viva Verdi! takes us inside the building and more importantly, into the lives of its guests. All of them are, as noted, operatic musicians. Director Yvonne Rossi does a lovely job of giving just enough historical context along with telling the important stories of the residents of Casa Verdi.
Very often, when we think of retirement homes, our minds drift to terrible conditions and loss of memory. There are countless studies showing how music can boost memory and mood, and this becomes abundantly clear as we travel these halls. As it must, the movie focuses on a few independent stories more than others. Claudio Giombi is a main focus and for those unaware, like this writer, we find just how accomplished he has been in his opera career. Watching him wax poetic about music, life, and teaching, we cannot help but be lifted up and brought along with his lust for life. He and the other residents there also teach and mentor young music students on site. Being present for the gift of this knowledge passed to the next generation is another sight to behold. Although this story may be very niche in nature, it is easily applicable to all of us. Anyone who has a passion can imagine what an opportunity it would be like to pick the brains of the masters of that craft.
The film also details some painful upbringing and racial strife in Italy during different times in history. Chitose Matsumoto is a singer of Japanese descent who traveled to Italy because, frankly, that is where you go for opera performance. Despite being immediately recognized as a talent as a young woman, she also endured poor treatment by those saying that all performers should be Italian. Watching her relive this is quite painful, but there is a clear healing that comes with her age, and with being surrounded by care and love. She also tells the story of being recommended to Casa Verdi and being shocked that they would take her, given her limited career in the opera.
Importantly, the film does not merely lean in to the greatest performers and purely moments of bliss. One of the more moving moments of the film follows an instructor and caretaker who teaches a class built to improve the memory of those who struggle a bit more. Watching their hands slightly shake and eyes fill with tears as they recall songs from their youth is enough to make the most hardened viewer open their heart to the connection of music and emotion. We all deserve a place to create, connect, and continue living our lives to the fullest.
Yes, โSweet Dreams of Joyโ is a stunningly beautiful song, but it pales in comparison to the songs in the hearts and on the lips of the wonderful people that live at Casa Verdi. Watching them sing their hearts out, either by themselves or in passing their gift to others, makes us all just a little bit lighter and filled with just a bit more joy.ย Viva Verdi!, indeed!
This week on Women InSession, we discuss our favorite Rob Reiner films and talk about why he was special filmmaker! He made some all-time classic movies that we absolutely adore, so spend this entire conversation just raving about him and how much we’ll miss him.
Panel: Megan Kearns, Amy Thomasson
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!
Synopsis:A rising pop star navigates the complexities of fame and industry pressure while preparing for her arena tour debut.
If the navel-gazing Hurry Up Tomorrow focused on Abel Tesfayeโs murder of his The Weeknd persona, then one can examine Aidan ZamiriโsThe Moment as the ultimate assassination of the โBratโ era that has defined Charli XCX ever since the release of her best-selling 2024 record of the same name. This end of an era, certainly alienates more than it gives fans something to hold onto, especially to the ones who are still reeling through the highs of brat summer, and feels more like a mockumentary crafted for the chronically online generation (replete with cameo appearances from the Swiftologist and Anthony Fantano) than something of genuine substance that will make either fans or the layperson have newfound appreciation on the public persona Charlotte Emma Aitchison has carved as a singular artist throughout her multifaceted career.ย
Its opening two minutes are unwatchable. A succession of strong, Paul Sharits-esque colors flickers with the dangerous, strobing intensity of Gaspar Noรฉโs Lux รterna, immediately assaults the viewer, and overwhelms their senses. It might be the understatement of the year, but people with any type of photosensitivity or epilepsy should stray away from this film โ and urgently. While the strobe dies down after such an abrasive and confronting cold open, subsequent title cards contain the same flickering intensity and remind you that Charli XCXโs personality is anything but the singer she once was when her debut album, โTrue Romance,โ was released.
The rest of the film is a self-aware, and often endearing, riff on This Is Spinal Tap (Charliโs Version, mind you), where the singer/songwriter is planning her first-ever tour in the wake of bratโs success and is consumed by the perhaps skyrocketing fame and adulation she received. Her agents are planning an Amazon-exclusive concert film directed by renowned auteur Johannes Goodwin (Alexander Skarsgรฅrd), which seems to dismantle everything Charli has built around Brat and turn her into someone she isnโt. Parallels to Hurry Up Tomorrow will obviously be mentioned in many reviews, but The Moment is a more thematically (and aesthetically) interesting film that peers into the mind of Charliโs artistic intents moreso than The Weekndโs vanity project.
The only point of comparison between the two works is that both artists are tired of the personalities that have defined much of their musical careers and beg their fans to move on and accept their next endeavors on their own terms. However, Charliโs desire to move away from Brat, and perhaps introduce herself in the world of film (as she is set to star in at least six confirmed titles, including crafting an entire soundtrack for Emerald Fennellโs upcoming adaptation of Emily Brontรซโs Wuthering Heights), reads more sincere, even if the movie might not entirely work.
For instance, everything related to Skarsgรฅrdโs overzealous director is fine for a chuckle or two. The best bit is when he develops a real-time aversion to strobe lighting and bans it entirely from the concert film set, because thatโs how I felt watching the filmโs cold open, practically with my eyes closed. However, it might not be an ideal narrative for several extended sequences that donโt really go anywhere, or for a finale that aims to give viewers a quasi-payoff but feels more like an on-the-nose scene for industry veterans.
The film also frequently loses itself in multiple thematic avenues that begin as interesting but land with little impact by the time it trudges through its concluding section. That said, better to have a pop-star project full of intriguing ideas that are messily fleshed out than attempting to idolize the main point of focus as a musical deity, which Charli consistently rejects in this movie, even while interacting with fans. In fact, the most compelling aspect of The Moment is how aware Charli is that the Brat movement has gone completely out of control, and how she wants to clearly distance herself from what is (so far) the most significant achievement of her career.
As someone who is not into contemporary pop music (at all), even I canโt deny that brat is a masterpiece and indeed a watershed moment (ha) for our current internet-obsessed pop culture. However, the phenomenon has quickly become an annoyance for Charli, who has publicly expressed a desire to let it go and wants to finish it off in a way that clearly signals to fans that itโs time for her to enter the next stage of her career. Obviously, this critic is no prophet or clairvoyant, but Charliโs introduction in the film world doesnโt seem to be like a one-and-done thing for the pop star. She wants to show how versatile a performer she can be, and her self-referential turn as a fictionalized version of the persona she created may be her biggest stroke of genius yet.
Those who doubted that Charli could pull off a good on-screen performance, after viewing Abel Tesfaye’s flop sweat in both The Idol and Hurry Up Tomorrow, can put those doubts to rest. Her love of the film medium canโt be overstated, and the references imbued in the project give much enjoyment out of seeing a fictionalized Charli attempt to end an era that will always follow her โ no matter what. In that regard, her performance feels like a genuine revelation and a sign of great things to come, if her upcoming collaborations with Gregg Araki, Daniel Goldhaber, and Takashi Miike are as strong as her first โrealโ entry into the world of film.ย Cinematographer Sean Price Williams gives an alluring quasi-vรฉritรฉ aesthetic to Charliโs journey of self-discovery in The Moment, depicting her anguish in a world that still refuses to let go of brat and the movement it created. However, for her to move forward,brat must die. It may be a tough pill to swallow for the fans who have made it their entire personality and perhaps found solace in her songs about (literal or metaphorical) cocaine. That could be why some moviegoers might be immediately put off by what Zamiriโs film proposes to audiences. However, it is a necessary step for an ever-evolving artist to take, because Charli XCX is not done being the moment โ and wonโt be anytime soon.
For decades, musicals have enjoyed a complicated relationship with the Oscars. Sometimes they sweep the board, West Side Story, Chicago, Cabaret, and The Sound of Music, all became cultural moments as well as Academy darlings. At other times, theyโre warmly received by critics, but quietly ignored when nominations arrive. Films like Dreamgirls, In the Heights, and Rocketman proved that musical storytelling can be emotionally rich and technically daring, yet awards recognition often stops short. The Academyโs affection for musicals tends to be conditional, fluctuating with trends rather than talent. That long-standing uncertainty makes the conversation around Kate Hudsonโs Best Actress nomination for Song Sung Blue feel particularly relevant this year.
Women, especially, have felt the brunt of this musical ambivalence. Musical performances require a rare blend of skills, acting, singing, rhythm, and emotional control, yet they are often described as โfunโ rather than formidable. Over the years, audiences have watched women like Amy Adams (Enchanted), Emily Blunt (Mary Poppins Returns), and Cher (Burlesque) deliver performances that balanced vulnerability with technical skill, only to see them sidelined come Oscar morning. When women lead musicals, the work is frequently framed as charming or nostalgic, rather than award-worthy. The result is a quiet pattern: admiration without acknowledgment.
Song Sung Blue is inspired by the real-life story of a Neil Diamond tribute duo; the film centres on ordinary people chasing something extraordinary: connection, expression, and a second chance. Hudson plays a woman rediscovering her sense of self through music, and does so without grand theatrics or glossy showmanship. Many critics have praised the performance for its warmth and emotional clarity, noting how Hudson allows the songs to emerge naturally from the character rather than pausing the story for spectacle. Her vocals are expressive rather than overly polished, and her acting leans into stillness and sincerity. Itโs a performance built on empathy, not volume. Other critics have called her Oscar nomination unserious and unworthy, stating that her famous parents and Hollywood connections got the nomination. Absurd, as sheโs been in the acting game a long time, this nepo baby has well earned her place.
Kate Hudson deserves to be in the Oscar conversation because her work in Song Sung Blue stands comfortably alongside this yearโs most talked-about performancesโ even those from more traditionally โOscar-friendlyโ films. Awards season chatter has been dominated by intense, transformative roles in prestige dramas and high-concept biopics: the kind that feature physical transformations, historical figures, or emotionally punishing narratives. These performances are impressive, but Hudsonโs work offers something different and equally valuable. She delivers emotional depth without melodrama, musicality without self-consciousness, and character growth without grand speeches.
Thereโs also something refreshing about seeing Hudson step into a role that draws on her musical background while pushing beyond the breezy charm sheโs often associated with. Song Sung Blue allows her to age, soften, and deepen on screen, presenting a woman whose dreams are complicated by real life rather than defined by it. That kind of storytelling, especially for women, is still surprisingly rare, and it deserves recognition. Itโs strange that just because her character sings and is in sparkly cardigans, she, for some reason, is less than the others.
The film as a whole is an enjoyable experience; it might not be up for โbest filmโ, but it has caught the eyes of many. With films like Avatar: Fire and Ash being up for best costume (are we happy to accept that CGI can stand against handcrafted artistry for costumes?) and Wicked being snubbed for hair and makeup, we know the Academy is far from perfect, and itโs these choices that keep us talking and invested.
Ultimately, the case for Hudson is also a case for musicals themselves, as this is something I will strongly advocate for. The genre continues to evolve, finding new ways to tell intimate, grounded stories through music, yet it remains oddly underrepresented at the Oscars. Musicals demand technical precision, emotional openness, and narrative risk. Recognising performances like Hudsonโs would signal a broader understanding of what โseriousโ acting looks like and sounds like. If the Academy wants to reflect the full range of cinematic storytelling, it might be time to stop treating musicals as the exception and start seeing them, once again, as contenders. And audiences are just going to have to get used to that.
First and foremost, my name is Jacob Mauceri, Iโve been religiously keeping up with Criterionโs new releases since 2019 or so. I enjoy a wide variety of films and I owe the variety of Criterionโs releases to my eclectic taste and experience with film. Going forward, I will be taking over InSession Filmโs monthly Criterion article and you can follow along while I wax poetic over excellent films.
The month of love in the year of the Horse, 2026, comes with it a lovely assortment of releases from Criterion. A restoration of an undisputed classic Western followed by a slew of upgrades and new releases from cinematic titans. There will be seven releases, par for the course of their current monthly release strategy, which includes one Eclipse boxset upgrade and one Criterion Premieres blu-ray. Weโre only two months into 2026, and if this is how weโre starting the year, we are in for an insane year of releases. Full disclosure, I will most certainly be purchasing every single one of these.
3:10 to Yuma (1957)
Based on the story of the same name, 3:10 to Yuma is an early example of a cinematic cat-and-mouse – but in the Wild West! A humble cattle rancher is tasked with bringing a captured outlaw to the train that will take him to prison but quickly devolves from there. This is a new restoration for the film, and just a reminder for the folks curious – 4K restorations of black and white films are equally as gorgeous as films in color. Iโm personally more familiar with the James Mangold adaptation from 2007, however, this film has been on my backburner for a number of years. This will be a day one purchase for me as a fan of the western genre and a sucker for a rich black and white cinematic experience.
A Woman Under the Influence (1974)
Regarded as John Cassavetesโ greatest film, and Gena Rowlands at her absolute best, A Woman Under the Influence is given an individual blu-ray release outside of the popular and well regarded John Cassavetes: Five Films Criterion box-set. Hitting on themes found in Cassavetesโs other works such as Faces and Husbands, this film examines domestic turmoil between a married couple played by Rowlands and the inimitable Peter Falk. This release is a perfect opportunity to begin working through the films of John Cassavetes without committing to an entire boxset (But, after this incredible film, why wouldnโt you want to dive deeper?).
PlayTime (1967)
PlayTime is the only film of Jacques Tatiโs that Iโve seen. I saw it back in 2014 with one of my best friends, at a time when I wasnโt nearly as accepting of film the way I am now, and it has stuck with me ever since. PlayTime is a nearly wordless comedic odyssey that spans over the course of a day following Tatiโs recurring character Monsieur Hulot and other random individuals as they live an abnormally slapstick day in Paris. Visually, it is ironic due to its lack of variety when it comes to color and exuberance that one would normally associate with Paris. Considering this is a 4K restoration and release you get to see the intentionally comedic monotony in the most brilliant way possible. This is a film I adore endlessly and canโt wait to see again in a sharper image.
Cloud (2024)
Kiyoshi Kurosawa has made some of the most unsettling and relevant films ever. In 2024, Kurosawa released three films – a remake of his film Serpent’s Path, a short film that is stuck in blockchain hell, and this film, Cloud. Pulling from his film Pulse, Cloud tackles the horrors of the internet and the bottomless pit that it is. Usually with Kurosawaโs works, his films are best observed under limited knowledge and Cloud is no different. However, I can assure you the pit in my stomach I get from Kurosawaโs work is ever present in this release. To boot, the Criterion Premieres line is cheaper than their standard releases – and this is no different. A tasteful film in a respectable blu-ray release at the (regular asking) price of $29.95 is a steal in my eyes.
Eclipse Series 8: Lubitsch Musicals
The rebirth of Criterionโs boxsets of underseen film retrospectives has already given us a brilliant examination of Abbas Kiarostamiโs early works. Now, Criterion is rereleasing the early musicals from the silent film legend Ernst Lubitsch. In this set, we get filmโs first movie musical, The Love Parade (1929), Monte Carlo (1930), The Smiling Lieutenant (1931), and One Hour With You (1932). Each of these films contribute to the development of the modern movie musical, and build foundational understanding how sound is integrated into the moving image. While Iโm unfamiliar with this particular set of films, Lubitsch is one of cinemaโs most important architects. This set should be a part of every film loverโs collection.
Network (1976)
Network is eerily one of Americaโs most important films. One of the pinnacles of the New Hollywood movement, Network, a movie released in the mid-โ70s, has never been more relevant. 50 years later. The film follows a broadcaster of a struggling television network having a mental breakdown on air causing an uproar and examination of corporate-dominated America. The phrase โI’m as mad as hell and I’m not going to take this anymoreโ has rung in my head more than Iโd like to admit (by a mixture of my fatherโs own quoting of the film throughout my young 29 years of life and my own sentiment with the current state of America), which is to say this release couldnโt be more timely and more harrowing. This is a film that everyone needs to watch.
The Man Who Wasnโt There (2001)
It should go without saying that the films of The Coen Brothers are incredible. The Man Who Wasnโt There has been a dream release for a number of years – in the same way No Country for Old Men was up until December of 2024. The film follows a barber whose suspicions of infidelity get the better of him and his life devolves into conspiracy and death. The Americana on display and incredibly dry humor is in line with what youโd expect with a Coen Brothers flick, but this film is severely underrated (in terms of the Coenโs filmography). Now that this is coming soon, now we wait for what Coen release we will get after – fingers crossed for O Brother, Where Art Thou?
Just a heads up, Criterion usually (keyword here is โusuallyโ) does a flash sale at half price. If you are looking to pick any of these up at half price, keep your eyes peeled for any social media announcements or if you receive their emails. If not, itโll be a March sale (will report back next month).
Synopsis: A young hockey team enters the 1980 Olympics as underdogs and emerges as heroes. Their iconic upset unfolds with new footage and firsthand reflections.
Before 1980, American hockey existed largely in the shadow of its international rivals. While the sport thrived at collegiate and regional levels, the United States was not considered a global powerhouse, particularly when measured against the Soviet Unionโs state-sponsored machine. At the height of the Cold War, when sport doubled as symbolic warfare, hockey became a proxy for ideology, discipline, and national pride. Telling the story of the โMiracle on Iceโ now matters not because it flatters nostalgia, but because it revisits a moment when belief briefly outpaced power, and collective effort unsettled inevitability.
Miracle: The Boys of โ80 doesnโt just re-litigate the gameโs most famous moments beat by beat, it brings to life the victory as lived experience rather than legend. Built around never-before-seen 16mm footage and present-day reflections, the film strips away some of the varnish that has accumulated over four decades, revealing the human texture beneath the myth.
The documentaryโs most effective choice is its return to place. By bringing the surviving players back to the Olympic rink where history was made 45 years ago, the film allows memory to surface organically. The players are taken back to being young men who were still figuring themselves out when history found them. Their interviews, with faces filled with doey eyes and smile lines, are honest, sweet and heartwarming.
Audiences are taken through the history of Hockey, from times where you wouldnโt get paid, how hard it was to get sponsors, the nervous excitement about making the Olympic team. Grainy archival footage shows intense practices, cheering fans and, of course, the historical game. This texture works against the overproduced mythology that has often surrounded the event, grounding the achievement in exhaustion, discipline, and doubt. The documentary reminds viewers that the win was not destiny; it was the result of preparation, comradery, and determination.ย
During the interviews with the team, they talk very candidly about coach Herb Brooks, who was a hard man to work for, under and with, but thereโs still a high level of respect for him. Each player gets their time to talk about their childhood, how they became involved in the sport and how it affected their lives. Thereโs side-by-side shots of them now as older men, with their young headshots, helping show how much time has passed, but they can talk about it as if it were yesterday. Their teary reactions to re-watcing game clips is wholesome. As a critic who isnโt a fan of hockey, the game play is exhilarating and audiences are given something most arenโt – commentary about the emotions and feelings in that moment.
The Cold War backdrop is present and does give this game its power. Political stakes are acknowledged without overwhelming the personal story, allowing the documentary to avoid triumphalism. The Soviet team is treated with respect rather than caricatured villainy, reinforcing the idea that the miracle mattered precisely because of the opponentโs excellence. Some viewers might have wanted a little more from the USSR perspective – more juicy gossip or political interest.
Some thematic threads, particularly the long-term psychological cost of instant myth-making, are touched on but not fully explored. A deeper engagement with what it means to live inside such an impactful and powerful story might have added complexity. Still, the filmโs refusal to inflate its own importance feels intentional, even principled.
Miracle: The Boys of โ80 resonates because it resists easy symbolism. It does not argue that sports can fix political rifts or resurrect lost unity. Instead, it suggests something smaller and more honest: that shared belief, briefly aligned, can disrupt systems that seem immovable. In a world where the news feels like one bad thing after another, and the threat of war is on doorsteps, many are struggling to come together. This documentary is a reminder that sport is something that unites us all. Exciting, engaging and quietly moving, Miracle: The Boys of โ80 isnโt just a documentary celebrating winning as much as about remembering. Why itโs important to remember historical events, celebrate them, and the importance around how they are told.
On this episode of Chasing the Gold, Shadan and guest Kenny Miles break down the 2026 BAFTA nominations, digging into the yearโs biggest surprises, snubs, and front-runners. We spend time on major contenders like Sinners, One Battle After Another, Marty Supreme, and Hamnet, discussing why these films connected with voters and what their nominations say about the current state of the race.
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!
Director:Ric Roman Waugh Writer:Ward Parry Stars: Jason Statham, Bodhi Rae Breathnach, Bill Nighy, Naomi Ackie
Synopsis:Mason lives in recluse at a remote setting by the sea. When he chooses to rescue a young girl from drowning in a terrible storm, he unwittingly sets off a chain reaction that soon brings violence his way, forcing him to confront choices from his past.
It might be a bit of hyperbole to describe Jason Statham as an enigma, but he’s been on a steady path over the past few decades as an action star and franchise regular with Fast and Furious and The Meg. In terms of standalone films, Statham has essentially made a brand of himself playing what seems to be the same loner character with a hidden past as an assassin in nearly every recent film of his, and they’ve had an extremely varied success rate over the years. For every bland boiler plate action flick that only barely gets the job done there’s a genuine one that seems to roll with its absurdity like The Beekeeper or the two Crank films; unfortunately this time around Shelter is one of the most generic Statham releases in recent memory.
The plights of the film are somewhat saved by some solid action choreography amidst the occasional shoddy visual effects, but Shelterโs central flaw is its lack of anything meaningful emotionally. The film clearly wants its audience to take the central relationship of our two main characters, Michael and Jesse, seriously as the movie’s core, and it’s hard when we are rarely given any reason to care about either of them besides the broadest of strokes. Simple narratives and beat ’em up action is never a bad thing, especially with a star like Statham at the lead, but Shelter is a largely dull affair that will evaporate from your consciousness as soon as the credits roll.
We start the film with Michael Mason (Statham), a lonely man residing on an island that’s off-grid from the world except for the occasional times when he gets supply drop-offs from Jesse (Bodhi Rae Breathnach), a girl who is perplexed by the mysterious man as she delivers essentials to him week by week. After an incident where Jesse’s uncle topples his boat in the middle of a storm, Mason sees it from afar and decides to save Jesse and care for her as she recovers. While stepping foot off the island for the first time in years to gather medical aid for Jesse, a camera catches Michael, and we learn that he was a former MI6 Assassin who spared an innocent life and went against orders, leading to him being completely disowned by the agency.
Now knowing where he’s located, Michaelโs former commander, Manafort (Bill Nighy), has started a resilient hunt to finish him and Jesse off, tying up all the loose ends he left behind years ago. With an assassin now tracking them and Jesse growing attached to him, Michael must protect her at all costs and finally bury his past.
If there’s one aspect of Shelter that keeps it from being even more unmemorable, itโd be that director Ric Roman Waugh is pretty solid at staging most of his action here. There’s never a scene that’s truly incredible or anything, but it’s clear Waugh knows how to format the choreography in pleasing ways. It mainly shines in scenes of hand-to-hand combat where the physicality from Statham is greatly appreciated. There’s a tight flow to watching him mow down goons that will satisfy genre fans that just want some quick fights, even without much pizazz to them; the issues lie in the repetitive structure at hand and the overly serious tone the film never earns.
The connection between Jesse and Michael is where the film wants to bring in emotion and resonance with the leads, and it simply just isnโt compelling in the slightest. The drama between the two of them and how they relate to each other is either incredibly predictable or just too repetitive to ever leave any impact. Many times when the action stops, it just feels like they have the same conversations over and over. Statham even looks bored in a few scenes.
That’s without even mentioning characters that would be completely inconsequential if their sections were removed entirely from the film, like Naomi Ackieโs intelligence unit character, who is completely underutilized here. These issues would be less of a problem if the filmโs tone was just lighter and had a little more fun with itself, but the grittiness of the story works for and against the film, and the lack of substance is often more of a hindrance.ย
If youโre looking for the most basic of action thrills, then Shelter will provide on that front, but it does little of anything else on any level besides being average. Despite the filmโs solid action, it never rises above being middling due to its generic character beats that make any seriousness or emotions that the film wants to convey feel unearned. Itโs about on par with a TNT classic dad movie youโd watch on cable TV, but unfortunately, in a derogatory sense.
Mona Fastvold and Brady Corbet have long been writing partners and collaborators on each otherโs work. Mona Fastvold first worked with Daniel Blumberg on her dark tale of jealousy and romance, The World to Come. Nadine Whitney finds out how they seek out each otherโs vision.
Nadine Whitney: Brady, you and Mona have collaborated on several projects including The Sleepwalker, Childhood of the Leader, Vox Lux, The Brutalist, and now The Testament of Ann Lee. What keeps the working relationship sustainable? How do you balance life as partners and as creative partners?
Brady Corbet: You know, we worked together for years before we were a couple or had a child together. And for us, it’s second nature. I actually think that our relationship functions especially well when we’re working together. I understand it’s not like that for everyone, but I think that we have different strengths. I think that we have different interests. We have different perspectives.
When we sit down to write a screenplay that Mona intends to direct, I’m writing for her. I’m writing in service of her vision for the project, and vice versa. I think we know that it’s very difficult to serve more than one master. It’s usually what makes projects come apart at the seams. So, we know each other very well. Better than most, I’d say.
We really respect that the ship ultimately has one captain, and we try not to be micromanagerial with our department heads. We really encourage everyone to do what they do best, and always weigh in. For me, directing is just conducting. Youโre working with an extremely qualified professional orchestra.
So, youโre just riding the volume, to some extent. We have a lot of conversations with our collaborators. Daniel Blumberg is obviously one of our best friends. And part of the reason I think that the music on these projects is so much richer and more complex than many film scores are allowed to be is because we work on them for years.
It can be a budgetary issue, which is just that there’s not enough time allocated to actually work on these things. But we do our best to prioritize processes in development that I think a lot of other productions donโt. Because with many movies, you make them, and then they’re delivered to someone, and they’re like, โMake some music for it.โ As opposed to the music and an image being completely in sync.
Daniel is on set for our movies for the duration of these productions, which is a very unusual way of working. It is very generous of him to devote that much of his time to these projects because he does have a career outside of composing film scores. So, it’s amazing that we met someone that cares as much as we do. I like to think that’s the reason that weโre really marching in lock step.
On this episode, JD and Brendan break down Dead Man’s Wire, Gus Van Santโs gripping new film based on the real-life 1977 Tony Kiritsis hostage standoff! While it may not be Van Sant’s best work, there are some flourishes here, coupled with the performances, that still render the film captivating. It may not linger afterwards very much, but during its runtime the film is compelling enough.
Review:Dead Man’s Wire
Director: Gus Van Sant Writers: Austin Kolodney Stars: Bill Skarsgรฅrd, Dacre Montgomery, Cary Elwes
Director:Gore Verbinksi Writer: Matthew Robinson Stars:ย Sam Rockwell, Haley Lu Richardson, Zazie Beetz
Synopsis: A “Man From the Future” arrives at a diner in Los Angeles where he must recruit the precise combination of disgruntled patrons to join him on a one-night quest to save the world from the terminal threat of a rogue artificial intelligence
The time travel movie may be one of the most entertaining and frustrating subgenres in science fiction. As Looper taught us, if you donโt think too hard about the ins and outs, you might be fine. But it does cause some infinitely troubling loops. Ok, sure, the murderous AI sent a Terminator back to kill the would-be mother of the leader of the resistance. It didnโt work, so why not just go back and try it again? The real answer, of course, is that it would make a really boring sequel. But it still makes for an interesting thought experiment. What if the time traveler simply learned from their mistakes and just tried different versions of the same plan to figure out what the correct combination might be. Good Luck, Have Fun, Donโt Die takes a look at this idea, at least in its introductory scene.
It should be noted that, like many Gore Verbinski (Welcome back!) films, it is about much more than this, but we must begin at the beginning. That opening, headed by The Man From The Future (Sam Rockwell), quickly informs us that, due to the preponderance of Artificial Intelligence, everything has gone wrong. Verbinski points his finger at a number of targets here (AI, phone usage, school shootings), but rest assured, the world in the future is terrible. In order to combat this in the past, he arrives at Normโs Diner looking part-time-traveler and part-living on the streets. He dons a plastic raincoat and what appears to be bombs strapped to his vest. But he assures us that this is the height of fashion in his time. More importantly, he has returned to this diner, yet again, because he knows that the right combination of people are there to help him stop the AI from getting too powerful. Again, donโt think too hard about how he knows this. Even though he sounds off his rocker, he quickly proves that he knows many things he should not about the individuals in said diner, and Rockwellโs charms shine through. Truly, only Sam Rockwell could play this part and not turn us all off to his supposedly important mission.
This is an old trope, but a good one. He must choose his team, like a much more pedestrian Fellowship of the Rings. Unsurprisingly, after he chooses his compatriots (under some amount of duress), the film branches off into different timelines. First, Mark (Michael Peรฑa) and Janet (Zazie Beetz) as schoolteachers dealing with disaffected, disconnected students at a high school, where the zombie parallels are quite obvious. We are also introduced to Susan (Juno Temple), who has lost her son in a school shooting. Finally, we are shown Ingrid (Haley Lu Richardson), dressed in a princess outfit whom Future Man doesnโt want along, but he relents. There is also a Boy Scout troop leader, an Uber driver, and a woman who has had a hard day at work and simply came to Normโs for a slice of pie. This motley crew is certainly an odd one, though it becomes clear who will be important to the story and who will vanish in one way or another.
As the backstories start to reveal themselves, it is clear that Verbinski has a lot to say. His (and screenwriter Matthew Robinson) aim is not exactly pinpoint, but at least there is never a dull moment. Despite the fact that there are a few pacing issues and odd special effects choices (especially near the climax), I can guarantee you will never be bored. There is one particular creature design that nearly led me to shout in excitement. This moment (I will not ruin it) leads to the biggest laughs and reactions of the long runtime. Of course, all of this is to be expected from the director of A Cure For Wellness. Verbinski is a bit of a kitchen sink, maximalist director and that is fully on display here, for both better and worse. There are seemingly a thousand references one might notice, from Toy Story to just about any video game you might think of. On the other hand, some of the background story plotlines are surprisingly inspired.
The highlight features Susan who, after losing her child in that shooting, is given the opportunity to clone her son. But we no longer live in the world of high tech cloning facilities that look foreign to us. Here, she meets with essentially an Apple store employee who guides her through the process. Using the streamlined look that we are all familiar with is a stroke of genius that helps us connect to a story that can be excessive. This process includes the good and bad quirks of her sonโs personality, should she want to make changes. It is expensive, but luckily the government subsidizes the cost, given that they seem to be uninterested in gun control issues. Susan is given a cheaper option that includes her son spouting advertisements once per day. None of this is subtle in the least, but it is darkly funny. Despite that darkness, it is actually a gentler version of the reaction to school shootings than our current reality, so kudos to Robinson and Verbinski.
Even if the script takes on much more than it can handle, the cast is well up to the task. Besides Rockwell, the standout (as usual) is Haley Lu Richardson. She is given a lot to carry on her shoulders as far as the emotional arcs and also is saddled with what is described as an allergic reaction to technology. Of course, this allergy involves bleeding from the nose becauseโฆwell because it looks cool, I suppose. But nevertheless, she manages humor, emotional depth. and a sense of reality in a film that desperately needs it.
Frankly, the film is most interested in accusing our world of, if not deserving of its horrible fate, than needing to make drastic changes to avoid it. It certainly helps that there are jokes around every corner to soften the blow and a completely game cast who is clearly down for anything. The messages may not be subtle, or even new, but it all comes together well enough to be a pretty easy recommendation. Sure, it could use a streamlined story and move quicker in some moments, but having Gore Verbinksi back to create audacious images on screen is a net positive for all of us.
Director:Phillipa Lowthorpe Writer: Emma Donoghue, Phillipa Lowthorpe, Helen MacDonald Stars: Claire Foy, Brendan Gleeson, Denise Gough
Synopsis: After losing her beloved father, Helen finds herself saved by an unlikely friendship with a stubborn hawk named Mabel.
โThe hawk was everything I wanted to be: solitary, self-possessed, free from grief, and numb to the hurts of human life.โ โ Helen Macdonald H is for Hawk (2014).
Director Philippa Lowthorpe and writer Emma Donoghue (author of Room and The Wonder, both made into films) take Helen Macdonaldโs extraordinary multi-award-winning 2014 cross-genre memoir and render it mostly silent as the protagonist, Helen (Claire Foy), spends much of the film refusing to speak or interact with almost everyone in her* life. Cinema is, of course, a different narrative medium and visual information is provided as a key interpretive and communicative mode. On the visual side, H is for Hawk is beautifully shot as it encompasses the Cambridge environs and the natural spaces Helen rewilds herself in with her goshawk Mabel. However, if ever a film would have benefitted from some internal narration, H is for Hawk is it.
Set in 2007 and covering a year of Helenโs life with occasional flashbacks, H is for Hawk is a journey of profound grief. Helen is a research fellow at Cambridge and teaching the history and philosophy of science to a group of students she feels arenโt interested. The person she cares most about is her father, Alisdair (Brendan Gleeson) who is a renowned photojournalist with eclectic interests โ one of which is ornithology which he passed on to Helen. A gentle, patient, good humored and curious man who refused to retire. A man who always dressed in a suit. A man who dies suddenly of a heart attack leaving Helen feeling completely unmoored.
Helenโs first reaction is dissociated shock. Her mother (Lindsay Duncan), brother (Josh Dylan), and her best on-campus friend, Christina (Denise Gough doing a remarkably good Australian accent) are there, but more often than not Helen reacts to them like theyโre spectres. The only thing real is her grief and the dreams that haunt her. One dream in particular, that of a goshawk.
Experienced with falconry although not with the raptor goshawk, perhaps one of the least โfriendlyโ birds of prey, Helen goes to her friend, Stuart (Sam Spruell), for advice and from there buys a goshawk from a trader in Scotland. The basic and animalistic connection Helen thinks she feels for the goshawk that she wants is communicated with a series of gazes. Helen looks at the hawk, the hawk looks back. โThis is my hawk,โ she insists and with Christina driving takes her back to Cambridge where she will begin training the young and deadly bird.
Helenโs need for the goshawk is infinite because she desires something that gives her little choice. An animal who demands patience, obeisance, and obedience from her more than she can demand from it. Mabel (meaning loveable) fills in a blank space for Helen as something utterly wild that she can project a kinship on to while letting everything else in her life fall away. Gone is the notion of applying for another fellowship. Gone is the urgency of facing that her Cambridge fellowship will be ending and she will be homeless. Gone is her commitment to research and teaching. Helen lives on the hawkโs timetable and every success she has โtamingโ Mabel is a substitute for the human life she is supposed to be leading. Instead, there is only โthe perfectly evolved psychopathโ who must hunt to be what she is.
Charlotte Bruus Christensen captures the beauty and fierceness of the goshawk especially when hunting. Swooping through the woods and grasses for her prey with Helen hoping she has earned enough trust that she will return. Sometimes itโs deliberately difficult to define Helenโs point of view when dealing with other people, such as a walk through Cambridge town with Mabel on her arm, from Mabelโs point of view. Humans begin to make noise, unclear noise, that Helen wants to turn away from โ as if she needs a falconry hood over her own head to protect her from confusing babble.
Although Claire Foy and especially Brendan Gleeson give excellent performances, H is for Hawk holds itself at a distance from the audience by relying mostly on Foyโs frustrated silences and gradual withdrawal from โhumanityโ and its illogical insistence that one moves on and keeps living after a loss that has to be dealt with in a tradition of clean and dignified politeness. Lowthorpe does pay tribute to Alisdair throughout the film in the form of recent flashbacks and some from when Helen was a child so it becomes clearer why Helen would find her father a โmythicโ presence. Yet, the pure literary majesty of Helen Macdonaldโs memoir doesnโt translate on to the screen with Helen speaking so little to the people around her. When Christina says to her, โI think youโre over-identifying with Mabel,โ Helen curtly replies, โI know thatโs what you think.โ It isnโt until the end of the film when Helen is speaking at Alasdairโs memorial service that sheโs given a space to truly verbally express herself and why she has lost someone irreplaceable to her. It seems a touch confounding that Emma Donoghue would allow the impeccable poetics of the real Helen Macdonaldโs memoir to be spread so thin. Take, for example the following taken from the book:
โThe archaeology of grief is not ordered. It is more like earth under a spade, turning up things you had forgotten. Surprising things come to light: not simply memories, but states of mind, emotions, older ways of seeing the worldโฆ There is a time in life when you expect the world to be always full of new things. And then comes a day when you realise that is not how it will be at all. You see that life will become a thing made of holes. Absences. Losses. Things that were there and are no longer. And you realise, too, that you have to grow around and between the gaps.โ
Foyโs Helen goes into deep depression, which is communicated in a strikingly mundane way beyond her hunting with Mabel. The kind of transcendent and wise prose Macdonald shared with the world canโt be communicated in the language of visuals or performance. H is for Hawk is a good film, but it feels like it has too many โholes and absencesโ to be a great one.
Synopsis:In the aftermath of an explosion that rocked the Pike River Mine and took 29 lives, two women step up to fight for accountability.
The justice system in many nations is more about stamina than justice. It’s about having the strength to go on and on without any progress or without any guarantees of success. Film simplifies the process quite a bit. It gives us the quickest route, but it’s not always the most fulfilling. In many court room dramas, there are blustering speeches, shocking testimonies, and showboating attorneys on both sides. We often see the people involved through the lens of their case and not as people in the worst situations of their life. This is what makes Pike River a far more compelling narrative.
Writer Fiona Samuel’s script eschews the lawyers and the big courtroom scenes to instead focus entirely on the people affected by the case. The way Pike River unfolds is through the eyes of Anna (Melanie Lynskey) and Sonya (Robyn Malcolm). We watch as they helplessly watch. We feel their frustration at the double speak and the unfulfilled promises. We feel heartened by the drastic actions they take. All they seek is closure, which shouldn’t be that hard to come by.
Pike River can lag between bouts of legal and protest actions. There are some scenes that feel as if they could have been played out in a phone call or a quick expository conversation. The resolution that the real life Anna and Sonya were finally granted took about eight years, so it’s understandable that there would be waiting in film time as well. It just feels as if this waiting also becomes a rehashing of information that is already established. Though, the time does have an extraordinary outcome for the narrative of the film and that is the friendship between Anna and Sonya.
Friends are often made in the trials we face as humans. It’s a prickly start for their relationship, but they see each other in the grief they share. They understand each other and build something strong between them. There’s a phenomenal scene that director Robert Sarkies builds that shows the friendship at its best. It’s a simple setup, just a cafe scene with cuts between Anna on one side and Sonya on the other. As they attempt to understand the legalese they’ve been subject to that day a misspoken phrase leads to a memory of their men and the flatulence they let off. It’s a funny scene in the midst of a tough time. It’s a shorthand for camaraderie and it fits so well because talking about cutting the cheese is a great way to cut the tension of the constant striving for justice.
Scenes like the one above wouldn’t work without the incredible acting of both leads. Melanie Lynskey is always good because she’s the woman you never suspect. She’s the woman who looks like she takes what she’s given, but she surprises you every time. She’s able to be fiery, but she has a delicate vulnerability to her. As Anna, she has a tremendous timing for biting remarks and yet is able to break your heart with a simple glance.
Robyn Malcolm is an actress who understands that balance is that everything is happening all at once. She’s adept at the blistering put downs and the issues with self-confidence. Her face is so alive and expressive that it’s a joy to watch her emote. She carries Sonya’s outward toughness, but never hides her inner softness. It’s a perfect expression of grief and tenacity.
Pike River is a film that takes its time. In some ways that makes for a difficult film to sit through, in others it makes for a more compelling and fulfilling narrative to be with. It’s a film that keeps its eyes on the humans at the heart of the legal battle and is all the better for it. Add into that two powerful and stellar performances and you’ve got a very intriguing watch that will keep you glued just to see what possible wriggling these corporate and political goons will come up with to leave their promises unfulfilled.
On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss Mascha Schilinski’s ambitious and remarkable sophomore effort in Sound of Falling! While the film didn’t crack the Oscar lineup, it did win the Grand Jury last year at Cannes and it made the December shortlist for the 98th Academy Awards. So, it’s still a noteworthy international film from 2025. Perhaps, more importantly for our conversation, it did crack the five for JD as he became a big champion for Sound of Falling among the InSession Film staff.
Review:Sound of Falling
Director: Mascha Schilinski Writers: Mascha Schilinski, Louise Peter Stars: Hanna Heckt, Lena Urzendowsky, Laeni Geiseler, Lea Drinda
Director:ย Christophe Gans Writers:Christophe Gans, Sandra Vo-Anh, Will Schneider Stars: Jeremy Irvine, Hannah Emily Anderson, Evie Templeton
Synopsis:When a man receives a mysterious letter from his lost love, he is drawn to Silent Hill, a once familiar town now consumed by darkness.
Twelve years after readapting Beauty and the Beast with Lรฉa Seydoux and Vincent Cassel, French genre auteur Christophe Gans returns to the world that made him a known figure within video game adaptations in Return to Silent Hill, promising to audiences a โfaithfulโ adaptation of Konamiโs Silent Hill 2, highly regarded as one of the greatest video games of all time. Whether or not these words are true (almost) doesnโt matter, since Gans is a highly interesting (and underappreciated) figure within genre cinema. Heโs only made five films in his thirty-year career, each brimming with jaw-dropping images and unwieldy ideas that consistently make us rethink the way we watch movies and the art we consume.ย
Return to Silent Hill is no different, although it doesnโt reach the level of his two masterpieces, Crying Freeman and Brotherhood of the Wolf. Itโs also probably not a faithful adaptation of Silent Hill 2, which has made fans angry with the fury of a thousand thunders, with some even sending death threats to Gans for allegedly โruiningโ the video game. While those threats are totally uncalled for, since the game stands on its own two feet, one canโt entirely dismiss Return to Silent Hill as a โbadโ video game adaptation when Gans himself thinks about his place within post-digital cinema in an era where textures are becoming more artificial and images no longer hold meaning within the moviegoing public.
It may lack the verve of Dan Laustsenโs photography, but the visual poetry of a decaying world that dies with James Sunderland (Jeremy Irvine) is still present here. In any event, it is a step above โ both visually and thematically โ from MJ Bassettโs dreadful Silent Hill: Revelations 3D, because Gans holds reverence for Konamiโs game and is at least curious in further expanding his conception of what he believes some of Silent Hill 2โs themes are. It may not be a โdefinitiveโ interpretation of the urtext, but itโs far more interesting than the dreadful attempts to blatantly steal gamersโ money with the nearly unwatchable A Minecraft Movie and Five Nights at Freddyโs 2.
As a meditation on grief and the lengths one will go to bring someone โbackโ from the dead, Return to Silent Hill is an imperfect, but frequently moving piece of work. It represents Jamesโ tormented psyche inside a labyrinthine story that consistently blurs the line between the harsh reality he lives in and the harsh nightmares he canโt fully wake up from. Gansโ writing may not be as sharp as in the first time he took a crack at the world of Silent Hill in 2006, with frequent bouts of clunky and unintentionally hilarious, indigestible expository exchanges between James and the various figures he meets, either in Silent Hill or the Otherworld, but his visual compositions remain unmatched, and perhaps more compelling when we put his two approaches side-by-side, twenty years removed from the first installment.
Dolly shots are no longer frequent โ this thing is erratic and always in the face of his tormented protagonist, who lives an internal (and external) torture he canโt fully extinguish, even by diving deeper into the quasi-post-apocalyptic Hellscape of Silent Hill. Sadly, though, Irvineโs hair game is the most unconvincing aspect of his (and anyoneโs) performance, but some musical juxtapositions are so good that one can easily overlook some of the production’s cheaper traits, compared to the refined visual palette of the original. Again, though, Gans collaborated with Dan Laustsen, and that cinematographer is one of the greatest to have ever done it.
Comparing that film to Return to Silent Hill feels a bit like an apples-to-oranges situation, though Gans repeats some of its best sequences with less thrilling effect. Pyramidhead makes his grand return and feels less imposing than when Laustsenโs baroque compositions highlighted him, while a sequence with โDark Nursesโ is the exact same as the first installment, sans the palpable tension we felt when Rose Da Silva (Radha Mitchell) explored the filmโs titular ghost town. That said, Gans compensates for this repetition by offering different stylistic considerations in his Return to Silent Hill, with the camera being more handheld and nervous than in the first go-around, when we spent time understanding the town’s mechanics through its visuals alone.
The most exhilarating aspect of Gansโ Silent Hill transpositions is how weโre able to comprehend how this universe works โ and what the protagonist feels โ by simply making its visual language an intrinsic part of the viewing experience, and trusting the audience to put two and two together. Again, the dialogues arenโt that refined, but whatโs on screen still remains profoundly affecting by the end, neatly tying the different parallel stories in a way that reads as emotionally intimate and genuinely earnest. Irvine is particularly good as Sunderland, though he may not be the โdefinitiveโ version of the character fans wanted to see, which could limit the emotional attachment to the protagonist.ย
Is it a bad thing that Gans takes so many liberties with the material to deliver his conception of the video game? To be honest, I donโt have the answer to this question, but his love of Silent Hill canโt be denied, and the aesthetic impulse he brings to his pictures canโt entirely be shunned. Considering that Emerald Fennell is about to desecrate Emily Brontรซโs Wuthering Heights, I can understand the frustrations from the fans who want to see their favorite game adapted on screen. However, there are a few auteurs who are as earnest in their image-making as is Gans, and the fact that heโs only made five films in his longstanding career feels a bit criminal.
For better or worse, Return to Silent Hill is Christophe Gansโ Megalopolis. Itโs filled with brain-melting imagery and unwieldy themes that are only somewhat developed. However, the sincerity behind it is so powerful that any perceived โflawโ I had didnโt matter by the time it reached its final scene and gave Sunderland a sense of peace and finitude that few protagonists who dared enter Silent Hill ever managed to haveโฆ
