This week on Women InSession, we discuss all the great, and not so great, adaptations of Wuthering Heights we’ve seen in film over the decades! Given the legacy of the material, it’s understandable why so many filmmakers are inspired to give their own spin, and it’s led to…mixed results. Some are really great. Others have left plenty to be desired. And with anther one on the horizon next year, we felt now was a good time to dig into what makes Wuthering Heights so appealing.
Panel: Kristin Battestella, Emily Malek (of the Adapt Me Podcast)
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!
Director: Jared Bush, Byron Howard Writer:Jared Bush Stars: Ginnifer Goodwin, Jason Bateman, Ke Huy Quan
Synopsis: Brave rabbit cop Judy Hopps and her friend, the fox Nick Wilde, team up again to crack a new case, the most perilous and intricate of their careers.
It’s easy to be cynical about what The Mouse has been offering as of late and is going to offer in the future for audiences (read: endless sequels, cash-grab remakes, and The Mandalorian and Grogu), but Zootopia 2, a second installment of a popular film seemingly released much later than expected, is genuine fun. It’s a vibrant, dazzlingly animated adventure that keeps moviegoers on their toes through intricately staged action sequences that retain immense emotional power throughout. Thus, it’s hard to have a more negative posture to the film when what’s on screen is simultaneously terrifically moving and bracingly exhilarating, something I haven’t felt from a Disney animated movie (outside of Pixar) since 2021’s Encanto, which was directed by the same duo of filmmakers that brought us this sequel.
Waiting nine years for the sequel to one of Disney’s most lucrative movies (an Oscar-winning one at that) seems like a massive gamble. Yet, Zootopia 2 is so much better than it has any right to be, especially after the nearly unwatchable “chopped and screwed” Moana 2, a planned television series hacked to bits to fill a feature runtime and make a billion dollars. Zootopia 2’s plot may not be as inspiring or inventive as the first. Still, there’s enough here to hold our attention, especially when what’s on screen consistently blows us away visually and isn’t afraid to delve deep into the connection (or lack thereof) between rabbit cop Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) and her sidekick, thief-turned-cop Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman).
After an incident on their last case leads them at odds with one another, the two must put their differences aside when they discover a conspiracy connected to their previous case, involving descendants of Zootopia’s founder, Ebenezer Lynxley, specifically its patriarch, Milton (David Strathairn), son Pawbert (Andy Samberg), and a mysterious snake only known as Gary De’Snake (Ke Huy Quan in his best post-Oscar win performance in a feature film, after two back-to-back duds with Love Hurts and The Electric State). It’s more thoughtful than expected, and much darker, too (though with its PG-rated limitations), unafraid to discuss themes of corruption in an actively meaningful way than most films that deem themselves “political” and say nothing of the current bleak times we live in.
That said, it’s harder to discuss some of the film’s broader developments without spoiling. However, what’s interesting about directors Byron Howard and Jared Bush’s approach to Zootopia 2 is how they elevate some of the more obvious plot threads with textured emotional urgency. The stakes feel tangible because the core relationship at the heart of the picture deepens in meaningful ways and never repeats what was established in the first. Of course, you get some obligatory cameos and references to the 2016 picture (it is, after all, par for the course for sequels), including one that left me a very sour taste in the mouth (and you’ll probably know which one, there’s no self-deprecating nature to this appearance). Yet, everything around these sections works amazingly well.
The animation is strikingly detailed and jaw-dropping on an IMAX screen. Specific action scenes, including a chase inside a never-ending water pipe, will take your breath away, as Howard and Bush move their camera (and characters) inside and outside the pipe, following its strong currents and stretching and squashing their characters in ways that harken back to the early days of animation as a pure artistic medium. The stakes feel genuine because we end up caring about the fractured relationship between the protagonists more than the revolving door of characters who appear to either guide Judy and Nick, or give them support, such as beaver podcaster Nibbles Maplestick (Fortune Feimster), who sadly doesn’t work.
Even the sense of alchemy between Judy and Gary feels wobbly, because the film doesn’t spend much time with the snake for the bulk of its runtime, preferring to make him an elusive figure who’s part of the mystery both Nick and Judy must solve, rather than an integral character until a reasonable hour into the movie. That said, the filmmakers compensate by expanding its emotional heft during the climax, where one actually fears for the animal’s lives in ways I didn’t expect coming from Disney, who once traumatized children but are now afraid to give them lasting PTSD (understandably so, but kids’ films used to have an edge we don’t get anymore, probably for legal reasons).
It helps that the already-solidified kinship between Judy and Nick is deeply human, and anyone can latch onto their differences, whether internal or external, regardless of whether they’re a younger or older viewer. Kids will undoubtedly appreciate some of the movie’s more physical (and visual) humor. They will likely be dazzled by its bevy of creative action, which consistently gives Zootopia 2 a pulse and finds its own rhythm within the literal and figurative labyrinthine plot it develops. Similarly, adults will enjoy a movie that never talks down to its child audience and understands they will be able to grasp some of its deeper themes on inclusion and accepting people’s individual differences.
In short, it’s a movie for everyone, and one that families will undoubtedly enjoy this Holiday weekend, far more than the dreary Wicked: For Good. The thing is, and most importantly, children’s movies must instill some form of wonder, awe, or at the very least tickle their imagination a bit. Wicked: For Good’s murky cinematography prevents the movie from defying gravity and filling the younger generation with images they’ll think about, or at the very least enjoy watching. Zootopia 2 is filled with one imaginative setpiece after another, even if some of its parts (and overstuffed ensemble) aren’t as refined as the first movie. With that being said, it doesn’t much matter when Bateman and Goodwin haven’t lost a step in their vocal turns as Wilde and Hopps, and Idris Elba is still a riot as Chief Bogo, although his presence here is more limited than in the prior installment.
The movie is also unafraid to make direct references to movies kids are far too young to be watching, complete with key musical patterns you do not expect to hear in a children’s film. The thing is, this is stuff adults love to see, while children will understand these references much later down the line, and perhaps develop an affinity for cinema with gateway films such as Zootopia 2, priming them for stuff that will either terrify them, blow their minds, or maybe both. With such a sincere gesture like the one found in Howard and Bush’s film, it’s hard to be cynical about a movie that wants us to feel like we’re kids again. I saw the vision, and I hope the third one won’t come out in nine years from now.
On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss Mary Bronstein’s incredible sophomore effort If I Had Legs I’d Kick You, starring a riveting Rose Byrne! Talk about one of the year’s best surprises. A film that wasn’t even on our radar at the beginning of the year, and not only is it powerful in its notions of parenthood and mental health, but it features a surprising Conan O’Brien and A$AP Rocky. A cast no one would have ever expected in a million years.
Review:If I Had Legs I’d Kick You
Director: Mary Bronstein Writers: Mary Bronstein Stars: Rose Byrne, Conan O’Brien, A$AP Rocky
Director: Dylan Southern Writer:Dylan Southern Stars: Benedict Cumberbatch, Henry Boxall, Richard Boxall
Synopsis: After a tragic loss, a grieving father tries to raise his young sons whilst dealing with an unlikely, unpredictable and uninvited houseguest.
Film is a good medium for tackling the complexities of grief. It’s a medium in which we can see the realities of the emotion and a manifestation of the agony of our characters. This can be many things, but is in many instances given personification, identity, and expression all its own. Grief often takes on the guise of birds, or bird creatures. There is something about the bird’s migratory nature and the fact that grief comes upon you out of the sky that easily evokes the metaphor of grief.
Yet, The Thing with Feathers uses not only a bird, but a sort of bird hybrid. At first Crow (voiced by David Thewlis) is shrouded in shadow and appears as a common crow, but as the other characters come to understand its presence in their lives and how it hurts in order to help, we see Crow more clearly. Rather than go the less cost effective, but maybe more movement effective, route of CGI, the filmmakers chose to have a physical costume and actor, Eric Lampaert, to portray this character.
Creature and prosthetics designer Conor O’ Sullivan and the special effects team created and brought to life a character unlike any other. Combine the technical with the physical performance of Lampaert and the sometimes comforting and sometimes menacing augmented voice of Thewlis and you almost wish this was just a film about Crow. The character is just a little less interesting than its physical form, though. Kind of like the majority of the film.
Films with unreliable focal characters are tough to pull off well. The idea of Dad’s (Benedict Cumberbatch) life falling apart is easy to understand. It’s easy to find an emotional way into empathizing with his and the Boys’ (Henry and Richard Boxall) grief. What gets complicated and muddled is their collective experience of their grief. The logical parts of our brains tend to fight against the inconsistencies and push against what we’re actually seeing. It’s very difficult to rectify that, especially as focal points of view shift within the film’s different segments.
One could argue that this is what grief amounts to, but we could also easily argue that narrative needs a more solid structure with which to stand on. Dylan Southern is not completely off base with either his script or his direction. There are scenes that are very good amongst the ho hum of the entire film. The sequence titled “The Boys” is probably the best example of his prowess. The psychology of the two boys is described in their own words over narration is sublime and a scene between the Boys and Crow is heartbreaking.
Crow gives them a false promise. He promises that the boy that can create the best representation of their dead mother will have his representation come to life for a day. The Boys work diligently. They create and think about their mother, using her things to try and manifest her the best they can. Then, as they finish, Crow tells them what they already know. He tells them there was no way to bring her back, she’s gone. The anger and sadness that erupts is primal and emotionally striking. It’s an excellent sequence that draws us in better than any of the scenes with Dad alone.
This scene and a handful of others makes you wish this had been a short instead of a feature. Even with a reasonable runtime, The Thing with Feathers feels like a drag. It wallows for so long without forward momentum it feels stuck. It makes us sit in discomfort with the film and the fact that the film says nothing new or revelatory about grief or the descent from grief into despair. There are moments of good filmmaking and storytelling, but it’s hard to balance that completely with the stagnation of the rest. It’s at best a pretty familiar dissection of grief and at worst a portrait of solipsistic wallowing.
On this episode, JD is joined by Erica Richards to discuss Jon M. Chu’s latest film Wicked: For Good! While we were mixed on last year’s Wicked (except for Erica, she is the biggest Wicked superfan in the world), we still held out hope for the sequel and that it would stick the landing. We may not have always agreed, but we did our best to have a thoughtful discourse on what works and what doesn’t in Wicked: For Good.
Review:Wicked: For Good
Director: Jon M. Chu Writers: Winnie Holzman, Dana Fox Stars: Ariana Grande, Cynthia Erivo, Jonathan Bailey
Joel Edgerton who plays Robert in Clint Bentley’s Train Dreams tried to option Denis Johnson’s novella he was so impressed by it. In a case of kismet Clint chose to ask Joel to play the man whose life is given extraordinary grace in the film. Joel talks about both the novella and the way the film connects with people.
Joel Edgerton: I first read the novella after making Boy Erased. I don’t know why, maybe because, Boy Erased was an adaptation, that when I read Train Dreams, I felt so engaged with the novella that I tried to get my hands on the rights to the book.
I say this somewhat jokingly, but 100 percent honestly, am so relieved that the rights were taken. Because I would’ve maybe tried to adapt the novella. It’s a very complicated book to try and adapt. I wasn’t sure whether it was really something I wanted to just act in or maybe I would try and direct a movie based on it. But the rights were taken, and I put it out of my mind.
Four or so years later, Clint asked me about being in the film and it felt almost too good to be true. Like, somehow, he knew that I loved this book. So, you know, I was really curious how he had adapted the novella. It was amazing. I thought his first film, Jockey, was extraordinary.
More than anything, he himself as a director had so many of the qualities that Robert has as a character in terms of the virtues of Robert, Clint is a very kind, open, generous, gentle person.
The reason that I think I was moved by the book is it conjures up as a novella the idea of a Western. Of that period in America. But it’s not a Western in the classic sense that we all know. The Clint Eastwood type Western, in which violence is very much in the foreground. And the story construction is often about violence or revenge or retribution. A fight of some kind.
In Train Dreams, you know, I discovered a Western that is thoughtful and meditative and philosophical and religious, almost, in terms of its exploration of the purpose of life, the meaning of life. Asking questions of why we’re here and what do we do with our time on earth, and what do our connections with other people mean. In that sense, the exploration of the dignity of the ordinary life that we don’t often see celebrated in cinema. ‘Cause we’re used to watching movies because somebody did something amazing or changed the world or saved the world.
Here’s Robert just living his life in a seemingly mundane way, but there’s something majestic about it. I think that it holds its place as a piece of cinema, because I truly believe that most people that are watching movies have ordinary lives, see themselves as quite ordinary. I think it’s great to hold up a mirror to that experience, even though we’re watching a logger and helping to build the railroads in a bygone era.
We can see something of ourselves in him because we know what love feels like and we know that we long for love, or we have family, or we long for that. And at some point, sadly in our lives, we’ll experience some kind of grief or loss if we’re part of the world. You know, if we’re part of a community or a family. And again, you know, I was surprised at how reflective that is. But for me, I thought, “Wow, this is so dignified.”
Yet all it is doing is following the track and the entire journey of one ordinary man’s life. I found it so moving and so personal, partly also knowing that, thankfully, because I didn’t get the rights in the book, that when Clint Bentley reached out to me, I’d just become a dad. I was in love, and I was a dad, and I was in love with my wife and I’m in love with my kids. I’m scared about what kind of a dad I’m gonna be and how work separates me from them. I realized my life had come to a point where I had way more similarities to the character than I had before.
Sometimes you go in with one expectation of why you want to do a project or play a character, and I think it’s really special sometimes that the film teaches you what it’s about in other ways for other people. And sometimes, that means, you know, speaking to an audience about their perception of it. You know. And what I found surprising about the film is that it’s far more connective to an audience that I expected. Like a modern audience.
I knew that it dealt with some very prevalent subjects: like the use and abuse of migrant workers, ideas about our connectivity to the environment, and our abuse of the world and how we harvest it without paying real attention to the future. Plus, the feelings we have about how quickly the world is moving in terms of new inventions in technology and how we worry about these things affecting our industry for the future and our careers.
And, you know, what is a steam donkey and a chainsaw to a logger is the same as what does AI mean to all of us in some ways. So, I think one surprise was how much audiences connected with some of these themes beyond the normal human universal aspects of love and family and loss.
I think once you hear someone’s story, you can’t help but imagine walking in those shoes that they’ve walked in. And that’s my job as an actor on one hand, but it’s also something I’m very curious about generally as a person.
It’s finally time to celebrate Christmas, New Year’s, Hanukkah, and Kwanzaa, to all those who celebrate one or all holidays. For us cinephiles, it’s when we get showered with all the major Oscar players coming out, as well as all the critics’ awards and major award nominations being released. Golden Globes and Critics’ Choice nominations are released, and the campaigns begin with everyone releasing their best-of lists of the year. As for Criterion, two re-releases, three new entries, and a collection of shorts from one of art’s most unique figures will be released for any Christmas shopping your friends and family can give to you.
His Girl Friday (1940)
Being re-released is among the greatest comedies of all time, let alone in its era. A remake of The Front Page, made just nine years earlier, this updated version from Howard Hawks is an all-timer with Cary Grant and Rosalind Russell as an ex-couple working for a newspaper covering a breaking story. She is about to go off with her new fiancé, but her ex-husband, the paper’s editor, still retains her for one more day on the job, and they max out the dialogue like a fast ping-pong match. It’s an impressive feat that jams it all in 92 minutes and doesn’t let up, making it an archetype of the screwball genre.
I Know Where I’m Going! (1945)
The second re-release has been a long time coming. The Archers, Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, directed this amazing romantic comedy of a headstrong woman (Wendy Hiller) who finds her personal plans disrupted by Scotland’s infamous windstorms, which put her on an island with a lonely navalman (Roger Livesey). Engaged to a wealthy businessman, she insists she knows what she wants and where, but fate changes all while trapped on the island. Having to shoot the film on black-and-white and on location, the duo created this dreamy story that was about simplicity instead of riches in the middle of a country’s darkest period.
Pee-wee’s Big Adventure (1985)
The late Paul Reubens made his name with his famous alter ego, the bowtie-wearing manboy, an oddball who embarks on a journey to retrieve his stolen bicycle. This film, co-written by SNL legend Phil Hartman, was reportedly influenced by his experiences with smoking weed; watch the two-part documentary on Reuben’s life, and he confirms this. With Tim Burton at the helm before his big hits in Beetlejuice and Batman, this movie made this character a staple of 1980s pop culture.
Salaam Bombay! (1988)
Indian director Mira Nair, whose mainstream hits include Monsoon Wedding and Queen of Katwe, went from documentary to narrative storytelling with this neo-realist portrayal of the slums of Bombay. After being left out by his family, a boy has to gather money to return home, but encounters the hard life that other street children deal with. Unflinching in showing how prostitution, trafficking, and drugs reign over the area, Nair used real-life street children and shot on location to give audiences the real-life feel of the extreme poverty that remains even today in India.
David Byrne’s American Utopia (2020)
From Spike Lee, this concert film features the Talking Heads’ frontman and his adaptation of his album, mixing past and present songs, while incorporating themes of isolation and fractured connections in a changing era. With his ensemble of musicians and dancers, all dressed in matching suits like Byrne’s famous big suit forty years earlier, the performances bring out the exhilaration from Byrne’s call to remain positive amongst the negativity in the world. Thanks to Lee’s camera, the film captures the technological advances on stage – wireless audio and real-time tracking – with the burst of energy in every movement given by Bryne and his crew.
Return To Reason: Four Films By Man Ray
Legendary surrealist artist Man Ray dabbled in cinema in the 1920s with four short films: Le retour à la raison, Emak bakia, L’étoile de mer, and Les mystères du château du dé. As with other surrealist artists, his visuals are meant to shock and distort our perceptions, especially in that period when the genre was at its highest. This remastering includes a new score by director Jim Jarmusch and musician Carter Logan, known together as the band SQÜRL, which will create an even more in-depth tone to what Ray made in his work.
Director: Jalmari Helander Writer:Jalmari Helander Stars: Jorma Tommila, Stephen Lang, Richard Brake
Synopsis: A man returns to dismantle his family’s house, where they were murdered in war, to rebuild it elsewhere. When the killer, a Red Army commander, tracks him down, a brutal cross-country pursuit begins.
Sisu: Road to Revenge is the kind of breathless action-film experience that prides itself on finding new ways to create so much carnage, you’ll need a shower afterwards to rid yourself of the overwrought blood and guts that you’ll be showered with over 89 minutes. The film is bloody, gory, and darkly comic. The experience is pure white-knuckle ferocity, oozing jaw-dropping action and set pieces that give the audience what they ravenously crave.
Of course, it helps when you have a hair-raising, exhilarating performance from Jorma Tommila, who brings so much brooding, simmering intensity, with very little dialogue, that it feels like a slow, smoldering burn radiating tension and surprising emotional depth. You just wish director and writer Jalmari Helander knew how to rein in their ambition a bit, especially now that they have double the budget to work with.
The last time we saw legendary Finnish soldier Aatami Korpi (Tommila), he was cleaning a large combat knife with a Nazi’s severed head and using the ones that remained as target practice with live mines while fighting his way through the blazing northern Finnish plains occupied by dozens of Hitler’s regiments. However, as we soon find out, money isn’t everything. Korpi wants to bring his home back to Karelia, a no man’s land located between Finland and northern Russia, where his family was murdered.
This is his home, so he dismantles each piece of wood himself, carefully loads them onto a large truck, and plans to relocate the lumber to his hometown. However, there is one problem, since Germany wants revenge on the man who just won’t die. So they let loose a killer even more ruthless than himself. That would be Igo Draganov (legendary character actor Stephen Lang), a Soviet Red Army officer who was the trigger for Aatami’s bloody walk that will live in infamy.
If Draganov catches Korpi and apprehends him, handing him over to German control, they will let him go and finance his freedom. Not a bad deal, considering he has been stuck rotting in Hitler’s wet-dream of a prison for years. So he grabs soldiers, Kradschützen (motorcycle riflemen), Bomberfliegers (bomber pilots), cluster bombs from a Heinkel He 111, machine guns, smoking bullets, sharp knives and blunt ones, not to mention a missile on a train that gets lit up like a Christmas tree.
Sisu: Road to Revengeis bloody fun, with some eye-popping action set pieces that offer howling thrills. Yes, most of the scenes are ridiculous, but they are so surprising in their execution that it hardly matters. (In particular, the scene where he manages to avoid a kamikaze-style attack had me laughing so hard I began choking on my popcorn.) Keep in mind, this is all happening with his adorable Bedlington Terrier at his side. The scenes are adrenaline-fueled armrest-grabbers that hit you viscerally like a hammer.
These are accomplished in a myriad of ways. The breathtaking dive-bomb scenes are majestic, including shots of fighters flying sideways to avoid tall, thin Scots pines. It even includes an homage to the truck scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark.. Helander also knows how to build suspense, with a terrific scene where the main character tries to tiptoe his bloody and bruised body through multiple train cars filled with sleepy German soldiers.
That is also where the film begins to falter. As with the original Sisu, the movie goes too far, just as it did with the plane crash scene, when Tommila’s Aatami and Lang’s Igo come to their final blows. The scenes become almost grotesque, to the point where Helander needs to learn how to rein himself in. The sequel offers too much of a good thing. While still enjoyable, the gory self-indulgence comes close to ruining the picture, but there’s enough there to provide a mild recommendation.
You can watch Sisu: Road to Revenge only in theaters starting November 21st!
On this episode of Chasing the Gold, Shadan and Erica discuss Wicked: For Good, Frankenstein and the impact those films will have on the Crafts categories! There’s already been a lot of debate as to what those two movies offer outside of the crafts, but there’s no doubt they will dominate in that arena. So we wanted to break down the crafts and where we see things going for those categories.
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:Jon M. Chu Writer:Winnie Holzman, Dana Fox, Stephen Schwartz Stars: Cynthia Erivo, Ariana Grande, Jeff Goldblum
Synopsis: Elphaba, the future Wicked Witch of the West and her relationship with Glinda, the Good Witch of the North. The second of a two-part feature film adaptation of the Broadway musical.
The hope would be that Wicked: For Good, the sequel to last year’s all-encompassing grand spectacle, would not only maintain the intoxicating blend of old-Hollywood grandeur and modern special effects but also strengthen the script rather than detract from it. In other words, could the movie stand on its own or, for that matter, separate itself from the film that was nominated for ten Academy Awards, including Best Picture?
Wicked: For Good has a reason to exist, but it is a movie that is incredibly dependent on two things. First, whether you are a fan of the intellectual property, which almost certainly means you are a fan of The Wizard of Oz and unfazed by its revisionist reimagining. Second, you would absolutely benefit from rewatching Wicked, because without doing so, the sequel feels like an appendage sliced off from the original, relying heavily on your connection to and enjoyment of the characters’ origins.
The answer, however, falls somewhere in between because the sequel depends heavily on your familiarity. You must love the Oz universe, and a recent rewatch of Wicked – Part 1, or the movie cannot differentiate itself. Though the performances from the two leads and the easter eggs planted throughout for the built-in audience ultimately make the film a satisfying, if flawed, conclusion.
The last time we saw Elphaba Thropp (Cynthia Erivo), aka the Wicked Witch of the West, she was delivering the show-stopping number “Defying Gravity,” giving audiences the goosebumps they deserve. She escapes the city’s guards, leaving her best friend, Glinda, behind, now under the mentorship of the awful Madame Morrible (Michelle Yeoh), who has her claws in the Wizard (the incomparable Jeff Goldblum). And of course, you also have the handsome and dashing Fiyero (Jurassic World Rebirth’s Jonathan Bailey) sprinting out of Shiz on horseback.
From there, the movie takes on a political slant I would almost call a bent, with Glinda using her popularity to become the “Good Witch” of Oz. Now engaged to Fiyero, who has apparently returned to town, she rises in influence while Elphaba continues her quest for animal rights in Oz. Meanwhile, Elphaba is forced into hiding as the corrupt leaders attempt to stage the wedding of a lifetime, using it as political propaganda to convince the citizens they should follow the shining beacon of light that is Glinda.
From there, most of the movie focuses on keeping Glinda and Fiyero together. At the same time, the latter continues trying to locate the “evil” witch, the cinematic equivalent of an adolescent boy pulling a girl’s pigtails because he likes her. The other subplot centers on Elphaba’s sister, Nessarose (Marissa Bode), now the Governor of Munchkinland, who is determined to keep Boq (Lost on a Mountain in Maine’s Ethan Slater), her servant, firmly within her grasp. She has become so codependent on the young man that she even passes laws preventing any of the Munchkins from leaving the city’s gates.
Director Jon M. Chu (Crazy Rich Asians, In the Heights) is back for the conclusion, working with another screenplay from Winnie Holzman, who wrote the smash stage original, and Dana Fox (Cruella), working from the source material from Gregory Maquire. The movie is, again, heavily dependent on your love for the original story and last year’s film. Some of the surprises, such as how certain beloved characters come to be, are a mixed bag. On one hand, the unveiling of the Tin Man is one of the movie’s best moments, as is the Scarecrow’s revelation.
On the other hand, the script undercuts what could have been a genuinely meaningful moment, glossing over the buildup and losing an emotional beat. That is directly connected to the significant number where Erivo and Bailey belt out “As Long as You’re Mine.” The two genuinely lack heat and passion, as evidenced by his later attempt to save the day. Then there is the problem of Michelle Yeoh, who does what she can with a thin villain role but is detached from the material, as if she is not in the moment. At the same time, Jeff Goldblum needed more screen time.
Much of the supporting comic relief from the first film is tossed aside after the opening scene, which is a shame. In addition, the animals, while central to the plot, take a back seat, even though they added so much color and flair in the previous installment. However, there are some performances that stand out, including Slater’s Boq, who represents the marginalized group in the film, underscoring the authoritarian theme. It is his rebellious turn that will stay in the viewer’s memory and what it represents.
While Erivo owns the first film and sets such a high standard, the film lacks a true showstopping number, even with “No Good Deed.” Whereas Grande continues her knack for comic delivery while also finding poignant moments, particularly in “I’m Not That Girl (Reprise)” and “Wonderful.” Grande is sensational in the role here, hilarious and very moving. The chemistry between the two is undeniable, leading to satisfying winks and callbacks that make the experience fun and balance out those meaningful beats.
Which is why Wicked: For Good is worth watching, because despite its flaws, the film is an incredibly immersive experience, especially for fans of the genre, the first film, or the source material. While there are plenty of issues, the movie is an extension of the first, closing the narrative loop in an emotionally resonant fashion. Yet, since the film fails to build on the powerful theme of how society stigmatizes specific populations in this second chapter, it ultimately lacks the thematic weight core audiences deserve.
You can watch Wicked: For Good only in theaters starting November 21st.
This week on Women InSession, we discuss the legendary Olivia de Havilland and her remarkable 1949 film The Heiress! It’s an astounding film that we really love and Havilland has never been better in her Oscar-winning role. There’s so much to discuss and we have the best time delving into what makes this film so special.
Panel: Kristin Battestella, Amy Thomasson, Jaylan Salah
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!
On this episode, Megan Kearns and Lane Mills discuss Dan Trachtenberg’s latest film in Predator: Badlands! This franchise has been quite interesting in the last few years since Trachtenberg started spearheading it in a new direction. Perhaps old-school purists will find Predator: Badlands too tame, but there’s also an argument that it’s the best Predator film to date. Either way, there’s a lot to talk about here and we have a great time delving into this one.
Review:Predator: Badlands
Director: Dan Trachtenberg Writers: Patrick Aison Stars: Elle Fanning, Dimitrius Schuster-Koloamatangi
Director:Byung Sung-hyun Writers:Byung Sung-hyun, Lee Jin-seong Stars: Sul Kyung-gu, Hong Kyung, Sho Kasamatsu
Synopsis: In 1970, a communist group in Japan hijacks a passenger plane and diverts it to Pyongyang, North Korea. A mysterious fixer called “Nobody” – whose name and background remain unknown – devises a covert operation under the order of Park Sang-hyeon, Director of the Korean Central Intelligence Agency, to bring the plane to a safe landing at all costs. Seo Go-myung, an elite Air Force lieutenant, is unwittingly pulled into the mission and faces the unthinkable task: outsmart the hijackers onboard and double hijack the plane from the ground. With everything at stake, can this daring mission succeed?
Byung Sung-hyun’s Good News is a difficult film to describe, as it expands upon the relatively simple premise of the hijacking of a plane and turns into an insane genre blender over the course of its 136 minutes. It doesn’t always work, but Sung-hyun’s cogency in his messaging is much braver than the bevy of Hollywood films that masquerade as political thrillers with little to no backbone nowadays. It starts out as a historical drama tracking the events that led up to the hijacking, but becomes a completely different object by the time Sung-hyun begins developing his central characters at the heart of the picture – a mysterious figure known as “Nobody” (Sul Kyung-gu) and Air Force lieutenant Seo Go-myung (Hong Kyung) – who are trying to find a solution to get the hostages out of the airplane safely.
The film is a mordantly funny excavation of gubernatorial incompetence as they attempt, by any means necessary, to bring the plane down with no casualties, and everyone gets put through the wringer. Sung-hyun spares no prisoners, from the figures who scramble a plan in fooling the terrorists hijacking the plane that they’ve landed in Pyongyang, North Korea, to the terrorists themselves who haven’t even learned the basics of “Hijacking 101” before doing so. Everyone is ridiculed, even you, the viewer, for your attempts in wanting to sympathize with these self-centered idiots who will only perform actions if it benefits them – and them only. If saving as many hostages as possible will improve their own gains, then that’s what it will be. If letting them die is more convenient, they won’t hesitate.
At times, it’s darkly funny and never lets up on its visual juxtapositions of incompetent people paralleled by even more incompetent people. In other sections, the movie sags and seems to exhaust rather than enthrall. Sung-hyun divides his story into five chapters, each of varying quality. The first three are probably the strongest, though the sections in between prime the audience that the film will run out of steam and go around in circles. For instance, there’s a tribute to Sergio Leone’s The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly near its midsection, which, while well-intentioned, is terribly misplaced.
Characters also suffer at the brunt of a relentless desire to make audiences laugh as much as possible, especially in its back half, where a revolving door of people are introduced and quickly disappear, making the narrative feel more convoluted than meaningful. Still, Sung-hyun’s eye can’t be overstated. With the aid of cinematographer Jo Hyoung-rae, he crafts images of real kinetic power, especially during sequences of high-spirited tension. The camera spins in a thousand different directions, and always responds to the energy the performers bring to the movie, especially Kyung-gu, whose latest collaboration with Sung-hyun may be his best yet.
The mystery shrouding “Nobody” may be the film’s central plot point, which unfolds in unexpected ways by the time it reaches a sobering conclusion, with a better use of the song “Blue Moon” than Richard Linklater’s film of the same name. Revealing how it’s employed would rob you of the realization Sung-hyun illustrates at the end of his picture. Yet, his ability to convey his message so intelligently and clearly, even with such a scattershot narrative, is honestly the most commendable aspect of Good News.
It may not reinvent the wheel of Korean cinema, but it’s certainly an amusing affair that, if you’re willing to surrender yourself to Sung-hyun’s madness for almost two and a half hours, you may find something of note in it. Cinema should be playful and inventive, which Sung-hyun reminds us of for a sizable chunk of Good News’ runtime. If only more filmmakers with a backbone in our neck of the woods could take notes…
In Guillermo Del Toro’s Frankenstein the “mad scientist” Victor is played by an impassioned Oscar Isaac as a man who refuses to recognize boundaries. Not only the boundary between death and life, but he also pursues Elizabeth (Mia Goth), his brother’s betrothed. He is, as Lady Caroline Lamb described George Gordon, Lord Byron, “Mad, bad, and dangerous to know.” Victor Frankenstein desires to topple “God” and fashion a new Adam regardless of questions of morality. For Victor Frankenstein, libertine, the world is not enough.
Nadine Whitney spoke to Oscar Isaac about Frankenstein’s libertine desires both as a scientist and a man.
Nadine Whitney: You played an absolute rock star version of Victor Frankenstein. Also, not the most ethically sound version of the character in both his professional and personal dealings. Did you think of people like Lord Byron when you were creating your Frankenstein?
Oscar Isaac: Absolutely. Guillermo and I very much talked about this kind of Byronic quality to him. This vitalist, essentialist, man—one of the iconoclasts of the time. The Romantics were the punk rock generation of that time. Social defiance being a really strong spirit: overly emotional and overly expressive and you know, just like a real “fuck you” to the establishment of the time.
I think that’s something that we really leaned into. And I think for me as well, ethically, you know, he’s a bit like the Marquis de Sade as well. He finds pleasure outside of the constraints of morality. And it has a nihilistic kind of bent to it. It is a godless world, and it is one where pain and pleasure are one and the same. You know, the thing is, Victor is an island. I mean, they’re all little islands, right? And he doesn’t see Elizabeth. He sees, very literally, his mother. Whether they looked alike is probably not true. It’s Victor’s imagination, but, you know, that’s who he sees. He just sees something that he wants, and something that he desires. He wants the validation from Elizabeth more than anything. If she said, “I love you,” I don’t think he’d know what to do with that. I think he’d probably run away.
It’s just desire. Desire. Desire. Desire. Just wanting more. He’s like the ghost from Spirited Away, you know, the No-Face. It just wants to eat and eat and eat. It was always very interesting to find that. And Guillermo was really open for us experimenting. I mean, we did so many different versions. There’s that one scene, the confrontation when I’m in the robe waiting for Elizabeth when she comes out. And that scene used to be like, up the stairs. Mia and I tried doing it up the stairs, and it turned into like this crazy Cassavetes type thing that Guillermo was like, “This is not the right movie.” And then we figured it out. But, you know, he allowed us to be quite experimental to find that tension.
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, inspired by Wicked: For Good coming to theaters, we discuss our favorite musical duets in film! Plus, a really fun Stingray update from JD and some brief thoughts on the trailer for the “live-action” Moana.
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!
– Opening Banter / JD’s Latest Stingray Story (4:12) After some opening banter, we begin the show this week with one of the most random, but admittedly really fun, conversations we’ve had on the show in some time. There was one track that JD heard last week on Stingray Movie Music that sent him down a rabbit hole and it led to an unexpected epiphany about a movie most of us have forgotten.
– “Live-Action” Moana (31:24) While we’ve had the “Hollywood is bleak” conversation several times on the show before, it felt necessary to bring it back after Disney revealed its teaser trailer for next year’s live-action Moana, a film that not only looks like another shot-for-shot remake, but even worse looks like it was made by an AI slop machine. If this is the future of Hollywood, it’s going to get real bad real soon.
– Top 5 Musical Duets in Film (51:08) As noted above, with Wicked: For Good hitting theaters this weekend, we thought it would be fun to talk about our favorite musical duets in film as the duets in Wicked are undeniable. Admittedly, however, this was a challenging topic to decipher. Obviously there are some extraordinary duets in film, but it’s not as dense of a subject as we normally consider. Regardless, we still had a lot of fun with this conversation and we hope you enjoy it as well. With that said, what would be your Top 5 musical duets in film?
Glen Powell stars in Paramount Pictures’ “THE RUNNING MAN.”
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!
Director:Mark Jenkin Writer:Mark Jenkin Stars: George MacKay, Callum Turner
Synopsis:A mysterious boat returns to a village 30 years after vanishing. Two men join its crew hoping for better fortune. After one voyage, they find themselves transported back in time, mistaken for the original crew.
The lives of Mark Jenkin’s main men in his new film Rose of Nevada have yet to turn on their heads when Nick (George MacKay) climbs to the top of his home for a look at a dip in the roofing, one that is causing a distressing trickle of water to enter his kitchen uninvited. Of course, if we know anything about the repeatedly-donned “singular Cornish filmmaker,” it’s only a matter of time before that occurs. And indeed, the mind-warp begins in short order, not long after Nick plummets through said roofing and into his extremely humble abode bringing buckets of dirty rainwater and sopping drywall with him. It might actually occur right then and there, as the fall theoretically grounds Nick from up above to floor-level, though it certainly represents the transportation from one realm to another, quite fitting for what Jenkin has in store with his seventh feature. Named for the fishing boat at its core, it’s nothing if not the sort of magisterial, slippery oddity that the auteur has become regarded for, especially in his last three, most widely seen films. It’s one of the best films of the year, nevermind the fact that understanding its logic is an undertaking unto itself.
Yet it would be far less exquisite – and far less Jenkin-ish – were that not the case, and as he did with both 2019’s Bait and 2022’s Enys Men, he’s made a film that feels both wholly indebted to its sense of place and to its maker’s technical prowess. As he’s wont to do, Jenkin not only directed and wrote Rose of Nevada, but shot (on astonishing 16mm film in a wind-up Bolex), edited, co-mixed, and composed the film, and the fingerprints of a major visual artist riddle every frame with the severity of a Cornish mackerel’s stench clouding the room. Here, that’s a positive; in a home like Nick’s or a temporary resting place like the many that Liam (Callum Turner) tends to call home before currying favor with the captain of the aforementioned boat, to which Nick has also been assigned for the season, it might cause harm to nasal cavities. Plenty unfolds before two of the internet’s foremost English boyfriends – a fascinating twosome to appear in a Jenkin picture that hopefully leads to promising ticket returns if not outright raves once the film is released – meet up, yet what makes Jenkin’s work so special is how little one can truly say about what actually happens in it aside from repeating the film’s logline. One cause is how much individual interpretation each tale requires; another is the fact that spoiling anything would ruin the experience wholesale.
The rub is thus: Our devilishly handsome duo are boarding a vessel that, prior to its return to their local harbor, had been missing at sea for 30 years. How it managed to come back is known to few if none, but work is work, and these boys need it. After their first voyage, they discover that they’ve traveled back to 1993, a new reality in which the town is abuzz with foaming-at-the-mouth fishermen (policed and directed to their posts by the Jenkin regular Edward Rowe) and the people we once recognized now feel like strangers. Nick finds it all rather frightening – his wife and daughter are no longer where he last left them – while Liam deems it a fresh start. Their juxtaposed responses to what is a resoundingly baffling discovery propels the narrative forward (er, backward?) as time continues to bend, lives are forever altered, and memory is all that remains. Their skipper (Francis Magee) has no name, but also has a few, and routinely calls out “Home to Mother!” when the day is done. But what is now home, and who is now mother? It’s a peculiar test for our leading men, and one they take in strides that vary in length and in confidence.
Not only is Jenkin a master when it comes to making films of a unique sheen and energy, those with popping colors and grainy visions and sound that appears to be coming from a bedside radio, but that his stars aren’t distracting presences as a cause of their rising respective celebrities proves that he’s one hell of a director of actors, too. In the aftermath of Sam Mendes’ 1917, MacKay has found a niche in independent film, one where he can simultaneously serve as a proper leading man and as a chameleonic figure whose handsomeness is less distracting than it is curious. Turner, meanwhile, is sizzling both on and off the cinematic court – he is commonly referred to as “Mr. Dua Lipa,” a nod to his pop star partner – but transcends that appeal by becoming a dark, untrustworthy figure in Rose of Nevada that draws you in with his eyes just close enough in order for him to take a vampiric bite out of your neck. Both actors have rarely been better; that such elevated performances have come in a film by a director who has and will never require recognizable faces to make his movies worthwhile is nothing short of a big fat treat.
Mainstream audiences are bound to wish the pair appeared in a more conventional version of Rose of Nevada, one that played out like a straight-down-the-middle time travel mystery with a layer of darkness hanging over the proceedings. Which is a simpler way of noting that Jenkin is disinterested in making films for “multiplexes,” as it were. He’s not the sort of director that is bound to be considered as an option for a live-action Disney remake, nor is one who would bother considering them himself. In the same way that those remakes are often stripped of the zeal the original quantities possessed, a non-Jenkin iteration of Rose of Nevada would almost certainly lack its enigmatic nature, not to mention the unparalleled “touch” that he has already managed to make identifiable. When you see a film by Mark Jenkin, you know it’s his. Rose of Nevada is one, no mistake about it. It just happens to be operating at another level while retaining singularity through and through.
Rose of Nevada screened in the Main Slate at the 63rd New York Film Festival. 1-2 Special will release it in theaters next year.
Director:Angus Wall Stars: Eddie Murphy, Dave Chappelle, Jerry Seinfeld
Synopsis: Follows a comprehensive look at Eddie Murphy’s life and career.
I watched so many things in my youth. I was a latchkey kid so when I would come home from school I would do my homework, get some food, and sit in front of the TV. I took in just about everything that I was watching whether it was a movie, a TV show, etc. Comedy movies brought me so much happiness because laughter was the best medicine for any illness that you could have. Eddie Murphy was a staple in my household. My mom would tell me about his time on SNL and his first movie roles (48 Hours, Trading Places). As I grew up, I would watch his movies on cable tv and soak everything in like a sponge. The jokes were funny, the actors and actresses were sights to see, and the music compositions would always have my ears perked up with excitement. In Being Eddie we go down memory lane of Eddie’s time as a stand up comedian, his time on SNL, his movies, and even his personal life. These are pretty standard things that celebrities touch on in their documentaries but not all of them have had a more interesting and complex life as the one and only Eddie Murphy.
The documentary features some things about Eddie and his family that I didn’t know that much about. I didn’t know that his stepfather Vernon Lynch was a boxer. As this part of the documentary was playing I had one of those lightbulb moments. I said out loud, “Well that’s why he looked so natural playing a boxer in the movie, I Spy.” It’s satisfying when you get those unknown nuggets of information while watching a documentary. Eddie said that whenever he would get in trouble his punishment wouldn’t be a whooping. His punishment would be his TV getting taken away. I felt that so much because, unfortunately, TV was like a third parent to me. It wasn’t an uncommon thing to a child of the ‘90s/early ‘00s and having a parent that worked nights. Eddie’s rise to stardom was steady and mesmerizing to the normal person just living life. He only had a Plan A. I’ve always admired people that only have one plan in life and nothing else to fall back on. They are usually the ones that work SUPER hard so that things will work out. I’m more of a Plan B, maybe a Plan C type of guy.
Admittedly, I was coasting on a happy high while watching the documentary. Seeing Eddie spend time with his family, tell random jokes, and being honest about his early days in Hollywood was so rewarding. A lot of people don’t know how much he’s really done for the Black community, especially in the early days. He reached heights in his career that many of us could only dream of. He wasn’t afraid to put his family and friends in positions to better themselves and their own families. One of those main people was his big brother, Charlie Murphy. Their relationship was one of one. All that Charlie wanted to do was make sure that his brother was taken care of and happy. He started out doing security for Eddie. Years after, he began to collaborate with Eddie on screenplays. If you go through their IMDb pages you will see how much they accomplished together. Steel sharpens steel and the Murphy brothers crafted their own Hatori Hanso swords. Charlie passed away from leukemia in 2017. His death hit the world very hard but I cannot imagine how his family felt, especially Eddie. Charlie recorded a lot of interviews with the Chappelle’s Show crew and they implemented them in this documentary. It really felt like Charlie was still here and I hope that they know that that was truly a job well done on their part. There were a few things in the documentary that I think should’ve been discussed but these were sore subjects for him. Maybe he didn’t want to cast any negativity on what is supposed to be a positive thing for us to watch.
Seeing Eddie’s peers in the industry be so open about him and the impact he’s had on their lives and careers was so endearing. Everyone wants to be some sort of inspiration or a leader in a person’s life. Eddie has done both things and more for his family, his peers and his supporters. What other actor has played multiple characters in a lot of their movies and sat long hours in the makeup chair? Eddie Murphy. What other SNL alum hosted their own episode and left the whole world wanting more from them? Eddie Murphy is number one on that list. His upcoming projects include a George Clinton biopic and a Pink Panther reboot. Both of these projects sound like crowd pleasers and possibly award-winning. We’ll have to wait and see if these projects stick like hot grits or if they fall to the wayside like a bowl of spilled cereal.
Guillermo del Toro’s Mount Everest has been Frankenstein since he was a child. As a filmmaker, references to Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel can be found in Cronos, Mimic, The Shape of Water, and The Devil’s Backbone.
Nadine Whitney speaks to Guillermo del Toro about the combination of science and capitalism and the Industrial Age in Frankenstein.
Nadine Whitney: Guillermo, I’ve been rewatching your filmography and you mention Frankenstein in many interviews. The novel is always there in your mind and references.
Even in Mimic there’s an aspect of Frankenstein. Can you tell me a little bit why you’ve moved the period up slightly from the Regency to the Victorian era?
Guillermo Del Toro: In Mimic, they call it “your little Frankenstein” about the Judas bug. But look, for me, I spent a little over a month just determining where and when a movie happens, you know? It’s a big difference if you move it a couple of years later or earlier. The Crimean War obviously is one of the reasons because one of the questions I want to ask is how many times a sort of altruistic pursuit is financed by death. And thematically, death and life are so linked. Victor has no problem getting money. He says he’s working for life, but he gets money from a merchant of death. And he treats the dead with absolute disrespect, just throwing what is spare parts for him out into a lake. He doesn’t consider anything human in his quest for life. He ignores life while looking for life. That’s an aspect thematically that needed the war.
The war is also important to the Romantic movement because it was framed by the Napoleonic Wars. And I wanted to bring it into the fray of telling the story. The second aspect is moving it forward for the technology. I wanted photography. I wanted photography to be sort of a very expensive hobby that only a few were doing, and they were doing it for reasons that were documenting something, doing an artistic painting with photography.
But also, the steam engine, the fuel engine was experimental at this point. If I move it another seven years, the French launch the first fuel commercial engine properly, and I needed it to be at least close to that. And finally, some of the science that is a little behind what I would like it. I would like to talk about sepsis and Dr. Lister, but it’s too early. I really moved it as close to that as I could. But it’s a very studied and very deliberate reason behind it.
Nadine Whitney: And also, you get to dress Elizabeth in amazing mid-century fashion, you have her look like a Pre-Raphaelite model.
Guillermo Del Toro: The costumes are much better in 1850 than in 1818. [laughs]
Director:Mike Newell Writers:Steve Kloves, J.K. Rowling Stars: Daniel Radcliffe, Ralph Fiennes, Robert Pattinson
Synopsis: Harry Potter finds himself competing in a hazardous tournament between rival schools of magic, but he is distracted by recurring nightmares.
Just about anything went on the 2005 franchise blockbuster scene, at least in comparison to the greyscale, one-note output that defines that very same genre in a general sense today. By that point in cinematic history, both the Harry Potter movies and, more broadly, big fantasy films had found their footing.
The Lord of the Rings had just recently wrapped things up with the awards-dominant The Return of the King and, for the Wizarding World specifically, Prisoner of Azkaban had just set a new standard for that specific franchise’s movies going forward. When Goblet of Fire flew onto the scene, despite it still being mostly liked, some folks just didn’t know what to do with it.
On the heels of the aforementioned, uber-successful and terribly loved threequel, director Mike Newell came out swinging with the fourth Harry Potter entry in the weirdest ways imaginable. In addition to (apparently) asking to burn down the Forbidden Forest entirely, which wasn’t allowed, Newell did manage to make the entire thing feel like an awkward coming-of-age high school movie. Only, he packed his telling with tangled long hair, the ever-expected magic, gorgeous silhouetted frames and triple the angst of the previous three movies.
Sure, the “HP” movies had been dramatic up to this point, but Goblet of Fire worked to cut a little deeper than any of the efforts had before. Not only is the beloved Death Eater angle introduced, in which a main character’s father is working for Voldemort, but you get multiple full looks at Voldemort himself for the first time, and Newell wastes no time introducing him.
From his shadowed presence as a sort of evil, finger-pointing baby to his slimy rebirth in the film’s stunning final act, Ralph Fiennes’ legendary portrayal was born in a light that only this movie could properly portray. Between all the teenagers yelling at one another and the peculiarly dangerous wizarding games at the core of this thing, Voldemort being the villainous through line works marvelously to set it apart.
It also helps that all the kids – including the momentarily added Robert Pattinson as Cedric Diggory – are working through interpersonal conflicts whilst simultaneously competing in the previously mentioned Triwizard Tournament, and while the life-threatening nature of the games is a bit hard to buy into at times, seeing Harry duel a dragon as it scales the castle of Hogwarts is the sort of blockbuster spectacle often missing from these kinds of movies now. And it looks magnificent, to boot, as does the entirety of Goblet of Fire.
The entire movie is painted in a hazy blue sheen, reminiscent of the eerie fire that outlines the film’s titular cup as students unwittingly submit themselves to the school’s competitive tournament. It all looks so somber, contrasted nicely with Azkaban’s warmer palette and suited to the stauncher, more mature emotions that accompany this entry in its waning moments. This one might not be as consistently refined asthe movie before it, but, in spurts, Goblet of Fire is as good as any of the Harry Potter movies can be. The multi-faceted introduction of Voldemort alone makes this one worth returning to on a regular basis, but when you also take into account that a child is turned into a ferret and thrown around with invisible magic in the middle of the school’s courtyard? It’s exactly the type of manic, fantastical adventure that commits to a silly premise and dies by it, all the same. An underrated submission into the cinematic Harry Potter canon, no doubt, and a thrilling one-off experience from a director who took a swing in multiple manners.
On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss Richard Linklater’s new film about the French New Wave in Nouvelle Vague! We love Linklater and there’s something about how this film invokes his patented hangout vibes while on the set of Breathless that one of us did find interesting, even if in a superficial way. Nouvelle Vague is certainly going to be one of Linklater’s most polarizing films.
Review:Nouvelle Vague
Director: Richard Linklater Writers: Holly Gent, Vincent Palmo Stars: Guillaume Marbeck, Zoey Deutch, Aubry Dullin
