Director: Tony Gilroy Writer: Tony Gilroy Stars: Pedro Pascal, Olivia Wilde, Eva Victor, Will Arnett
Synopsis: Gifted cellist Alex Serian returns home to Los Angeles after 20 years on the road. Music, which has been the constant, all-consuming river of his life, begins to carry Alex on an adventure that will change him forever.
Alex Serian is a tough nut to crack. He’s a world class cellist, that we know. He seems to do pretty well with the ladies – he’s played by Pedro Pascal, so it’s not hard to solve that puzzle – but only to a point, rarely (if ever) allowing them to broach relationship territory. He has a mother who old friends ask about in the way you would ask about an ailing relative, offering a “How is she?” plus a head tilt and a hesitant tone, using but a few words in the hopes that you’ll learn something new and foundational. There’s a brother in the picture, too, but that seems complicated. In fact, it all seems to be complicated beyond the fact that he’s reasonably friendly and revered by his peers. For Alex, the lights are on, and someone is certainly home, but the curtains are drawn; you can see shadows moving about, but much is left to the imagination.
This is the aura of a calculated man, not in a menacing sense, but in the way that certain people mold themselves to operate on the defensive. One might say, as Pascal himself did when describing the main character of Tony Gilroy’s Behemoth! during a press conference following the film’s first “public” unveiling, that Alex is a “passenger [in] his life.” Things happen to him, but he lacks the emotional understanding of himself that would be necessary to fully process them. When the woman he’s sleeping with (Olivia Wilde’s Carol, who also happens to be an Angel donor to the Chicago Symphony Orchestra in which he is first chair) attempts to chase him down upon learning that he plans to leave his post, all he can think to do is run from her clicking heels. When he sees his brother (Will Arnett, hilariously playing a podcaster) having a fight with his wife through the windows of their home, Alex doesn’t address it; he merely waits for it to cool off before exiting his car and approaching the door. So it’s a shock when, having lost someone close to him sometime in the recent past, Alex chooses to venture down a path he knows nothing about: The path of self-discovery, where identities are forged long after we may have believed they first took shape, and feelings are prone to be felt. It’s terrifying, but in another way, it’s the most beautiful trek he’s ever taken.
World premiering on Oct. 2 as the Centerpiece selection at the 64th New York Film Festival, Gilroy’s brilliant, time-maneuvering drama is both an odyssey and a triumph in just how meticulously it travels down each road along our tour of Alex’s past and present, foregoing “CITY NAME, YEAR” title cards in favor of an audience’s trust instead. We’re flung into Alex’s psyche immediately following a booming title card (fitting, given the title-capping exclamation point) and find him contemplatively awaiting his first cue. He’s signed on to play in a full orchestra brought in to record film scores, all of which he plays beautifully despite the sheet music being a sight unseen. Alex is a prodigy, you see, albeit a reluctant one, a man whose entire existence has formed and broken him in ways he has yet to comprehend. Guilt has often been a tool used against him, primarily by his father (Hank Azaria), a musician in his own right who created a ripple effect of dysfunction that now follows his son to all locations and lingers in every memory. It’s a common characterization, but one rarely handled as deftly as Gilroy and a never-better Pascal collaborate to turn Alex into an idea of a person into a real human being with human being problems, the kind that can either make a movie or cause it to quickly become a series of tropes without consequence.
Fortunately, the crew here has its conductors in a row, the cast and their director in perfect sync – a la players and their maestro – conjuring a symphony of a complicated life that routinely veers into organized chaos. Gilroy first conceived the idea while working on 2016’s Rogue One: A Star Wars Story, when he observed the sheer size of the film’s band and choir and wondered, “Why is there not a movie here?” As he told the Friday press screening’s audience, despite having enjoyed his own specific history with playing and loving music, he would never call himself a musician, merely a creative with ears and a good producer. “So I researched the shit out of it,” he said of the composition of film scores, and found the hook: “A life. In pieces,” as the film’s tagline reads, though the execution is more synthesized and clever than that selling point lets on.
The writer/director noted that while the film was a difficult one to finance, he was deadset on bringing together a group that would come to be called “The Behemoth! Collective,” a cavalry of composers that just one film would be considered fortunate to have on board. Original music by nine symphonists – James Newton Howard, Alan Silvestri, Brandon Roberts, Michael Abels, Emily Bear, Lukas Frank, Michael Giacchino, Henry Jackman, and Nami Melumad – is heard throughout the film, and not just heard, but appropriately incorporated into the narrative. Not only do we see Alex and his fellow virtuosos playing the numbers on the pages before them, but better yet, the pieces accompany the Behemoth!’s action as well. Scenes of Alex running – and there are a few – are soundtracked by dramatic, violent violins and intense horns hitting the highest notes. Giacchino crafts an antic cartoon theme for a moment; Silvestri delivers a suite late in the film that lingers long after the baton is lowered. When the film we’re watching takes its most drastic turn, the faux film being scored tags along. It’s unlike anything you’ve heard before, and in some cases seen before. That it is pulled off with few distractions away from the narrative Gilroy has constructed is an even broader feat.
And still, Behemoth!’s most striking achievement is its structure, one that bounces back and forth in an effort to keep us on our toes without ever totally wrong-footing the onlooker, a savvy trick that Gilroy seems to have been toying with for years yet never quite executed to this magnitude. That doesn’t mean that his new work is on par with Michael Clayton nor in dialogue with Andor. (Though it is a more outwardly joyous tonal exercise than both.) What it represents is a new kind of character study for Gilroy, a tremendous writer whose heroes are always complex but tend to strive for control, if not achieving it outright. Is Alex pursuing that? Not in simple terms. Like music, his lived experience is one of fits and starts, a prominent professional career that leaves plenty to be desired on the personal side. Eva Victor as Nadia is his most compelling scene partner in that their character challenges him more than others are willing to, asking for more than he is willing to give in terms of reason and intentions, while Wilde plays a maniacal lover whose furious lack of self control is testing, but more on our protagonist’s patience than the mind.
“The trick is to put him on the train without getting run over by it,” Gilroy said of Alex, who he and Victor would not describe as passive but active in an alternative fashion to what we’ve come to expect from the very idea of “action.” Active self-sabotage is still active, just as the task of picking up the pieces of one’s life can only be resoundingly successful if done by the soul living it. But like many of us, the thing about living is that it cannot be done in isolation, neither physical nor emotional, and that a life is never just touched by one being. Behemoth! is Alex’s story, but “Lives in pieces” works as a tagline for it, too. Everyone is playing their own song just by breathing. Whether or not they can hear it is the difference between rejecting the music and facing it.
Behemoth! world premiered at the 64th New York Film Festival. Searchlight Pictures will release the film on Dec. 4..
Director:Werner Herzog Writer: Werner Herzog Stars: Kate Mara, Rooney Mara, Orlando Bloom, Domhnall Gleeson
Synopsis: Twin sisters Jean and Joan Holbrooke, in search of an imaginary land where true love is possible, start digging a tunnel through a mountain range.
It would be rather unfair to the brilliant and singular Werner Herzog to describe his new film, Bucking Fastard, as “ordinary,” but by his typical nonconformist standards, this is likely about as close as his cinema has ever been to the “garden variety” type. Of course, what that means for Herzog is different from just about anyone and everyone else, for most gardens can be found sprouting tomatoes and flowers in one’s backyard, while he plants his in a cave to nowhere (or, perhaps, everywhere?) atop an Irish hill with a pair of siamese twins as its caretakers. Jean and Joan Holbrooke (Kate and Rooney Mara, respectively, and cleverly introduced with a title card that begins with only their surname and slowly reveals their first names) speak, act, and think in unison, only breaking off from this pattern when finishing each other’s sentences. They love the same man, Gareth Mulroney (Orlando Bloom), live the same life, and even fumble their words in court with the same vigor, hence the film’s playful title. Why are they in court, you ask? Oh, just a restraining order that has been filed by the slimy, married boy next door in order to keep them far from his wife and his life, one that happens to unfold on its own terms like the rest of us, not those of a sibling attached at our hip.
What was I saying about this being a “normal” movie? Again, it has to do with standards. It actually has more to do with how other films would likely treat Herzog’s conceit – loosely based on the story of the British sisters Freda and Greta Chaplin – as the butt of a joke, a dead horse worth beating further, or the entire narrative in and of itself. That’s not Herzog’s approach, and anyone who can appreciate his fascination with the conceptually strange will be unsurprised to know that his handling of Jean and Joan’s predisposition to synchronicity is of a more delicate, compassionate variety. It is the story of a chapter in their lives, not one about the opinions of onlookers. Naturally, side characters have their opinions, ranging from the intrusive to the crude, but to focus on those reactions would be downright un-Herzog-ian. Plus, it would make for a boring tale.
Rooney Mara (left) and Kate Mara (right) are siamese twins in Werner Herzog’s Bucking Fastard | Courtesy of Film at Lincoln Center
It may not have the same “what in the world?” factor as Fitzcarraldo nor a similar adventurous spirit to Aguirre, the Wrath of God, but Bucking Fastard is a more than worthwhile entrant in an evolving filmography that has always been alive with a rare sense of wonder. An auteur who has always been “starving for new images,” this picture offers less of what we have not seen than it does elements we have yet to see from Herzog, a slight twist on his pleasant preoccupation with the inextricably unique. It’s not that hard to get used to the “bit,” if you will, of Jean and Joan saying the same things at the same time, wearing the same outfits, and doing everything together as though they are a conjoined duo. In many ways, they are, simply without literal fusion. And to his credit, Herzog is much more interested in what life is like for them, circumstances included, than he is with what it could be like were they apart. That’s why their social worker, Timothy (Domhnall Gleeson), is such a small part; his presence is more necessary when the twins need to figure out how to use a can opener without four hands attempting to operate the tool, not as a means to separation.
So don’t let the wonky nature of this harmless beast fool you: Yes, Bucking Fastard is a riot, and yes, it is fascinating to watch the Mara sisters turn in two individually remarkable performances that are only extricable by the fact that we know which one is Kate and which one is Rooney. But it is also a lovely, moving testament to the power of human connection, whether it comes in the form of a person you shared a womb with or not. Even more so, it’s a film about the evasive desire for belonging, even blending in, in a world that is constantly trying to single you out for what makes you different in its eyes. “There must be a place for us somewhere,” one sister says (shockingly, without the other’s participation). And though these exchanges and others do feel a tad sing-songy, Herzog’s overall tonal choices go over well, allowing absurdity and genuinity to coexist, not compete.
Too nice? Maybe, but only just. This review may be focusing a great deal on how the main gambit here is far less out there than advertised – at least once it settles into a groove, which is swiftly – but there’s plenty of bizarre fun to be had. The aforementioned neverending cave gets its fair share of time as a principal setting, and watching the Maras hack away at its walls with picks and hammers is nothing short of a delightfully long trip; a potentially rabid fox the lasses name Cupid becomes an object of fascination for a time; a vacuum offers haughty chuckles. But too often nowadays are films marketed within an inch of their shelf lives on the backs of their “twists” and not on their simple merits. Let’s face it: The last thing a film with the title Bucking Fastard needs is further emphasis on what makes it wacky. It’s that, but it’s also plenty blissful. “We’ve been hiding long enough,” says one of the Holbrookes once it’s about time to break free from the shackles of the public’s gaze. Audiences would be doing a disservice to hide the film behind its kooks rather than embracing it for what it plainly tells us it is.
Bucking Fastard had its New York Premiere at the 64th New York Film Festival. It is currently seeking U.S. distribution.
Here we are, once again, at the intersection between Oscar prognostication and degenerate gambling. Like I did with The Odyssey, I will be handicapping the Oscar chances of the much-derided effort of Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s Digger. I would also like to remind you this is my own opinion and not meant to be taken as actual bookmaking odds.
BEST PICTURE +1500
While it might have been an early-season favorite with the combination of Tom Cruise and Iñárritu, the critical drubbing will not do the film any favors. Often, a film can survive critical derision, as long as the public can get behind it. It doesn’t look like audiences will have that effect on this film. The polarizing reviews might help it a little, as the ones who like the film really like it. At this point, I would be shocked if it even got a Comedy/Musical nomination at the Golden Globes
BEST ACTOR, TOM CRUISE +500
When you are talking about what the Oscars want from their nominees, it’s big movie stars doing big things. That’s exactly what Cruise does in Digger. On the campaign side, Cruise is certainly out there pressing the flesh, but his credibility in awards circles certainly isn’t what it once was. Despite three previous nominations, he missed out on a Best Actor nod for Top Gun: Maverick back in 2022 and hasn’t been nominated for acting in 26 years. Some critics have singled him out for his work, but he should be seen as a longshot at this point. Only a resurgent series of awards from critic’s groups could resurrect his chances now.
BEST SUPPORTING ACTOR, RIZ AHMED +750
While the rest of the film’s supporting cast have quickly been dismissed, Ahmed has somehow made it through relatively unscathed, while also receiving multiple “best in show” acclaims. Already an Oscar winner and a previous nominee, his campaign accumen and good standing in the industry might get him further than most, but I would still consider his chances a longshot at best.
BEST DIRECTOR, ALEJANDRO G. INARRITU +2000 BEST ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY +2500
Cruise might be the face of the film, but the two-time Oscar-winning director is the one who is driving the ship. Following the divisive response to Bardo, any problems with this film were bound to be laid directly at his feet. Best Director is a quagmire of critical and probable audience acclaim, so Iñárritu will have to be happy with his two previous awards and sit this season out. The scripting team will suffer the same fate. No critic is going to give the script credit while shutting out the rest of the film.
BEST PRODUCTION DESIGN +250 BEST MAKEUP & HAIRSTYLING -125
For all the faults the film might have, the set decoration and makeup effects have been continually lauded. Without delving into spoilers, the production design and set decoration is a vital part of the plot mechanisms. Nothing feels over CGI, unless it’s supposed to feel that way. It’s a monumental achievement, but I would venture it can get lost in the shuffle when it comes to the end of the year awards. Films like this generally don’t get a single nomination for something like Production Design without corresponding nominations elsewhere.
The makeup has a similar trajectory, but with a caveat. If Cruise manages to sneak his way into Best Actor, then you can write in a Makeup nomination in pen. In the last five years, Best Actor nominees and winners such as Cillian Murphy (Oppenheimer), Bradley Cooper (Maestro), Austin Butler (Elvis), and Brendan Fraser (The Whale) have all accompanied their own nominations with nods for the Makeup team. This is probably Digger’s best hope at a solo nomination.
It’s a tall task ahead of the entire film, but you never know what can shake out in the midst of Oscar season.
On this episode of Chasing the Gold, Shadan is joined by Erica Richards to discuss the last of Anne Hathaway’s crazy year in Verity and Robert Pattinson in Primetime!
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, JD and Megan discuss the latest from Dreamworks in Forgotten Island! It’s a shame that the film is underperforming at the box office because the film takes some fascinating risks that most mainstream studios would avoid. But it’s quite good and we had fun with this one.
Review: Forgotten Island
Director: Joel Crawford, Januel Mercado Writers: Joel Crawford, Januel Mercado Stars: H.E.R., Liza Soberano, Dave Franco
On this episode, JD and Megan discuss Lance Oppenheim’s new film Primetime starring an incredible Robert Pattinson! There is tons to discuss here given the film’s evocative craft, remarkable performances and nuanced themes. And boy did we have fun breaking it all down.
Synopsis: In secret conversations on the rooftops of Tel Aviv at night, the systems behind Israel’s calculated mass killing of Palestinian civilians in Gaza are revealed by the people who designed and operated them.
You may think that Naza, the title of Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor’s documentary, is a rejiggering act, one that takes the Palestinian city of Gaza and swaps out its first letter for one that tends to begin words with sour connotations. “No,” “negative,” “null,” perhaps “nauseating.” In reality, it’s shorthand for nezek agavi, which translates directly as “collateral damage.” It is a Hebrew phrase often used in military jargon, typically in relation to those who are “unintentionally” harmed during targeted attacks, though in the context of Israel’s ongoing genocide in the West Bank, “unintentional” is hardly the word that comes to mind. As Abraham, sitting on the rooftops of Tel Aviv, secretly interviews 24 anonymous IDF sources, the word is used colloquially, tossed around like “food,” “water,” and “sleep” in effortless conversation from the latter side. “Ten NAZA” is said to note that 10 additional bodies would be found at the scene despite there only being one predetermined target in an air strike. “Naza” does not consider blood shed; the designation merely cares about numbers.
Yuval Abraham (right) interviews anonymous IDF sources on the rooftops of Tel Aviv in Naza | Courtesy of The Guardian
If it feels like the phrase “numbers game” is more appropriate, you may be occupying a place on the right side of history. A vital and harrowing follow-up of sorts to 2024’s No Other Land, the Israeli collective of Abraham and Szor – who co-directed the Oscar-winning documentary with Basel Adra and Hamdan Ballal, neither of whom are present here – return with a film that, while 15 minutes leaner, packs no less of a blow to the crevice of the soul that holds hope as its interviewees detail firsthand accounts of Israel’s defense tactics, those designed to decimate a country and its people with the lone goal of complete control. “Do you think it’s a genocide?” Abraham asks one subject, and his swift reply of “Yes, absolutely,” does nothing to ease the pain nor the fury. If anything, what he goes on to say only exacerbates the truth that what is happening in the West Bank is nothing short of villainous: He describes these strikes as “fun” and “enjoyable.” A game, indeed, and the bodies dictate the score.
No “review” of a film like Naza is bound to capture its power in full; of course, only the film itself is capable of doing so. What has added to the necessity of existence, however unfortunate, harmful, and misguided – though stronger words could be used – is the discourse surrounding its existence, from the droves social media sh*tposting bots that swooped in to criticize the filmmakers for receiving a 25-minute standing ovation (a record) at its Venice Film Festival premiere, with many noting that Abraham and Szor would be “profiting” off of the genocide of Palestine’s people with the film and that they should not be celebrated because they are Israeli. Before Naza’s New York Film Festival premiere on Sept. 26, the Israeli-American Council formed a protest in front of Alice Tully Hall and argued that the film “makes serious allegations about the IDF’s conduct in the Gaza Strip while ignoring findings and information that contradict its claims.” Variety posted five videos from the protest on Twitter; only one post was dedicated to the filmmaker’s comments at the film’s post-screening Q&A, and made sure to highlight that Abraham’s criticism was specifically of the U.S. government’s continued financial aid to Israel.
Furthermore, Israel’s prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu – a war criminal with multiple international arrest warrants from the International Criminal Court and other law enforcement organizations for his crimes against humanity – has called for Abraham and Szor to have their Israeli citizenship stripped in response to Naza. His decry most certainly comes as a response to the outcry from many of his supporters and confidants, but I’m curious if he’s screened the film or has an answer to the claims made about him within, many of which come from his own soldiers. Though he’d likely take a page out of President Donald Trump’s playbook and insist that the statements are doctored or “fake,” multiple sources – shrouded in darkness in the film to protect their identities – note that Netanyahu’s mission is for the total eradication of the Palestinian state, and that the prime minister himself once called for an order that would kill 500 civilians (“500 Naza”) in order to take out a single target. And what of the 1986 news clip included in the film in which Netanyahu, Israel’s permanent U.N. representative at the time, defined terrorism as the “systematic and deliberate” targeting of civilians for political goals? His guest spot on PBS’s “Firing Line” that year came in relation to the release of the book “Terrorism: How the West Can Win,” which Netanyahu edited; in it, he wrote, “The root cause of terrorism lies not in grievances but in a disposition toward unbridled violence.”
The interviewees in Naza don’t hide this fact in their candor, and the film’s structure is itself an outright refutement to any claims that the filmmakers made the film in an effort to peddle falsities to its audiences. (Though if you needed that clarification, we have bigger problems to address.) In fact, there isn’t much of a structure, not beyond the interrogations Abraham conducts and very occasional archival footage of mourning Palestinians and news clips. It would be more appropriate to describe Naza as filmed journalism rather than a journalistic film. The sparse nature of its composition – cutaways to moments of normalcy unfolding throughout the city that serve as heartbreaking juxtaposition to destruction; an absent score; and a sound design team that is merely there to enhance mumbled audio and explosions/alarms in the background – enhances its power. Furthermore, many of the findings detailed in the film were previously published in The Guardian, +972 Magazine, and Local Call, like how an AI called “Lavender” is programmed to find “likely” Hamas targets, though it is frequently incorrect. That we could have read up on Naza’s revelations ourselves effectively demonstrates how important it is for them to be repeated until the truth has sunk in.
Will that day actually ever come? The odds aren’t particularly favorable. But courageous work such as Naza is designed to make a dent, actively working to create change, and above all, is shedding a light on the incessant darkness that millions pretend doesn’t exist just because it attempts to live in the shadows. It is not a work of entertainment; it is not a project conceived with the intent of winning awards; it is a movie, but it feels wrong to call it by such a trivial word. It’s a living, breathing document of a documentary that details death, brutality, and hatred; all persisting because the prayers for it to end fall on more deaf ears than open ones. That truth is hard enough to swallow; what about those that are offered in the film, yet still labeled as responses manipulated by the “enemy?” Maybe it’s not the facts themselves, but that these are the people delivering them, concealed in the dark while bringing so much to light.
Naza had its North American Premiere at the 64th New York Film Festival. MK2 Films and The Guardian are self-distributing the film and releasing it in theaters starting Sept. 30.
There is an iconic image of a goth girl running away from a castle in pulp horror romances. Those covers dominated the gothic horror romances of the ’60s and ’70s, but as a millennial bookworm I devoured those books. As a self-identified feminist teenager, those books were a guilty pleasure of mine. Imagining myself as this helpless, dainty woman, running away in a long, flowing chiffon gown with a fitted bodice, and a corset. There is always a corset at the crime scene to make my breasts bigger.
This image, as misogynistic and reductive as it is, haunted my gothic romance girl mind. I fantasized about it as I read one pulpy romance after another. Then it got buried deep inside the frozen lake in my psyche, reemerging after watching Jane Schoenbrun’s Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, especially the controversial scene that drove the internet wild with speculation, disdain, and repulsion…yet in other instances like mine, pure arousal. In that scene, Kris (Hannah Einbinder) runs away from danger in the dark forest. She is wearing a thin t-shirt, panties, and her nipples are hard as she runs away from danger. She’s scared but she’s also aroused by the imminent danger and the helplessness of her sexually submissive nature. It’s not an exaggeration when I say that this scene is what meme Martin Scorsese would describe as “Absolute Cinema!”
They say movies hit each of us differently, especially when it comes to alternative indie cinema, films that aren’t made for mass consumption. Some movies speak directly to a particular underrepresented community and still find universality because they tap into something deeply human that exists beyond the demographic they represent.
Schoenbrun’s cinema is horny, longing, and brutal. People have sex with slasher monsters, voyeurism is real and potent and the only way to get off and find orgasms, and people have to be buried alive to find release. Schoenbrun has made those films with a very unique experience in mind: their own queerness and the trans experience, but what about other people who haven’t gone through a similar experience of mega transformation, but who still have metamorphosis experiences of their own? How does it hit them?
In Schoenbrun’s world, characters live their deepest, darkest fantasies, shamelessly. Characters speak their minds, letting go of repressed desires and feelings.
In I Saw The TV Glow, they pay homage to those horror TV shows and TV movies. Are you Afraid of the Dark?Goosebumps, Twin Peaks, Sliders, and a dozen Stephen King TV adaptations come to mind as we watch Owen and Maddy’s story unfold. It’s that little TV show that no one in one’s community cares about. So when you find a person who shares the same passion, it’s like winning the lottery. Schoenbrun deep dives into how attachment to art works. Owen and Maddy bond over this fictional TV show The Pink Opaque, and immediately I remember my best friend in high school and me, and how I got her into fangirling over Roswell, the Jason Katims TV series inspired by the “Roswell High”series of books written by Melinda Metz. They capture this feeling brilliantly; not just the joy of discovery but the ecstatic expectant wait for every detail to be devoured by a like-minded friend. Like a secret that only two can experience, a popsicle of a taste that no one else has dared to taste. Back then, we were the only people in my school who had even remotely heard of Roswell, and that gave me all the rush to discuss the intricacies of every episode with her. Episode guides, spinoff book series, and the original series were consumed by us in the back of the school playground, or in hidden corners behind the giant staircase. We lived in a magical world that only we got to discover, and it felt better than a thousand conversations with classmates about popular films at the time.
With Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, there is a very self-centered, self-absorbed fantasy that Schoenbrun cherishes, and yet, in their brilliant artistic narcissism, they touch a lot of other people with similar fantasies. What if the heroes of the films we loved, those little films and genre TV that no one cared about but us, what if they existed in that world, and by some magical miracle extended a hand to drag us to TV land with them?
I think about all the times I obsessed over an actor or actress in a particular film or TV show. Dean Winchester in Bobby’s Lair or The Roadhouse. Wil Ohmsford in the Elcrys. Lucas Wolenczak inside the SeaQuest DSV under the sea. Rory and Lorelai at Luke’s Diner. Bodhi surfing forever at Latigo Beach. I imagine myself like Kris, awkward, imaginative, artistic, and eternally horny. My sexuality is always a block of ice in the face of my expectations and desires. Then I imagine all those actors I loved, not forever, but frozen in a fragment of their careers. Jensen Ackles forever trapped as the smoldering, sexy, sassy hunter Dean Winchester, traveling across the highways of Americana in his leather jacket, despite spending half of his life inside his muscle car, still smelling as I imagine him to be: Old Spice, cigarettes, whiskey, and cleanliness, like he washes himself every morning with morning dew. Austin Butler, never aging, this young, sensitive healer -no elf ears please, what a turn off- scouting this lonely island, Aborlon or the Druid’s Keep. His life is a series of cave exploration, herb collection, and saving princesses from silly MTV-coded monsters. Then I imagine Shiri Appleby, forever young as Liz Parker, in The Crashdown, that diner in the heart of the hot desert of Roswell, New Mexico, dreamy in her silly waitress costume, with long brown hair and caramel eyes. Then I extend the fantasy, and there I am, an awkward queer director struggling with sexual expression, meeting my heroes as they withdraw from the world, and live forever inside forgotten sets that -against all odds- seem fresh, like things have just been prepared for the new season.
But there’s also another grim fact. Schoenbrun shows how the show that one has loved and lusted after, or a sexual awakening moment for a young, sexually experienced girl watching her favorite actor onscreen could actually be this actor’s biggest misery. That’s what Kris discovers with Billy Presley (Gillian Anderson), in an honest moment that no one gets to glimpse in real life. Who wants real life when they can have this? Every fangirl’s dream: jump inside the set and have a deep, raw talk with the actor, suspended in time, who made them relevant in the first place. As a grown up now, reading some disturbing confessionals from actors about certain films they’ve made, and how the experience was to them behind the scenes rather than the joyful, immersive one that I got to experience as the gullible viewer, puts me as a fan in a really tight position: do I feel guilty for still finding a particular scene sexy? Do I feel bad for enjoying a character’s suffering when they probably were also suffering off screen?
I remember reading about Jared Padalecki during the shooting of the third season of Supernatural, and feeling guilty about making fun of Sam Winchester’s storyline, or even criticizing his look during the season. My mind would drift to moments where Sam was being tortured or breaking down during those seasons, and how as a hardcore fangirl I would find that sexy or exciting, then remembering the real person suffering in the background, and my empathetic nature wonders: is it wrong to consume art that way? Do I have to dig and find how the actor felt about that scene, or is ignorance a bliss? Was it wise of Kris to go deep and listen to Billy Presley’s heartfelt talk, that which awakened Little Death from his dormancy down the lake, and aroused him back into becoming a killing machine?
All Kris wants is to be a final girl in a slasher film: sexualized, objectified, helpless, and victimized. She liberates from the chains of female independence and expectations. She waits for her time as the masked killer takes those around her one by one. And in that death, she finds the ultimate release from the confinements of the real world.
Maddy professes to Owen that The Pink Opaque sometimes feels like real life more than real life. How truthful is that sentence. On the third season of Supernatural, when the clock was ticking for Dean to go to Hell, my sister and I would cry while watching every episode, in anticipation of the doomed season finale. I would go to college feeling suffocated underneath the feeling of distress and despair. I would tell my best friend then -who would later become my partner- that my heart was aching and I would cry before class thinking of Dean getting tortured in Hell. My best friend would then take me for ice cream and burgers to cheer me up, from the fictional verse I found myself sunk in, deep down a rabbit hole of intense feelings and worry over a fictional character, who to me was a person I would never meet.
Filmtwt declares that self-absorbed, masturbatory art is bad. But if anything, Schoenbrun did what none of us, self-reflective, painfully imaginative kids never dared to do. They turned hours-long fantasies and orgasmic bliss into masterpieces. Their films will live forever, and people will witness how they see art and artists, while our dreams and fantasies will remain behind the rusty doors of our souls.
So forgive me, Jane, for writing a masturbatory piece about your masturbatory art. It really deserves lusting after. To quote Ada in The Piano, “At night I think of my piano in its ocean grave, and sometimes of myself floating above it. Down there everything is so still and silent that it lulls me to sleep. It is a weird lullaby and so it is; it is mine.”
Substitute Little Death for Ada’s piano and you’ll get what I mean.
Director:Paula Delsol Writer: Paula Delsol Stars: Jacqueline Vandal, Lucien Barjon, André Nader
Synopsis: A carefree young woman navigates romantic and sexual encounters with various men while seeking freedom and self-discovery in the sun-drenched landscape of southern France after leaving Paris behind.
In the introduction for the new 4K restoration of Paula Delsol’s 1964 film, The Drift, the audience was reminded that Delsol has effectively been “completely forgotten” within the French New Wave, a movement historically connected to the idea of being a “boys club.” Obviously, Agnès Varda remains a vital name within the history of cinema and is widely regarded as a crucial figure in the landmark cinematic movement, but her name unfortunately rings out as an exception when looking at lists of those many consider to be the most well-known figures within the French New Wave. One can only hope that this restoration of Delsol’s first feature film will spark the necessary conversations surrounding all the female filmmakers who have been cast to the sidelines of cinema by the men of history. It’s also equally unfortunate that a film as playful, jaunty, and direct as this one has simply been lost to time for so long. To uncover more films such as this would be nothing but a gift to cinephiles everywhere.
The first piece of dialogue in Delsol’s debut is spoken into the void: “I’m so hungry.” It makes sense considering 20-year-old Jacquie (Jacqueline Vandal) has hitched her life onto Pierre who, despite the alluring charm of his bohemian, artist lifestyle, largely seems like a wishy-washy bum. Considering his disaffected demeanor, Jacquie may as well be speaking into a void whenever he’s nearby. And it’s through Jacquie that Delsol is also speaking directly to her audience. Here is a woman determined to put her art into the world, any obstacles be damned. Jacquie is a fitting vessel in that regard. As the beautiful couple manage their way through what could be considered a two-way conversation in the most generous of definitions, images of famous destinations around the world rapidly flash on screen. All Jacquie wants to do is drift. It’s a lifestyle which may cause its fair share of troubles, but in her own words, “I’d rather trouble than boredom.” It’s a fitting credo to live by, and one that will be tested over the course of the film’s 83-minute-runtime.
As Pierre abandons Jacquie in her sleep while on a train ride through the country, we are outright told by on-screen text that “this film is a portrait.” In other words, Delsol has no interest in shying away from any of the details that make up Jacquie’s life going from place to place or man to man. The film excels in that regard as it is effectively structured through vignettes which speak directly to Jacquie’s experiences. Through this framework, Delsol has the freedom to make a film that’s as multi-faceted as she chooses. Some of Jacquie’s experiences with these men can be freewheeling and fun. Others can be much more frightening. Some can even be tragic or unexplored by way of determined commitment. In any case, each encounter with a new man is depicted entirely without flair, instead choosing to focus on the more genuine emotions that can arise from a particular situation. One thing is made starkly clear, serving as one of the key through-lines of this film: men behaving as slimeballs is nothing new!
Left with little options on what to do next, Jacquie decides to return home to her mother and married sister for the first time in two years. While they may put on smiles and warmly welcome Jacquie back home, Delsol reveals a reality which is much more saddening. Through a montage that still finds a way to remain comedic, the entire town seems to be running its mouth with gossip as the news is broken of Jacquie’s return. The rapid pace with which Delsol traverses across town with this gossip is funny, but it speaks to how close-minded so many are when it comes to young people, particularly women, who choose to live life to the beat of their own drum. It’s made all the more disheartening upon Jacquie’s own mother using Jacquie’s sister as an example to follow, especially “after all that’s happened.” Rather than love her daughters equally for who they choose to be, she’d rather do all she can to force conformity upon Jacquie to fit within whatever boxes society deems “respectable” or “pragmatic.” It’s an issue that still plagues contemporary society to this day. This particular examination of society makes The Drift feel all the more striking as a rediscovery of how cinema grappling with the frustrations of a given time can still be felt for decades to come. It can be seen as an upsetting reminder that perhaps some things never change, but can also serve as a testament to the essential place art has in the world as a means to crystallize emotion across time and space in order to feel more accurately seen and understood.
Though what’s perhaps most wonderful about The Drift is how little it is interested in being a didactic film. Of course, Delsol is channeling her thoughts and frustrations about society through Jacquie, but this is ultimately quite the playful film in regards to how its main character explores all the experiences she’s living through. She certainly feels the pain that can still be experienced despite living with such freedoms. She directly clashes back about the transactional views so many men seem to have when it comes to the women in their lives. She resents the notion that she should ask for forgiveness from others who judge her for merely desiring freedom. But Jacquie is the compelling sort of character who is perhaps unwilling to radically alter any of her decisions because of these observations about the life she is building for herself. There’s a jaunty quality to this film which stems from Jacquie’s blind faith in following what she feels. Even if others cast judgment, to live life in our own distinct way feels more essential than pragmatism. It may lead to an endlessly repeating cycle, but if all we can do in life is merely live it however we are called to do so, then so be it. That The Drift is a film directly addressing the shamefulness of any such judgment and allowing its character the freedom to live life dully to her heart’s content paints a wonderfully entertaining film that flies by.
The new 4K restoration of The Drift is celebrating its North American premiere in the Revivals section at the 64th New York Film Festival.
Director:Alejandro G. Iñárritu Writer: Sabina Berman, Jez Butterworth, Alexander Dinelaris Stars: Tom Cruise, Riz Ahmed, John Goodman
Synopsis: The most powerful man in the world embarks on a frantic mission to prove he is humanity’s savior before the disaster he’s unleashed destroys everything.
Having just gotten out of a screening of Alejandro G. Iñárritu’s Digger, I have to explain what the hell I just saw. First, let’s make no mistake: Digger marks Tom Cruise’s return as an actor, with a wholly original performance that abandons the high-wattage movie-star charisma he has fine-tuned for decades through franchises like Mission: Impossible and Top Gun.
Cruise is jaw-dropping here, delivering one of the best performances of his career: a deranged, powder-keg turn that is an absolute knockout. Do you think I am lying? Just sit back and watch the Hollywood legend play a manic and vulgar force of nature who eats a big bowl of ego, profanity, and chaotic self-belief. Cruise’s Digger makes Les Grossman look downright domesticated.
This is the kind of turn from the man who was robbed of an Oscar for Born on the Fourth of July and so good in the scene-stealing small role in Paul Thomas Anderson’s Magnolia. Full of piss and vinegar, seething with caustic toxicity and sleazy allure, Cruise savagely does not so much set aside his movie star image as set fire to it.
If only Digger were tighter and more laser-focused, you could have something that goes beyond being one of Cruise’s finest works and all that Oscar hype.
Cruise plays Digger Rockwell, a wealthy oil tycoon who will spare no expense to save his decomposing cat but will let the world go to hell in a tightly sealed oil drum, which apparently is priceless. One example occurs when his team on the ground and scientists in Greenland tell him a crack in an iceberg has widened to thirty feet, with oil bubbling to the surface. Rockwell ignores emails, messages, and video conferences, choosing one path: nothing.
Digger simply will not allow any environmental protection worker he pays to serve as a failsafe against progress, which, to him, means destroying the planet to drill for black gold on his dime. He makes this clear to Ganesh (Riz Ahmed), another scientist Digger tolerates on his shoulder.
From there, Iñárritu’s script, co-written with Alexander Dinelaris (The Revenant), Nicolás Giacobone (Birdman), and Sabina Berman (Gloria), gives the film a Dr. Strangelove feel. Except, the film is more enjoyable if you stop worrying and learn to enjoy the chaos. The film’s political bent becomes almost overwrought, as John Goodman’s President Thompson, a Trump-like figure, becomes a puppet to Digger’s Musk-like supervillain.
Then, the movie takes an early turn, as Iñárritu introduces a plot twist that I wish had been saved for the final few scenes. Instead of tightening the satire, it sends Digger into a stretch of meta-filmmaking that feels overly ambitious rather than insightful or eye-opening. The choice fights the original entertaining absurdity instead of adding to it.
Yet, by the end, Digger is unlike anything Iñárritu has done before. The eclectic filmmaker operates in a wonderfully strange space: an eccentric, darkly comic piece of cinematic theater, meticulously composed and stomach-turningly deadpan. Think Coen brothers, with a Wes Anderson style, and seen through Iñárritu’s increasingly raw and feverish existential lens that is profound, if not heavy-handed.
Sometimes, you just need a film willing to go completely off the rails before it strikes oil.
You can watch Diggerexclusively in theaters starting October 2nd!
As we approach the fall, we are only a few months away from the annual awards season race. While categories such as Best Picture, Best Director, and the acting races tend to dominate mainstream awards coverage, Best Visual Effects can sometimes receive less attention outside of the film community. But the Visual Effects race is already beginning to take shape.
With the first wave of awards-season precursors approaching, now is a good time to look at some of the films that could contend for one of the five Visual Effects Oscar nominations. Nothing is guaranteed at this stage. We have yet to see several other potential contenders. But there are some familiar ingredients that tend to help a film in this category. The Visual Effects branch has historically embraced work that is both technically impressive and integral to a major cinematic experience, particularly when that work appears in a film competing for Best Picture. That immediately puts films such as Dune: Part Three, The Odyssey and Project Hail Mary on the radar.
Dune: Part Three
If we were making an early prediction for the Visual Effects winner in late summer, Dune: Part Three would be one of the safest bets. Denis Villeneuve’s highly anticipated conclusion to his Dune trilogy arrives with enormous expectations, but the franchise has already established an extraordinary relationship with the Visual Effects branch. Both Dune: Part One and Dune: Part Two won the Oscar for Visual Effects, with the latter following its predecessor’s success by expanding the franchise’s massive desert landscapes, creatures, crowds and large-scale action. The early footage for Part Three suggests Villeneuve is once again pushing the scale of the series. The film is being presented in IMAX 70mm, and its imagery continues the franchise’s reputation for combining enormous spectacle with tactile, grounded visual design.
That history matters. The Visual Effects branch already knows what the Dune team is capable of, and the previous two films have given the franchise considerable goodwill. If Dune: Part Three lives up to expectations, a nomination could feel almost inevitable. The bigger question is whether it can become the third consecutive Dune film to win. Even if the film ultimately receives a lighter Best Picture reception than expected, its Visual Effects work could still be considered too substantial to ignore.
Project Hail Mary
Project Hail Mary has another advantage that the Visual Effects branch has historically appreciated: space. From Aliens and Apollo 13 to Gravity, Interstellar, and First Man, space exploration has repeatedly provided a showcase for filmmakers and visual effects artists to demonstrate what the medium can accomplish. Project Hail Mary has already emerged as one of the year’s major successes, combining its science-fiction spectacle with an emotional, character-driven story. That combination could be particularly valuable during an awards campaign. The film’s interstellar environments provide plenty of opportunities for visual effects artistry, but perhaps the most interesting element is Rocky, the alien companion of protagonist Ryland Grace.
Rocky could have easily become another entirely digital creature. Instead, the filmmakers relied heavily on practical puppetry, with multiple puppeteers operating the character on set and digital effects used to enhance the final performance. The physical presence of Rocky also allowed Ryan Gosling to interact with the character more naturally during filming.
That combination of practical and digital effects could make Project Hail Mary particularly attractive to a branch that has increasingly demonstrated an appreciation for effects that feel tangible rather than purely computer generated. If the film’s emotional response continues to hold through awards season, don’t be surprised if Rocky becomes one of the year’s most recognizable Visual Effects contenders.
The Odyssey
If there is one thing we have learned about a Christopher Nolan film, it is that the Visual Effects branch will at least have a reason to pay attention. The Odyssey is one of the year’s defining theatrical events: a massive adaptation of Homer’s epic, shot entirely with IMAX film cameras and built around sequences involving mythology, monsters and supernatural environments. The Cyclops, Scylla, and Hades sequences make the film an obvious contender on paper. The film’s enormous scale also puts it firmly inside the Best Picture conversation, which only strengthens its case. Yet there is an interesting question surrounding Nolan’s relationship with this category.
His films have frequently received Visual Effects nominations, including The Dark Knight, Inception, Interstellar and Tenet, but not every effects-heavy Nolan film has made the cut. Dunkirk missed despite being a major Best Picture contender, while Oppenheimer was famously absent from the Visual Effects shortlist. Some of this may be attributed to Nolan’s preference for practical filmmaking. His movies frequently attempt to create as much as possible in camera rather than relying on digital effects. That makes The Odyssey particularly fascinating.
The film is undeniably effects-heavy, but it is also deeply rooted in practical filmmaking. If the Visual Effects branch sees the effects work as seamlessly supporting the physical production rather than overwhelming it, The Odyssey could be one of the strongest contenders of the year. But if voters favor more overtly digital showcases, Nolan’s latest could find itself competing against films with more obvious effects-driven spectacle.
Godzilla Minus Zero
Godzilla Minus One was one of the most remarkable Visual Effects stories of the past decade. Takashi Yamazaki’s 2023 film took a relatively modest budget and turned it into one of the most impressive blockbuster effects showcases of its era. It ultimately became the first Godzilla film to receive an Academy Award nomination for Visual Effects and the first Japanese language film to win the category. And now, Takashi Yamazaki is back.
Godzilla Minus Zero brings the franchise back with larger stakes and another major showcase for Yamazaki’s combination of filmmaking and visual effects work. Professionals describes the sequel as featuring even more ambitious effects choreography than its predecessor. The biggest question is whether lightning can strike twice.
The original film’s Oscar victory was historic precisely because it demonstrated that a Visual Effects contender did not need the resources of a Hollywood mega production to compete at the highest level. If Minus Zero receives a similarly enthusiastic response from critics and audiences, it could once again become one of the category’s most compelling contenders.
OTHER STRONG CONTENDERS
Marvel Studios
Marvel has a complicated history with the Visual Effects branch. The Marvel Cinematic Universe has accumulated 14 Visual Effects nominations since 2008, but the franchise entered the 2026 season having been shut out for two consecutive years. That raises an obvious question: has superhero fatigue finally caught up with the category? This year, however, Marvel has two potential contenders that may be too large to ignore: Spider-Man: Brand New Day and Avengers: Doomsday.
Spider-Man: Brand New Day has become one of the year’s biggest theatrical successes, while its visual approach pushes the character toward a more comic book inspired aesthetic. The film also builds on visual elements from a franchise the Academy has previously recognized, although Spider-Man: No Way Home remains the only live-action Spider-Man film since Spider-Man 2 to receive a Visual Effects nomination.
Then there is Avengers: Doomsday.
Historically, the Avengers franchise has been one of Marvel’s strongest performers in this category. Doomsday also appears to be embracing an enormous CGI driven crossover spectacle, bringing together the Avengers, the Fantastic Four and returning X-Men characters against Doctor Doom.
The concern, of course, is whether the film can stick the landing. Marvel’s enormous fan base guarantees attention, but attention alone does not guarantee an Oscar nomination. If Avengers: Doomsday manages to deliver both the spectacle and the emotional payoff that audiences expect, however, the Visual Effects branch may have a difficult time ignoring it.
Clayface
DC Studios’ Clayface is another intriguing possibility. The body horror comic-book adaptation follows a rising Hollywood actor whose life spirals into a transformation that turns him into the monstrous Clayface. The film’s horror angle immediately separates it from the typical superhero effects contender, while the transformation itself could provide a major Visual Effects showcase.
DC films have historically had a more complicated relationship with the Visual Effects category than Marvel, with Batman related films providing much of the studio’s strongest presence. Could Clayface break that pattern? If James Watkins’ horrordriven approach translates successfully to the screen and the transformation effects become one of the year’s most memorable showcases, it could become a legitimate contender.
Wildwood
Wildwood represents a very different type of Visual Effects contender. Laika’s first feature in more than six years is a stop-motion fantasy that reportedly required over 230 puppets and 136 handcrafted sets. The studio’s commitment to handcrafted animation makes the film a potential showcase for practical artistry in a category that frequently focuses on digital work.
Laika has already found success with the Visual Effects branch through Kubo and the Two Strings, which received a nomination in 2017. If Wildwood delivers on the technical ambition seen in its trailers and behind-the-scenes material, it could once again demonstrate that stop-motion has a place in the Visual Effects conversation.
The End of Oak Street
The End of Oak Street is another film worth keeping an eye on. David Robert Mitchell’s science-fiction survival film combines suburban horror with dinosaurs and cosmic phenomena, creating the kind of effects heavy premise that could appeal to the branch. The film’s creature work is particularly noteworthy given the long history of dinosaurs as a Visual Effects Oscar showcase. After the recent Jurassic World films, the Academy may or may not be ready for another dinosaur heavy contender. But if Mitchell’s more character riven approach allows the effects to feel distinctive, The End of Oak Street could sneak into the conversation.
Disclosure Day
Steven Spielberg is never someone to completely dismiss during awards season. Disclosure Day is a large scale science fiction event film centered on the possibility of humanity discovering that we are not alone. Spielberg’s history with the Visual Effects branch gives the film an obvious advantage, while the subject matter itself provides plenty of room for effects-driven spectacle.
The question is whether the finished visual effects will generate enough enthusiasm to overcome the film’s more mixed reception. Spielberg’s name alone will not guarantee a nomination. But if the film’s alien imagery and large-scale sequences prove more impressive on the big screen than they appear in promotional material, Disclosure Day could remain in the conversation.
There are still months to go before the Visual Effects Oscar shortlist is announced, and that means this race remains particularly vulnerable to surprises. Some of the films discussed here may ultimately fall out of the conversation. Others, like 20th Century’s Whalefall, could emerge as contenders once audiences and awards voters see the finished work.
For now, however, the category appears to have several recognizable lanes: massive science-fiction spectacles, practicals and digital hybrids, franchise filmmaking, creature work, stop motion artistry and Best Picture contenders with effects that are integral to their worlds. And perhaps that is what makes the Visual Effects race so interesting this early. Maybe the eventual five will be exactly the films everyone expects. Or maybe, by the time the shortlist arrives, we’ll be looking at an entirely different race.
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, using Digger as inspiration, we draft our favorite Tom Cruise movies! Plus, a conversation on Avengers Endgame: Encore and the news that Jon Watts will be directing the new Star Wars.
– Box Office (3:28) We begin the show this week by detailing some box office numbers from the last few weeks. It’s been a historic year and now we can add Resident Evil and Primetime to the list. The latter isn’t going to shatter records, but Primetime is now A24’s third biggest domestic opening ever. Which is notable and when it’s all said and done, it could end up being one of their biggest awards players to date. Sadly, though, on the other side of the coin is Dreamworks’ Forgotten Island, which is off to a rough start.
– Avengers: Endgame / Star Wars (14:58) We next shift to Avengers Endgame: Encore, a film that has some people update because of how it teases Doomsday while “ruining” the original ending. It’s a silly notion as the original ending breaks the rules the film establishes, something Marvel has explored further in shows like Loki. In short, the teases they add at the end of Endgame are fine. We also had to talk briefly about Jon Watts being tapped to write the new Star Wars movie, which will apparently continue the Skywalker saga.
– Tom Cruise Draft (1:08:23) Tom Cruise is a (very understandably) polarizing figure, but his presence as an actor is undeniable. As is his passion for cinema and pushing the medium forward. So, with Digger coming out this weekend, we wanted to talk about his best movies and thought a draft would be a fun way to do it. We go back and forth, and honestly, there are two good “teams” selected here. With that said, who do you think won our Tom Cruise draft?
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!
Synopsis: Set in 1949, the Shikishima family confronts a fresh catastrophe two years after surviving their previous ordeal with the legendary monster.
The roof of Alice Tully Hall felt close to being blown off by a kaiju blast during the 64th New York Film Festival’s Spotlight Gala screening. It was the world premiere of Takashi Yamazaki’s Godzilla Minus Zero, and the energy in the room felt as massive as the King of Monsters himself. One might be taken aback upon initially reckoning with the programming choice of a full-blown genre blockbuster’s inclusion in the festival lineup. But beyond it just being a wonderfully fun pick that’s indicative of both Dennis Lim’s and the selection committee’s excellent cinematic taste and the limitless potential within contemporary blockbuster filmmaking, it’s fairly easy to tell that this also isn’t your average monster movie. Much like its predecessor, both of Yamazaki’s Godzilla Minus films each feel like lofty dramas grappling with their own distinct emotional cores, and they both just so happen to star Godzilla in a stellar supporting role. But it’s also clear from the opening moment of Godzilla Minus Zero that Yamazaki understands the audience’s innate desire to see kaiju mayhem. He, of course, is quite the fan of Godzilla’s legacy himself. But both his films draw a crucial line in the sand despite their ability to deliver exactly what audiences want out of a Godzilla film.
The introduction to Godzilla Minus Zero is a thrilling single-take capturing absolute mayhem. As a group of scientists film the carnage surrounding them while running through rubble and away from shocking mutilation or death, it’s difficult not to think about the entire concept of war films and bombastic action setpieces in cinema. Yamazaki immediately poses a question to his audience and himself with this sequence: How can a filmmaker balance raw spectacle, of which this film has immense amounts, with the abject terror of such carnage? It’s an incredibly challenging balance for a filmmaker. Yet Yamazaki seems to have an innate ability to carve right into the most fundamental truths about such potential horrors of reality, and provide his audiences with a kaiju spectacle that always remains human-centric. If the lens of this film is channeled from the top-down, in this case how Godzilla views everything around him, the film would feel quite hollow. Just like Godzilla Minus One, Yamazaki still makes a film with Godzilla capturing and affecting its lens, but this film’s view comes from the bottom-up, allowing people’s worlds to be completely upended by the behemoth roaming through the streets of the small towns or major cities they once called home. It’s the type of scenario which reckons with a new reality that would shake anybody to their core. It’s what makes the family-centric core of this film’s screenplay so emotionally effective.
This film once again follows the Shikishima family, now a defined unit, as they try to live some semblance of a normal life. And yet, how could they ever possibly attain a shred of serenity after all they’ve been through? Beyond just the effects of their Godzilla encounters, Yamazaki introduces new faces and more deeply examines returning cast members with a varied series of each one being an individual who is doing all they can to deal with their own trauma in a post-WWII Japan. Yamazaki never abandons the roots of the Godzilla franchise in this regard, often to the point of shock at how willing he is as a filmmaker to explore imagery and ideas that would often seem impossible in a Hollywood film of this stature. There’s an exceptional reframing and reaffirmation of Godzilla Minus One within some of the choices made in this film that are simply stellar. Furthermore, Yamazaki is able to set the stage for so many ideas that are equal parts enthralling and shocking that it feels miraculous they are all able to work in tandem with one another so well. It speaks to his talent in crafting characters the audience cares deeply about, and the Shikishima family, alongside many of the other essential supporting characters in this film, ground the madness that Yamazaki has in store for his audience. And all the adoration built up for these characters is what makes Yamazaki’s film a genuinely grim and upsetting one.
The Shikishima family is put in quite the tough position in this sequel. It’s particularly tough on young Akiko (Sae Nagatani), who is terrified once again of the possibility that “something scary is coming.” For Koichi (Ryunosuke Kamiki), he is attempting to balance his desire to fight for the safety of his country with the responsibility of protecting Akiko and being present for her. Noriko (Minami Hamabe) is made even more active in this film’s plot, as she and Koichi both reckon with the pain of feeling unable to console a child who is terrified. In any case, Yamazaki explores the gray area of inaction, and whether that’s something which should be felt with shame or understanding how responsibilities shift as we move through life. It’s really compelling character work on a small scale that still feeds into the larger workings of the film’s thematic explorations. As interested as Yamazaki is in all the interpersonal relationships he has formed, he’s just as willing to explore larger geopolitical relationships as well. Japan’s response to the disasters of this film, in addition to U.S. interventionism, are thoroughly examined. Importantly, Yamazaki only ever reveals information coming down from the top and shows his audience the responses of the people it affects most. Volunteer pilots are lied to about the safety of a mission, leading some to abandon their post while others merely note that “a man’s gotta eat.” How Yamazaki can so effortlessly depict the varied responses to such loftily frightening circumstances is indicative of a writer fully empathetic to the human condition and all its contradictory forms.
Now, so much of this film does explicitly revolve around its human characters, but this is still the 39th Godzilla film in the franchise (the 34th produced by Toho)! Fans of the greatest monster of all time can rest assured knowing that this franchise is still in more than capable hands. And quite frankly, this film contains imagery audiences might almost be unlikely to believe were it not playing out spectacularly right before their very eyes. Yamazaki and the VFX team know how to craft not just spectacle, but awe-inspiring visuals that equally strike fear and astonished disbelief in an audience. Godzilla Minus Zero looks dazzlingly great, and the film is full of moments which could best be described as spine-tingling, or potentially, insane. For all the emotional horror and tragedy this film can expertly unleash on its audience, Yamazaki also turns in what feels like one of the best monster movies ever made. Its scale is so lofty that it feels unmatched, with less than a handful of rivals who could genuinely go toe-to-toe against it. And there’s one particular masterstroke in the third act that confirms Yamazaki’s fundamental understanding of what makes Godzilla such an enduring and essential figure not just in cinema, but in pop culture and history itself at large.
If Godzilla Minus Zero does anything, it reaffirms that the legacy of Godzilla can continue to evolve while remaining true to the roots of the franchise. It is also indicative of, despite being a period film, an ability to examine and represent the emotions and ideas of present day life through the past. That examination of past and present is an interesting point of view for the film to hold, as so much of the Shikishima family drama this time around boils down to parents being terrified of leaving their child in a world haunted by unfathomable tragedy and horror. Despite all the unthinkable that Yamazaki is able to somberly convey with genuine respect and earnestness, this film has a tinge of hopefulness to it which is undeniable. One amazing sequence involving a fixed camera exhibits the minutiae and dedication we must provide in order to leave the next generation with a chance for a brighter future. All we can do is remain steadfast in the belief that there is a chance for a better tomorrow, and that those who we surround ourselves with can ultimately fight for it together with an unrivaled passion that cannot be replicated or manipulated by any external force.
Godzilla Minus Zero celebrated its World Premiere as the Spotlight Gala film of the 64th New York Film Festival.
Have you heard? It was a rather jam-packed weekend at the movies. Multiplexes are thriving again, or “we’re so back,” one might say. What a time to be alive? Too much, but we have to find joy somewhere; what better place than at your local cinema, where you can likely be treated to an offering to scratch any itch. Perhaps you’re in the mood for a gritty, based-on-truth thriller starring Robert Pattinson as To Catch A Predator host Chris Hansen, that being Lance Oppenheim’s narrative debut, Primetime. Or maybe you want to take your kids to the latest animated flick from the minds behind Puss & Boots: The Last Wish, the delightful and vibrant Forgotten Island. Need a dose of adrenaline, or better yet, your first dose of leading man Mahershala Ali in, oh, five years? Check out Bassim Tariq’s Your Mother Your Mother Your Mother. Brad Pitt and a dog can be seen fighting for survival in Heart of the Beast. Hell, Avengers: Endgame is returning to theaters and becoming the first film to officially play in the long-anticipated, Marvel-invented “Infinity Vision.” Surely, you must have bought your tickets already.
But if you happen to live in New York – cue the eyerolls, warranted and frequent – I’d suggest you venture over to Film Forum, where the best new release of the weekend is celebrating its theatrical premiere. Paula Gonzalez-Nasser’s tremendous feature debut, The Scout, arrives one year and change after it took its first bow at the Tribeca Film Festival. An intimate and remarkably personal drama that follows a film and television location scout and she searches for locales appropriate for a TV pilot’s setting, it was hands-down the best film I saw at the 2025 edition of the fest and promised the arrival of a genuine filmmaking talent in González-Nasser, who based the film on her real-life experiences. Over the course of a single day, Sofia (a soft and remarkable Mimi Davila in her first proper leading turn) experiences personal revelations in moments most of us would consider unassuming, though as I wrote in my InSession Film review last June, watching Sofia operate in a rut-adjacent routine for 89-minutes is never unfulfilling or uninteresting. Rather, it’s a film that capitalizes on the beauty of mundanity in a way that is as authentic as I’ve seen in some time. Basking in that experience is where the film’s tender nature derives from. I had the pleasure of speaking with the director and star about exactly that, among other topics aplenty. Our conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
InSession Film: Paula, I know the genesis for this film was your time spent as a film scout. But can you offer a little more background into exactly how that experience shaped The Scout?
Paula Gonzalez-Nasser: Yeah, it was definitely not an idea I had while I was scouting.
I think that I was very much not aware of what was interesting about the job while I was doing it. I think it took me having some distance away from the job to realize, “Wait a second, that was such a crazy job.” And it was a very interesting vessel for a story of a character whose day-to-day looks very different, even though it’s kind of the same as it adds on.
And to be honest, when I was thinking of what to make for my first feature – because I had produced a few small micro-budget features – and I was thinking, “Okay, now that we kind of know what we can do, what does that look like in terms of what’s interesting to me? I wanted to write something. And I think when I finished it, I texted [Mimi] and said, “Hey, can I talk to you about this movie idea that I’m having and have written with you in mind? No pressure, though.” [Laughs.]
But in terms of the scouting idea, I love anthology stories. I love short vignettes and repetition, because I love Chantelle Ackerman, and I think that’s very huge in her work. I saw The Meetings of Anna, and I thought, “Oh, that’s a little bit like what my life was like scouting,” except that in that story, you know, she’s like an accomplished filmmaker in Europe showing her film, and in this story, she’s an invisible person who has to interact with people in New York City. I thought that was such a great character to explore, someone who has to put on different faces. And I just thought Mimi was the perfect vessel for that, because I think she’s naturally a very curious person in general. She could talk to anyone at any party for hours and find out so many things about them.
Mimi Davila: [Not speaking, but making facial expressions and hand motions that are consistent with someone being extremely flattered, if not flat-out stunned.]
IF: Mimi, I kind of have to ask about your facial reactions.
MD: This is the first time I’m hearing that part of the reason why you wrote this is because I could be in it!
PGN: Yeah! I mean, I had only made a short film before this (aside from my projects in school), which I don’t think were even remotely exploratory of what my voice was because I didn’t know who I was or what I wanted to do. After [the short film] Limestone, Mimi and I just had such a good understanding of how to work with each other. So I just was like, “If I’m going to do a first feature, which seems scary, I want to do it with someone that understands me and not try and meet somebody from scratch and try and build that relationship over the course of, you know, 10 days.”
MD: That makes me so emotional because I think it’s rare to find a director that trusts their actor as much as [Paula]. I’m not trying to shine light on myself, but a director really trusting an actor, even if they don’t have a big name or anything, that bears so many fruits. I just think people need to hear that. Because at the end of the day, filmmaking is at its best when you have that kind of trust and intimacy with someone and you let it go outside of your own idea and let it evolve into something.
And I’m just like, how lucky am I that I met you?
IF: Obviously, the character in [The Scout] is named Sofia, not Paula. But it’s important to understand the truth of the experiences that inspire a film like this. What was the collaborative process like of realizing the character as a unit given the true elements?
MD: Paula told me about the practical and technical aspects of it. I would ask her really simple things, like, how am I supposed to use the camera? How would you walk around the space with the camera? I think the emotional life of the character is really a product of our relationship and our trust. It’s a fusion of her and I. We didn’t really speak about that in literal ways. I don’t remember us talking that much about it. I think it was just stuff that happened as a result of working together.
PGN: It’s not until now that I’m sort of realizing we never really talked about my experiences. And we weren’t trying to recreate those experiences. We were sort of like, “Let’s have these new experiences.”
And I would feed [Mimi], like you said, technical information about what a scout would and wouldn’t do. I think that’s where I was picky. Just because we were depicting what this job entails.
But as far as how this character would react to these situations, that was its own thing. Sophia was her own character. She wasn’t me. She wasn’t Mimi. She was this fusion that we were reacting to. And if you felt like something was off, you would adjust it. If I felt like there was a technical thing, like, “Oh, she wouldn’t really ask this here,” we would take it back. Or if you wanted to make sure that a story beat was being told. Because, again, as you know, the film is just a simple following.
MD: And you would sometimes direct me if I wasn’t exactly hitting a beat you needed to get through.
PGN: Yeah, and that’s true. There’s not a lot of places to hide in this film, both in the edit and performance-wise. So a lot of it did fall on you every single take. Because we would have these long takes to nail the emotional arc, the beats, and the technical aspects of the job. We kind of had to review ourselves a lot in that way. It was really fun to not be able to hide. I think I’ve worked on so many films that are great edit-wise because they, in their shooting style, lend themselves to be able to be molded in the edit. But this film was pretty straightforward. I mean, the assembly came together in like two days.
These are the scenes, and there’s only so much coverage that we have. Does it work? And if it doesn’t, how are we going to move things around? And that was its own challenge, the edit. But it was really fun, too.
IF: How long was the shoot itself? You had the benefit of it all being set in one place, New York. Even if you’re traveling through the dreaded Lincoln Tunnel and other tunnels.
PGN: It was actually the Queens Midtown Tunnel. And that was intentional only because the Lincoln Tunnel tolls were insane. Even though I liked the Lincoln Tunnel visually more.
IF: It nearly passes as the Lincoln Tunnel, just so you know. All of the cars just happen to be going in the same direction.
PGN: Very good. Okay, I’m glad. The Lincoln Tunnel is even more constricting also. So it has this crazier feel when you’re going through it. But anyway, we shot for ten and a half days.
Five days in the first week, then a half day, then we took a two-day break. And then we did another five days.
IF: You kind of spoke to this a little bit, but the film is very much a simple following. And it isn’t so… I guess you could use the words “plot-dependent,” as another feature might be. It’s very much observational. We are just with this person. And the plot, insofar as we want to use that word, is the experience that this person is having. What drew you to that approach, Paula? And for you, Mimi, was that a unique experience as an actor? The docu-fictional, things unfolding naturally kind of narrative?
PGN: I take that as a compliment. Thank you. I’m drawn to stories like that. You know, right before we shot this, we saw [Wim Wenders’] Perfect Days. I love looking at someone’s life with a magnifying glass, no matter how insignificant a part of their life is. Because there’s so much actually underneath the surface of an ordinary day. And again, not to talk about Chantal Ackerman all the time, but that’s what she was so interested in. A woman’s ordinary day can be so charged and so political and so interesting, even though her work is often described as “nothing happens.” I think everything happens. And also, because this was always going to have to be a small film, and we were going to have to make it for very little money, I think there’s only so much that we can do within the scope that we have.
So the scope always had to be very contained. Luckily, that is what interests me. But we couldn’t… If we wanted to do her life throughout the season of this job, or through the three months that she’s starting, I think that would make the scope a little bigger and the stakes a little higher. There would be a lot more, I guess, action or plot heavy things. But when you set something in a day, how much can actually really happen? So that always drew me to it.
MD: I’m cheating right now, and I’m looking up this quote that I want to say. Okay, I’m going to botch it, but it’s about Eleonora Duse. What was said about her is the reason why she was so miraculous is that she could reveal the extraordinary through the ordinary. And I think that’s what this story does. That was very evident on the paper; the way [Paula] wrote it, it was already there. I was scared at first because I come from a background of doing a lot of character work, but my dream has always been to do something like this. I mean, this is an actor’s dream, a character study. So I was afraid because I was like, “Am I going to be interesting enough to do this?” And so it was scary. But it’s the kind of scary that you want to take on. That I want to take on.
IF: Was the experience of shooting in New York – with all the permits and red tape that comes with it – at all similar to working as a film scout?
PGN: That’s a great question. Yes, in hindsight. The shoot was very fun. I wouldn’t say it was very stressful, but it was more stressful than I often remember it to be. When you’re shooting everything in such a condensed timeline, nothing can go wrong. Or, there’s not a lot of room to change things around. Basically, what you set up that day, that’s what it’s going to be.
Filming was a similar feeling [to scouting] in that you’re going against the grain of the city. Production in New York city doesn’t really work at any scale. You’re sort of trying to take over a space that was not designed to be taken over. I mean, when you’re working on a [low-budget] shoot with trucks and campers and all this stuff, even though you have the permits and you are allowed to be there, the city is actively fighting you. You’re being disruptive, annoying the shit out of a neighborhood… And they should get upset! In the past, it was often my job to liaison for productions, but I would always be like, “Actually, these residents are right. This woman’s trying to get her baby to sleep, and here’s this 30-foot truck with an idling engine on the entire day and fumes going into her apartment. She should be upset!”
But for this shoot, it was so small. We didn’t even have to get parking permits because we just had an equipment van that we legally parked every day and everybody just took the train to set. But even that, you’re sort of going against the grain and you’re sometimes having to move during rush hour. And it’s like, “Oh, we’re never going to make it to this other place.” But as far as shooting in public, the city is great because New Yorkers are so used to seeing a camera and people filming everywhere that they’re, like, trained. They’re the perfect backdrop. All the exteriors were so easy because of that. The interiors and the private spaces were actually difficult because they didn’t already look amazing. We had to make them look good, while anything we shot outside was perfect as is. I mean, cars and bikers zooming past Mimi as she’s opening a door, it looks choreographed in a great way. and the synchronicity of like bikers was zooming past Mimi as she’s opening a door and it’s just, it looks choreographed in a great way.
IF: Mimi, how was that experience different potentially from the projects you’ve worked on in the past?
MD: The outdoor scenes, for sure. Because there’s so much life going on all the time, there’s so much to act off of. Even the architecture itself. We did a night where we were just shooting me walking and walking and walking and walking. And there were reflections, stairs, art… It really works well with the story because New York is so much bigger than all of us. It’s so grandiose. I think part of the heart of the story is how one can feel so small working all the time, being devoured by institutions and powers that are so much larger. That was very inspiring to me during the performance.
IF: Paula, do you know what you’re going to be doing next by any chance? And if so, can you talk about it?
MD: Can you?!
PGN: [Laughs.] I can definitely talk about it. The answer is I don’t know. That’s a great question. I know the idea is that you should know, but also when you’re working on a movie like The Scout, where it’s so small and everyone on the team is performing so many different roles, it is so consuming and you want to be as involved as possible – especially in your first film – to really get it out there and have it be shown to as many people who want to connect with it as possible. So I feel like I’ve just been in Scout mode for the past few years, and that’s neither bad nor good. That’s just what our life has been.
And Mimi, too. She’s been really an integral part of this whole process. We did shoot a movie; Mimi directed a film that I helped on as the first AD, so we’ve been doing that, and I’ve been working on other friends’ projects who worked on my films. We’re kind of just always working on each other’s stuff and it’s less, like, “What do I have in the works now?” My producer Ryan [Martin Brown] shot a feature that we’re editing now. I just like to work that way. Until I have something that I’m like, this is what I want to devote four years of my life to, I’m kind of a little bit like, “Let’s pump the brakes and really decide what we want to give our time to.” And I feel like I still have so much to learn just from this film. I am learning so much from it and what worked and what didn’t and what it is that we even want to do next. I know I want to work with Mimi again! We have talked about several ideas that we could shoot, not even in New York, but maybe in Florida where we’re both from. So hopefully something like that is what’s next, but we’ll see.
IF: It was last summer, 2025, when The Scout officially premiered. It’s now the fall of 2026. I would love to hear from both of you what it’s like to finally have the film enter the world officially where people get to see it.
MD: It doesn’t feel that long for me because I think it’s also rare. We shot it in 2024. Sometimes you work on a movie and you’re like, where the heck did it go? Like, it got caught up in the edit, or someone got into a fight, the producer left the company… You don’t know what happened. So the fact that it got made, edited, and premiered in a very timely fashion and is getting a theatrical release, I’m like, this is amazing.
PGN: I second Mimi. It has felt like a long time that we’ve been breathing and living this movie, but at the same time, our edit timeline was actually… I wouldn’t say fast, but for a film where you’re all doing everything and your producer is also your editor and they’re trying to live and pay rent, it was pretty fast. That we got to premiere it at Tribeca is so special, but I think what’s really breathing so much life into it is just how excited our distributor [Greenwich Entertainment] has been. And the fact that Film Forum wants to show it is making me excited about it all over again, like we’re just showing it for the first time again. We’re really grateful.
The Scout is now playing exclusively at New York’s Film Forum. It will expand into further cities and theaters in October.
Director:Janus Metz Writers: Sam Chalsen, Nelson Greaves Stars: Jacob Tremblay, Russell Crowe, Shailene Woodley, Annabelle Wallis
Synopsis: A Harvard student becomes the Unabomber after psychological experiments. Years later, an FBI agent’s pursuit reveals how his past shaped his deadly campaign that killed 3 and injured 23 from 1978-1995.
Watching Janus Metz’s Unabomber, I was often reminded of the countless musical biopics. Not because of the tone or filmmaking style, but rather the complete suspension of disbelief required to enjoy these types of films. You can sit and enjoy what transpires, but there is always that feeling there is absolutely no way this is how it actually happened.
Needless to say, a film about Ted Kaczynski should be narratively potent. The film attempts to draw some parallels between Kaczynski’s past and his crimes, while also adding some red-scare government paranoia to the mix. The result is fine and flatly entertaining, but ends up being hollow. You don’t know anything more about Kaczynski than you did before the film began, because you certainly can’t believe any conjectures the film makes about the man.
The film attempts to connect Kaczynski’s time at Harvard to his spree of bombings. Young Kaczynski (Jacob Tremblay) is interested in psychology, and joins a debate study helmed by professor Henry Murray (Russell Crowe). Those “debates” are very clearly a deeper psychological study meant to demean and berate the subjects. The filmmakers attempt to draw a throughline to determine if a monster is born that way or if he is built. Unfortunately, these attempts get absolutely nowhere and fail to land.
Instead of planting the morsels of how this kid could turn into an adult terrorist, the film feels the need to assume this single event was the catalyst to the man he would become. The film talks about all these other inciting events, but doesn’t dare depict them in order to stick to two distinct timelines. In classic film fashion, the narrative jumps between Murray toying with Kaczynski’s psyche in the late ‘50s and FBI agent Joanne Miller (Shailene Woodley),hunting Kaczynski in the ‘90s.
It also doesn’t help that history is well-documented. Kaczynski’s stranglehold on the country’s consciousness lends an air of predictability, as does the film’s genre conventions. The FBI’s general incompetence in finding the Unabomber is only outmatched by the tenacity of agent Miller, the one person who is sure Kaczynski is the guy. Not only do they have the stereotypical male counterpart undermining her at every turn (Alexander Ludwig), her boss (Steven Ogg) is equally dismissive. It’s one step short of “I just got off the phone with the mayor!”
Of course, that doesn’t stop our lady Joanne. She takes some “personal days” to go stake out Kaczynski’s middle-of-nowhere house, hoping to catch something. She has all the evidence she needs to be sure it’s him, but those dang bureaucrats in the FBI just aren’t willing to trust a woman with stone-cold facts. It will surprise absolutely no one that Miller is a fictional person. If she were real, and she did what she did, she would be a household name.
And that’s mostly the problem. All of this would be fascinating to learn if not for the availability of a quick Wikipedia search. Two things are very clear: Kaczynski took part in a study by Murray in the ‘50s, and he was the Unabomber. Everything else can be taken with a massive grain of salt. With that lack of credibility established, it throws every other piece of information into dispute. If the filmmakers wanted to show how a young man eventually becomes a murderer, they achieve that…as long as they think you are stupid.
The actors don’t do anything particularly interesting other than embody their characters the script gives them. Trembley never gets much of a grasp of the character in his youth, vacillating between coy and reserved to boisterous and ranting. Crowe is a very credible academic, but he is obviously up to no good with this study. Woodley gets to do nothing but scream about being right and hide in the woods on occasion. Other actors are peppered in for good measure, including Annabelle Wallis as Murray’s right-hand woman (and assumed lover) and Ludwig and Ogg at the FBI. No one makes any sort of impression worth noting.
While it might be flatly entertaining, Unabomber plays fast and loose with the facts. There is an interesting story to be told around Ted Kaczynski, but it’s not in this film.
As we start the 2026 holiday season, the Criterion Collection also goes on sale twice before the year closes out. This includes both the month-long half off November Barnes & Noble sale, as well as the 24 hour 50% flash sale through Criterion directly that happens every October. Anything since the end of July is fair game and if you’ve had your eye on something but haven’t pulled the trigger – now is the time to partake. Usually, Criterion announces more horror-centric films in their October slate and this month is no different. Criterion is upgrading a Collection staple in a new 4K+Blu-Ray set, two new Blu-Ray releases, two new 4K+Blu-Ray releases, a Blu-Ray Eclipse upgrade, and one gargantuan, unprecedented 4K+Blu-Ray box set featuring the filmography of master filmmaker Stanley Kubrick.
Welcome II The Terrordome (1995)
I only became aware of Welcome II The Terrordome after BAM added screenings of this with Janus Films attached as the distributor back in July. A film that covers difficult topics, with a rap soundtrack, with a stylish flare, in the 1990s is 100% my jam. Additionally, Welcome II The Terrordome is the first theatrically distributed British feature by a Black woman. It would be wrong of me to discuss the topics within this film as a white man, however the commentary is done incredibly well and it’s one of the best surprises I’ve seen this year. Welcome II The Terrordome is a Blu-Ray release featuring a new 2K digital restoration supervised and approved by cinematographer Alwin H. Küchler.
The Shout (1978)
There’s something very special about the horror films of the 1970s. The studio framework hadn’t entirely taken over, and there was a lot of analog and interpretive horror at play. Even though the slasher genre took over the ‘80s, the ‘70s gave way to what the modern slasher would look like. The Shout is a part of the drive in the ‘70s and has a mysterious man move into town that can shout so loud it can kill. The Shout is a great October flick with its pulpy premise and more silly aesthetic – you could pair this with your favorite Goosebumps episode or Friday the 13th sequel (Jason Voorhees in space or Manhattan are great options). The Shout is a Blu-Ray release featuring a 2K digital restoration approved by director Jerzy Skolimowski.
Eclipse Series 5: The First Films of Samuel Fuller
Samuel Fuller is one of the most brilliant filmmakers I’ve seen. Watching Shock Corridor at 16 years old was a shock (see what I did there) to the system. Someone making something so visually stylish and morally questionable in the 1960s seemed outlandish to my feeble little high schooler mind. I’ve seen more films from him since then, and the first films for any esteemed filmmaker is a great way to show the stepping stones to how someone shows their ethos in filmmaking before they’re allowed more budgetary power. This Eclipse was generously used for years when it was a DVD release, but the eventual upgrade to blu-ray will be ran back when I pick this up. Furthermore, a set with a great western, great noir, and a great war picture is a killer deal on any front. The films in this set are I Shot Jesse James, The Baron of Arizona, and The Steel Hamlet and they are all featured in a Blu-Ray box set.
The Complete Kubrick
The Complete Kubrick is the entire filmography of legendary filmmaker Stanley Kubrick featuring 4K restorations of all 13 of his feature films. Stanley Kubrick is one of the most important filmmakers ever, in the same vein of Akira Kurosawa or Federico Fellini – but if you’re reading a monthly summary of Criterion’s physical media releases this entire sentence is incredibly silly and fluff as a film fan. This is far and away the most important piece of physical media that will be released this year (hell, probably the decade). This set will include the films Fear and Desire, Killer’s Kiss, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Spartacus, Lolita, Dr. Strangelove, or: How I Learned to Stopped Worrying and Love the Bomb, 2001: A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket, and Eyes Wide Shut. Additionally, Kubrick’s three short films, Flying Padre, Day of the Fight, and The Seafarers, will also be in the release. While not specified on Criterion’s website, it is unsure as to whether these are all new 4K restorations. But it’s entirely possible that the Barry Lyndon and Eyes Wide Shut discs will feature the new restorations Criterion has previously done.
Christiane F.(1981)
Christiane F. is a film that I’ve avoided for some time. I’m no stranger to difficult films (Salo, La Grande Bouffet, Come and See, and In the Realm of the Senses have been viewed by these unfortunate eyes), but the events within Christian’s F. hit a weird spot for me personally. The film is about a 14-year-old girl who falls into heroin addiction in Berlin. My friends who have seen this describe it as depraved but sincere. Christiane F. has been a wishlist Criterion for some time and has a mass cult following behind it. I’m curious to check it out, and this new release might be the push I need to finally digest this picture. To add, this is another film in the Criterion Collection that stars the masterful David Bowie. Christiane F. is a 4K+Blu-Ray combo pack featuring a new 4K digital restoration approved by director Uli Edel.
The Silence of the Lambs(1991)
It feels silly to go over in detail how incredible The Silence of the Lambs is. It wrote a whole new language of crime procedural with the monster guiding you to your destination. Jonathan Demme (rest his soul), was an excellent filmmaker and The Silence of the Lambs was his most successful feature on a critical and commercial level. Criterion has had the rights to its blu-ray for a number of years, but now we are getting a new 4K disc upgrade. I feel like anyone who collects Criterion has this release in their collection – so this should be an easy upgrade for any fan of cinema. The Silence of the Lambs is a 4K+Blu-Ray combo pack featuring a 4K digital restoration supervised by director of photography Tak Fujimoto.
Frankenstein(2025)
Guillermo del Toro is one of my all time favorite filmmakers – and I’m a massive fan of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein. Which is to say, I was a massive fan of this film. There were people who weren’t in love with this interpretation (and that’s fine!), but I think the production, the ethos, and the love put behind the camera really makes this film a hit for me. Following del Toro’s last Criterion release, the magnificently put together Nightmare Alley, we get another deluxe package for one of modern cinema’s greatest auteurs. It should be a no brainer that this is a day 1 purchase for me. Frankenstein is a 4K+Blu-Ray combo pack featuring a 4K digital restoration of both the theatrical release of the film as well as a new extended director’s cut.
Director: Nicolás Pereda Writers: Juan Francisco Maldonado, Nicolás Pereda Stars: Francisco Barreiro, Rosa Estela Juárez ,Luisa Pardo
Synopsis: In Mexico, musician Tere hosts fellow composer Rosa for a TV interview. Their conversation wanders as unexpected guests arrive. A witty, absurdist comedy that lampoons art-world phoniness and pretension while honoring female friendship.
How can Nicolás Pereda’s Everything Else is Noise best be described? The most succinct, albeit crass, summation is this: it’s a 71 minute manifesto reminding its audience that men are trash. Impressively, as frustrating a reminder that this film is of that universal truth, one can’t help but giggle at its particular approach from the very outset. It’s all there in the introductory sequence which plays out as a backdrop to the opening credits. Set to a lovely classical composition, the first image Pereda captures is an absurd traffic jam. Even completely devoid of context, this scenario captured from a high-angled perch feels like we’re watching nature play out as it has since the inception of the personal motor vehicle. It’s a dilemma that couldn’t be more fundamentally understood. And in retrospect, as we see cars desperately try to inch their way towards freedom, or witness a train of cars forcibly seizing their way through a gap, the entire thesis of Everything Else Is Noise makes itself abundantly clear in these opening moments. They initially play out as merely a series of silly moments of human behavior for the audience to chuckle at. Yet it takes on the weight of being the perfect representation of life itself, in particular the experiences of the women at the center of this film and far beyond its 71 minutes alike.
That introductory traffic jam, much like life, is this constantly shapeshifting, ludicrous organism and experience. It simply works itself out however it best can because it must. And despite there surely being a more efficient method of handling traffic (or life) in a given situation, there will always be individuals who find it more befitting and beneficial to force their presence into a situation, leaving everybody else to fend fully for themselves in the wake of their selfishness. If it wasn’t obvious, the cars making a further mess of things in order to get themselves nowhere just a bit faster represent the men in the lives of Tere (Teresita Sánchez), Rosa (Rosa Estela Juárez Vargas), and Luisa (Luisa Pardo). We come to understand that Tere is watching this traffic jam from her apartment with quite the smile on her face. Tere perfectly understands the humor of the situation, yet also understands the inevitable frustrations it can bring to the surface. This observation shines a light on two central forces which will operate throughout the rest of Everything Else is Noise. Firstly, it’s indicative of the exact sort of dry humor this film will utilize as its bread and butter. Secondly, it is the first of many silent and effortless reveals about who Tere is as a person, and how she faces the struggles that come with merely existing as a woman. Through fundamentally simple traits such as these, Pereda is able to explore all the complexities within his central ideas while remaining completely distinct as a specific body of work.
Despite its short runtime, Everything Else is Noise is overflowing with creativity and authenticity regarding its approach to exploring these women for all that they are. For as funny as this film is, and it is bound to cause uproarious laughter should an audience really key into its idiosyncratic wavelength, Everything Else is Noise is bathed in so much wistfulness. As we come to learn, Rosa is coming over because a documentary crew will be interviewing her and Tere’s space suits her needs in more ways than one. It’s perhaps less so because of the general ambience cited, and perhaps more due to the not-so-veiled notions of Rosa’s husband disapproving of any recognition towards her career as a composer. There’s an initial distance present in the very look and feel of the film that keeps the audience rapt with attention as we try to learn more about these women. The minimalist aesthetic works wonders in this regard, as the fuzziness of memories amongst these friends makes way for the potential opportunity of complete personal reinvention purely for entertainment’s sake. But it’s not all fun and games as we come to learn more about the lives of these women.
This is a great entry into the canon of single-day cinema. Beyond just the impressive nature of charting an entire day with varying levels of natural light or candlelight, this is also a film that reckons with the sheer passage of time. Specifically, it’s reckoning with a life that hasn’t just potentially passed by, but one that has been forcefully cast aside in favor of obnoxious men more than willing to play the part of “radical genius.” Luckily for the audience and the trio of women, Pereda and co-writer Juan Francisco Maldonado know exactly how to craft various exercises in toying with a few of these sorts of men. The documentary crew who arrive at Tere’s apartment are two of the male guinea pigs in this filmed experiment. During an initial setback, overblown frustrations lead the two men to take a walk while the issue remedies itself. During this time, Pereda keeps the camera within the apartment, yet all the audio from the women’s seemingly rich conversation is drowned out by the mundane ramblings of the two men in the street discussing their larger plans and passions. It’s designed to intentionally frustrate the audience; we immediately have the desire to learn more about these women and their lives as professional composers, yet are being forced to listen to everything else but that. The title of this film in moments like these rings true; all the distractions of life, from the blaring horns of street traffic to a neighbor’s dog incessantly barking, or the needless blathering of men showcasing their complete lack of creativity or originality is all just noise. It’s noise meant to drown out the rich lives and stories of three women eager to speak it all out into the world after years of frustrations and hardships.
Even with all that these women have experienced, still each one brings such a tender warmth to this film. We see such respectful understanding despite the frustrations and differences amongst one another. The mother/daughter relationship between Tere and Luisa is a particularly potent strength of this film which best embodies the rawness present across its brisk runtime. We see two women from completely different generations examining the hard-hitting truths about one another in an attempt to better understand the decisions that led them to their current circumstances. The documentary crew is asking surface-level questions in an attempt to sound more clever and artistic. These women instead seem to cut to the very essence of one another with simple observations that could only come from a place of innate curiosity and a desire to genuinely learn more in order to better help the other. It’s a beautiful sentiment, one captured so painfully by the performances of Sánchez and Pardo.
One more man enters the picture in the final moments of Everything Else is Noise and the thesis of the film clicks into place even further. His appearance perfectly crystallizes Pereda’s indictment on the insanely frustrating behavior men have gotten away with for far too long. As Tere is forced to hear countless digs towards her own work, Pereda captures a pure look of disgust on Sánchez’s face bathed in nothing but candlelight. It’s certainly one of the most striking images of the entire film, and likely one of the most effective of the entire year. Only then does it make way for an ending so joyous and touching that you can’t help but smile alongside the film and the whims of its filmmaker. For the men in this film, these women’s stories merely existed as a stepping stone on their illustrious paths upwards into the halls of artistic acclaim. But for these women, their experiences were merely their jobs, their lives, their entire calling, or some combination. But they’re also realistic in how they describe their experiences. Nothing was ever strictly a means to an end, but they acknowledge wholeheartedly that there’s little to no fluff or exciting flourish to their story. That’s not to diminish their experiences, but rather, is indicative of how the men in this film speak so loftily of themselves compared to the gentle demeanor of these women. That Everything Else is Noise can thread such a needle in such a short amount of time speaks to a clear talent in Pereda, and one that must be seen to be not only believed, but felt deeply.
Everything Else is Noise is celebrating its U.S. Premiere in the Main Slate section at the 64th New York Film Festival.
This week on Episode 706 of the InSession Film Podcast, inspired by the release of Primetime this weekend, we thought it would be fun to dive into our Top 5 movies about television! Not to be confused with television movies, which is a completely different list. There is something quite fascinating about the world of television, as depicted through the lens of cinema, as the films considered here are pretty extraordinary. This was a challenging list to narrow down given how rich the topic is overall. Even if a few seem pretty obvious as the best, there are some equally riveting underrated gems. Which is to say, we had a blast talking about these movies and why they resonate so viscerally. That said, here are our lists:
(Note: Please keep in mind that we each had different criteria for our selections)
JD
1) Network
2) Disclosure Day
3) I Saw the TV Glow
4) The Insider
5) Christine
Megan
1) The China Syndrome
2) The Truman Show
3) Nightcrawler
4) A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood
5) The Hunger Games
Honorable Mentions (Combined) The King of Comedy, Good Night and Good Luck, Pleasantville, A Face in the Crowd, Broadcast News, Anchorman: The Legend of Ron Burgundy, Bamboozled, The Ring, Slumdog Millionaire, Saturday Night, Woman of the Hour, Scrooged
Hopefully you guys enjoyed our lists. If you agree or disagree with us, let us know in the comment section below. There are obviously more movies about television that we didn’t have time to mention (or they’re blindspots for us), so if your list looks very different than ours, we totally get it. That being said, what would be your Top 5? Leave a comment in the comment section or email us at [email protected].
For more lists done by the InSession Film crew and other guests, be sure see our Movie Lists page.
Director:David Ayer Writers: Cameron Alexander Stars: Brad Pitt, J.K. Simmons, Anna Lambe
Synopsis: After a harrowing plane crash, a Special Forces officer and his combat dog find themselves stranded deep in the Alaskan wilderness. Together, they are forced into a brutal fight for survival against the elements.
There needs to be a mild spoiler here, so skip this paragraph if you are not interested in that kind of direct plot detail. It’s hardly a spoiler as it happens a handful of minutes into the movie, but it is a plot point, so the warning is in place. This “spoiler” is only mentioned to set domestic animal lover’s minds at ease. We are given a scene at the beginning of the film of Odin (Uber), our dog friend, standing on a lonely country road with a person approaching him. After the close up of Odin’s eyes, we see a title on the next scene that reads, “One Week Earlier,” so yes, Odin survives this ordeal. With that said, Heart of the Beast still has a great deal of tension and suspense to keep us on the edge of our seats for the rest of the run time.
Humans, as a species, have created a society that keeps us from having to fight for survival. There are human systems within the human world, which absolutely create difficulties and challenges to the individual’s survival, but by and large we don’t have to sleep with one eye open. That’s why we go into the woods, or the bush, or any place without human inhabitants. We want to feel that closeness to other organisms, our planet, and the life cycle that keeps the natural order of things. We go to play at survival or to just try and find peace amongst our fellow sentient Earthlings. Though, it isn’t a controlled environment and as James (Brad Pitt) and Odin learn, there are variables even the most prepared can’t account for.
This is the biggest detriment to the film and Cameron Alexander’s script, though. Yes, James is the toughest of the tough. Yes, he is a man who can think quickly and competently about what he needs to do in order to survive. Though, by the third or fourth time he hits his head on something hard or is pulled underwater for too long, it borders on incredulity. The heart attack that puts James and Odin into this situation in the first place felt like it should have been the end, but it’s just one more thing for James to power through. Thankfully most of this is shown not told, so that we don’t have to have a hand wavy tough guy explanation. Alexander’s script gives us a lot of room to breathe and to understand.
If director David Ayer had written the script, it would have been filled with his usual talky manly man machismo which would have ruined this film. There’s only one scene that has some of this when James and Odin sit down with Watkins (J.K. Simmons). It’s there for us to avoid feelings and embrace bravado. Ayer instead creates a tension filled film with excellent action sequences from Alexander’s words. Ayer, along with cinematographer Mauro Fiore, show the harshness that belies a land of such beauty. The lushness of some scenes makes you feel as if you can smell the alpine trees and feel the spray of the cold water. They can also make you want to pet a very good boy.
While Brad Pitt is good, and is falling into a comfortable groove playing quiet, stoic types, Uber is the real star. The film finds itself more often than not in Odin’s perspective. It feels like it’s his story rather than James’ even if we are meant to identify with James more. Head dog trainer Esther Murphy has done an exceptional job here. Uber is a stellar animal actor. He conveys so much with the look of his beautiful honey eyes and, likely done later, a guttural groan or two. How much of this is editing doesn’t matter. The dog is there, he does that look, and steals the show. He’ll go down in the annals of great animal actors.
Heart of the Beast isn’t a perfect film. It isn’t even a great film. Yet, it’s a film that will surprise you with a tenderness and heartfelt warmth. It’s a film that shows that our connection to nature through pets and working animals that we care for is more than just a need for companionship. It’s a deep bond of true love and affection even in the most harrowing of circumstances. The ending is an absolute knock out because of that connection and makes the film worth seeing even if you’re not sold on the man vs. nature survival element.
The 88th Academy Awards suffered a backlash after a lack of diversity amongst the acting categories, which was the second time in a row this happened. Even the Best Supporting Actor category could’ve given us a more interesting set of performances, but alas, this is what we got. We witnessed what felt like was going to be Sylvester Stallone’s shot at the title, but ended up going to a known character actor, Mark Rylance.
So, what happened here? How did Sylvester lose the Oscar? Was it his to win, or was it always going to be someone else winning the gold? In honor of I Play Rocky coming to theaters later this year, I’m going to examine how and why Mark Rylance managed to beat Sylvester Stallone at the Academy Awards.
First thing we need to discuss are some of the potential contenders that could’ve been nominated in this category. We have Idris Elba in Beasts of No Nation, who got nominated at the Golden Globes, BAFTA, and won the SAG award. Another possible contender would’ve been Oscar Isaac for Ex Machina; I’m not the biggest fan of the film, but I felt Oscar did such a tremendous job in that role. I would’ve even taken Benicio del Toro for his performance in Sicario; after all, the film did score some tech nominations for Best Original Score, Sound Editing, and Cinematography.
As for the actual nominees, this was an underwhelming crop for me. They’re not terrible performances per say, but outside of Sylvester they’re not ones that I’d actively jump for to give an Oscar win. To me, the biggest surprise in terms of who showed up in this lineup was Tom Hardy for The Revenant.
I get that the film was a big hit for voters, but outside of Critics’ Choice Awards he didn’t land a nomination in any of the major televised awards. Then again, he also had a stacked year of films; some of which were disappointments like Child 44 or Legend, but another big one in 2015 was Mad Max: Fury Road. And sometimes when you have a solid year for a certain actor, voters can rally behind the more likelier contender and nominate them for that film. But with The Revenant, he had the sadistic and villainous role; a type of role that can get nominated at the Academy Awards. Without any major nominations from SAG or BAFTA, Tom had no shot at winning the gold.
What about Mark Ruffalo in Spotlight? Afterall, he’s in a top three contender with Spotlight and was coming into the night with a guaranteed Oscar win for Best Original Screenplay. While he was on his 3rd Oscar nod, he had missed out on getting a SAG nod for his performance; he did win with the cast at SAG for Best Cast Ensemble, but that doesn’t always help you out for the win. Also, I do believe that there were other performances in the ensemble that received better praise than Mark. Outside of his big acting moment towards the second half of the film, it’s not the type of acting that would warrant a nomination.
As for Christian Bale in The Big Short, he could’ve been a contender had he not already won a few years prior. I also feel that while the film was a top three contender for Best Picture, it was only guaranteed to win an Oscar for Best Adapted Screenplay. Yes; it did win the PGA and ACE Eddie prize for Comedy/Musical category, but it couldn’t nab the Best Ensemble prize at SAG.
Of the actors in this category that I thought had a shot at winning the Oscar, I would argue it was Sylvester Stallone for Creed. While he hadn’t been nominated since his breakout film, Rocky, he was a known movie star for decades. Sylvester had his fair share of hits and bombs throughout his career, but was never taken seriously as a dramatic actor since then outside of Copland. It wasn’t until Ryan Coogler came in and pitched this story to the actor. Despite refusing to do Creed numerous times, Sylvester ultimately agreed to it.
Not only was this a box-office hit and critically acclaimed, it netted the actor his 3rd Academy Award nomination and even won a Golden Globe and Critics’ Choice Award for Best Supporting Actor. By that point, he had a narrative of being this overdue veteran, who went back to his roots and was to win this Oscar for a role many had thought he deserved with Rocky. Unfortunately, Sylvester Stallone came up short on Oscar night once again.
Much like his performance in Bridge of Spies, Mark Rylance was a quiet contender that slowly crept up on voters. Granted, he didn’t win many prizes and even lost SAG to Idris Elba for his performance in Beasts of No Nation, which didn’t even score an Academy Award nomination. When his name was called on Oscar night, my jaw dropped to the floor. I was stunned that not only did Sylvester Stallone lose the Oscar, but he lost to this performance. How exactly did this man win the prize?
First off, Mark Rylance was in a highly respected film directed by an Oscar-winning legend, Steven Spielberg. Bridge of Spies not only became a box-office hit, but also garnered critical acclaim and even scored six Academy Award nominations. Creed only managed to score a lone acting nod for Sylvester himself.
While the performance by Mark isn’t showy, it does leave an impact with his monologues and audiences can empathize with his character. If anything, people coming out of Bridge of Spies remembered his performance more than Tom Hanks. Even if he didn’t have a big name hanging on his shoulders back in 2015 for his film work, he was a respectable, character actor at that time for his stage and television work. On top of that, he had won a handful of prizes over the years for his work in theatre winning a few Tony awards.
As for his performance in Bridge of Spies, Mark Rylance only won the BAFTA. And while he lost Golden Globes and Critics’ Choice Awards, he managed to walk away with an industry prize. Yes; the Golden Globes and Critics’ Choice Awards can help you secure a spot at the Oscars, but they’re not voted by the industry themselves. They can help set up a narrative, but it’s the industry prizes with SAG and BAFTA that help you along the way to win the Oscar.
Something I didn’t realize until now as to why Mark lost at SAG was that Idris Elba had a stronger movie. While Bridge of Spies got a Best Supporting Actor nod from the guild, it wasn’t nominated elsewhere at the ceremony. Whereas Beasts of No Nation scored two nominations: Best Supporting Actor and Cast Ensemble. It was a similar advantage A Complete Unknown had years later, with Timothée Chalamet beating out the eventual Oscar winner, Adrien Brody, for The Brutalist. Not only was Beasts of No Nation a priority film for voters with its additional nomination, but Idris also had a great year on television for his work on Luther.
Bottom line: if you can’t score a win at BAFTA or SAG, your chances of winning the Oscar decrease. Sure; we’ve seen actors who’ve been able to win without those two. But as we’ve seen over the years, each season is not the same as the last one. We’ve witnessed completely different types of outcomes, especially in back-to-back years.
One year, we see Marcia Gay Harden win the Oscar without getting a single televised nomination for Pollock. But then the next year, we could witness a sweeper for the same category. Had Sylvester Stallone shown up as a nominee at SAG or BAFTA, or even Creed showed up in other categories like Best Picture or Director, maybe he could’ve had a shot at the title. As is, Sylvester Stallone will have to settle with his two prizes from Golden Globes and Critics’ Choice.
