Synopsis:Friends on a late-night food run become trapped on an infinite highway with otherworldly terrors lurking beyond. Confined in their Jeep Cherokee, they must decide whether to accept their fate or attempt escape.
Fresh off a buzzing premiere at SXSW, Alexander Ullomโsย It Endsย has arrived at the Fantasia International Film Festival, and the venue couldnโt have been better for the movie to have its international premiere. After all (I may be biased, living in Montreal), the Fantasia audience is the most receptive, especially when a movie really works. In the case of Ullomโs directorial debut,ย It Endsย smartly reinvents tropes that were all too familiar within the time loop subgenre by simply modifying one element to freshen up its approach.
Instead of having the main characters relive the same day over and over again, Ullom has a group of friends, comprised of James (Phinehas Yoon), Day (Akira Jackson), Fisher (Noah Toth), and Tyler (Mitchell Cole), trapped inside a road that never ends. Perhaps it will ultimately lead them to the beach that makes you old, but I digress. The quartet of friends has no idea why they are stuck in this perpetual loop, and it gets even stranger when many horrifying things begin to happen outside their car door.ย
Thatโs as far as Iโll go in describing the plot of a movie that works best if you know nothing about It Ends other than its main conceit. And for 87 efficient minutes, Ullom approaches his framing device in constantly surprising ways, whether in its stark aspect ratio shifts, strange, but oddly endearing needle-drops, and even fluctuations in perspective as we get to experience how each character feels when they realize thereโs no way out of the predicament theyโre in.ย
The movie often flows through one register to another, beginning on a more light-hearted note until things take a turn for the worse, and each protagonist has no idea how they will ever be able to make it out of a road that doesnโt seem to have a way out. The woods are trapped, and the road doesnโt have any curves. Itโs a straight line to infinity. How do the characters reckon with a situation that has no way out? Do they give up, or attempt to find a solution? I donโt want to reveal anything, but the way in which Ullom opens up his film, particularly in its affecting and heartbreaking final section, will quietly blow you away, especially when you realize what this never-ending road actively represents.ย
Whatโs most interesting about the film is how it can be unpacked in various ways. Thereโs no one way to interpret what the road (and the charactersโ decisions) means. Iโll be as vague as possible, but thereโs a clear way in which many will perceive this film, and once youโre set in this analysis, It Ends will have a much different meaning for you than someone who imbues their own subjectivity on what the road actively means for them, and the characters. The beauty of a film like this is that there is no right or wrong approach to perceiving this story, because such an event will happen to all of us, whether we want to or not.ย
When one realizes this, itโs hard to look away from It Ends, even if Ullom concludes his movie on the biggest of whimpers, with many lingering questions still left to be answered. Still, the rock-solid alchemy between the four leads canโt be overstated. When they ponder what their life ultimately means now that they are stuck inside never-ending purgatory, youโll feel what they feel. When they scream in agony, not knowing how to get out of this, youโll also be inclined to do the same. Thereโs something so profoundly moving about Ullomโs film that you wonโt realize until far into the movie, where the somewhat comedic conclusion has layers of melancholy buried within it. Once you begin to excavate them, the emotional result is devastating.ย
It then becomes hard to resist this daring proposition, even if the movie may not be as developed as it should be. But it almost doesnโt matter, because whatโs laid out in front of us is such a powerful debut that one immediately knows Ullom is destined for greatness, way beyond the Fantasia and SXSW walls. Even better: it delivers on its title. We were promised that It Ends. And it ends. Few movies actually give us what we paid for. Ullom was clear that it was going to happen โ and it did. Isnโt that incredible?
On June 23, 2025, The New York Times released their list of The 100 Best Movies of the 21st Century, composed of the opinions of more than 500 influential directors, actors, and other notable names in Hollywood and around the world. Their thoughts on the best films released since January 1, 2000 were collected, tallied, and ranked as a touchstone for cinema so far this century. If that wasnโt enough, however, The New York Times also opened a list for users to submit their ten favorite films of the century. The final list was posted on July 2, 2025 and, as an added bonus, the list contained the Top 500 films submitted in ranked order. Frankly, this was too good of an opportunity not to do a deep dive over what cinematic achievements have stuck with us the longest and learn what lessons we can learn from two-and-a-half decades of cinema. Without further adieu, hereโs what I took away from both lists:
One of the major takeaways from The New York Timesโ 100 Best Movies of the 21st Century is a pretty obvious one, but still bears mentioning. Between the Criticsโ 100 and Usersโ 500, 2020 and 2021 were the least populated years. With both years combined, only 25 films were featured on the Users list (out of 500, mind you), with only one film appearing on the Critics list: The Worst Person in the World (at #95). Itโs no doubt that the severe health and financial tolls that the world experienced because of the COVID-19 pandemic affected the film industry. Despite movie theaters and Hollywood still figuring out how to adapt to an ever-changing streaming-centric landscape, more recent films left solid dents on both Critics and Usersโ lists. 12% of the Criticsโ lists were from 2020-2025, with two films in particular appearing in the Top 25: The Zone of Interest at #12 and Anatomy of a Fall at #23. The Usersโ list was more representative at 16%, with tentpole placement from Everything Everywhere All at Once at #13, Oppenheimer at #23, and Dune: Chapter Two at #27. Even Sinners, a movie thatโs been out for less than three months, managed to land just outside the Top 50. Now THATโs impressive!
Admittedly, when youโre analyzing a centuryโs worth of films, thereโs not going to be much room for margin of error. Most of the time, the bulk of the list is going to be fairly obvious to anyone whoโs sampled a reasonable amount of film. However, near the end of the list, there are a few films that genuinely surprised me by their appearance because of their tepid reception upon release. When comparing the New York Timesโ Users poll to each filmโs average Letterboxd community score, only two films made appearances that were below 3.0/5.0 average: Spring Breakers at #321 and Star Wars: The Last Jedi at #468. Upon release, both films were victim to rampant criticism by detractors, yet both films made the list for being bold and audacious in their own ways. Despite the mixed reception at the time, the fans who really love either of these films made it clear that they found a personal connection to them, regardless of what others said. The same holds true for other polarizing films like Twilight at #311, Zoolander at #373, Beau is Afraid at #437, and The Cabin in the Woods at #448. All of these wildly differing films have two things in common: they delivered experiences tailor-made for their audiences, and came out ahead because they stuck to their guns by committing to their vision, for better or worse.
Originally, this article was going to be very Academy-specific. Not just because, year after year, the Academy Awards have proven themselves to be much more attracted to star power and inspirational wins than the artistic merit of filmmaking, but when looking at which films made the Critics and Usersโ lists, the majority of the films that win Best Picture are rarely remembered as โthe bestโ of that year. In some cases, the best film of the year goes unnominated entirely, while other years, the film that wins Best Picture doesnโt even appear on either list, which is a special level of disconnect all its own.
Out of the 24 years of Academy Awards ceremonies represented on this list (excluding 2025), the film that was considered the Best Picture of that year was nominated for only 16 of those years. Not only that, but out of those 16 years, the unanimous Critic and User choice has only won twice: Parasite and Everything Everywhere All at Once. There were close calls, like The Lord of the Rings: Return of the King narrowly overtaking critic favorite Lost in Translation, or an even closer call when Moonlight won over the slightly preferred user favorite La La Land. More often than not though, even when films made both Critics and Usersโ lists, the discrepancy between them was substantial. The Hurt Locker cracked the Criticsโ 100 list at #68, but didnโt resonate with Users in a meaningful way, barely cracking the top half of the list at #249. The same can be said for 12 Years a Slave, landing at #51 with Critics, but #186 with Users.
The biggest extremes on the other side of the spectrum are Crash and The Artist , both of which won Best Picture their respective years but failed to show up on either Critics or Usersโ lists in retrospect. The same can be said for the simple act of nominating films, with prestige pictures failing to make either list, which weโll get into in the next point. However, if one thingโs clear, itโs that if your favorite film isnโt recognized come Oscar timeโฆ itโs best not to take it personally.
Hindsight is 20/20 when it comes to critically analyzing one of filmโs biggest honors, but very seldom in this century has the Academy accurately represented filmโs best films across the board, which is something that critics and users surprisingly agree on. Out of the same 24 years under a microscope, only eight of those years featured films that cracked both Critics and Usersโ Top 100 lists: Parasite, No Country for Old Men, Moonlight, The Departed, Oppenheimer, Everything Everywhere All at Once, Gladiator, and Spotlight, ranked in order of cumulative preference. For a body whose recognition is seen as one of the greatest honors in film, itโs interesting to see that the same body only selects the most well-regarded film of the bunch only one-third of the time.
However, thatโs not even accounting for how often the most well-regarded film, overall, goes unnominated. Some of the major omissions from the Best Picture race are In the Mood for Love, coming in at #4 for critics and #12 for users, Mulholland Drive , #2 for critics and users alike, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind at #9 for users and #7 for critics, and The Dark Knight , at #6 for users and #28 for critics. The Dark Knightโs omission was especially notable because the backlash the Academy received that year led to the categoryโs expansion in 2010, allowing up to 10 Best Picture nominations.
Even with more films being allowed to compete, it didnโt necessarily mean that the most well-regarded films were being brought forward for consideration. For the first three years of the rule change, a large number of films failed to make criticsโ or usersโ lists. 2009 touted beloved user and critic favorites like Inglorious Basterds, Up, and A Serious Man, while films like The Blind Side, An Education, Precious, and Up in the Air were nowhere to be found. This continued well into 2010 and 2011: The Social Network, Inception, Black Swan, The Tree of Life, and Moneyball were featured on both critics and usersโ lists, while the following failed to make either:
The Fighter
The Kids are All Right
127 Hoursย
Winterโs Boneย
The Descendantsย
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Closeย
Hugoย
War Horseย
And yes, even Best Picture winner The Artistย
However, I think even the Academy eventually started to see past the flash of Oscar-bait after a while. While 2013 and 2014 werenโt immune to a large chunk of their nominations being left in the dust (Anyone remember American Hustle or Captain Phillips immediately after watching them? I personally didnโt.), as the number of films not featured on these century lists started diminishing. 2015-2017 saw only two films each year not mentioned amongst some of the decadeโs biggest highlights like Spotlight and Moonlight. Regardless, this leads to another problem: consensus voting giving us consistently underwhelming Best Picture wins.
In the hopes of establishing an even playing field, the Academy Awardsโ voting body operates on a ranked voting system. This ultimately means that the consensus decides which film will win Best Picture, but at the same time, the numbers from the New York Timesโ poll show that this method seldom picks the most universally. A notable example comes in the form of 2010, where The Kingโs Speech took home the top prize that year, only to come in at #238 on the Users poll. Its competition? Black Swan at #74 for users and #81 for critics, Inception at #24 for users and #55 for critics, and The Social Network at #10 on both lists in the shadow of the film with the more attractive awards campaign.
This isnโt an anomaly, though. A Beautiful Mind won Best Picture while coming in at #265 in the user poll amongst the stiff competition of Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring at #14 for users and #87 for critics and unnominated titans like Mulholland Drive, Spirited Away, The Royal Tenenbaums, and Amelie.
Million Dollar Baby won Best Picture in a pretty unremarkable year, coming in at #265 in the user poll, far below the yearโs more fondly remembered fare like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Before Sunset, Mean Girls, The Incredibles, Howlโs Moving Castle, Shrek 2… I could keep going.
The same can be said for The Hurt Locker, Argo, The Shape of Water, Green Book, Nomadland, and CODA amongst their respective competition. While no two years can be judged against each other and some years are better for film than others, itโs a repeating pattern that happens often enough to note. Regardless, this seems to be happening less and less over the last few years. In the three years that the New York Timesโ critics and user polls aligned with the Best Picture winner, theyโve all occurred within the past five years. Films like Parasite, Everything Everywhere All at Once, and Oppenheimer are clear examples of the Academyโs voting body aligning with their critic and general audience counterparts, with the future never seeming brighter.
For as much as we applaud the efforts of critical darlings year after year, itโs not solely films beloved by the Academy that appeared on Usersโ list. 500 films is a big ask of a nondescript voting body composed of your average New York Times reader, especially since the bottom half of the list is full of films that one wouldnโt expect to be remembered with too much affection. However, year after year, there are examples of beloved mainstream comedies, horror, and action films ranked well above prestige pictures with attractive packaging. Best in Show ranked above three Best Picture nominees the same year, two of which failed to make either list. Legally Blonde, Bridget Jonesโ Diary, and Zoolander all ranked above Gosford Park and In the Bedroom. 40 horror films, including Hereditary, Nope, and Shaun of the Dead made appearances on the list, a genre often brushed off by Academy voters. In the history of the Academy Awards, only eight horror films have ever been nominated for Best Picture, with only one film actually winning. The same can be said for the action crowd, with huge franchise staples from the Marvel Cinematic Universe and two entries of the Fast & the Furious series finding places on the list. Needless to say, thereโs something to be said about this disconnect and what it means for the future of awards season moving forward.
The main takeaway from this list is that the noise that has raged for centuries between critics and general audiences is simply that โ noise. If the discrepancy between a refined, pretentious, criticโs taste and a slack-jawed, ignorant average audience-goer was really that severe, then why are 72 films between the Criticsโ Top 100 and Usersโ Top 100 lists found on both lists? Why are 99 of the Criticsโ Top 100 films also included on the Usersโ Top 500 list (Andrea Arnoldโs Fish Tank being the lone film not in the 500)? And why do beloved auteurs with multiple films across either list, from Christopher Nolan to Greta Gerwig, continue to build a massive following? Simply put, this century in film (so far) shows that these two parties have more in common than one would expect. Similar to the noise between red states and blue states that has existed for decades, the world of cinema continues to focus on the collective disagreement of its viewers rather than our profound similarities. Dialogue and discussion in any medium, as always, is perfectly healthy and necessary, but the participants in a culture war first need to understand diplomacy itself. As weโve seen across both these lists, art continues to persist and demonstrate profound value in spite of who values it. When 72% of a critics list matches up with the opinions of the average filmgoer, and 99% of that same list is recognized by that same audience to different degrees, we have to ask ourselves if we are really all that different?
This week on Women InSession, we discuss the great Marilyn Monroe and her underrated dramatic, demonstrating that she was much more than her iconic comedic work! Not to downplay her charming performances in Some Like It Hot, The Seven Year Itch and Gentlemen Prefer Blondes, however she wonderfully delivers in Don’t Bother to Knock and The Misfits as well and we wanted to highlight her underrated dramas.
On that note, check out this week’s show and let us know what you think in the comment section. Thanks for listening and for supporting the InSession Film Podcast!
On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss the giant Netflix hit in Happy Gilmore 2 and Ari Aster’s latest film Eddington! JD also gives us his thoughts on The Amateur and the Netflix animated film Kpop Demon Hunters!
Director:Kazuaki Seki Writers:Date-san, Akiko Higashimura Stars: Mei Nagano, Yo Oizumi, Ai Mikami
Synopsis:High schooler Akiko has big plans to become a popular mangaka before she even graduates, but she needs to get much better at drawing if she ever wants to reach her goal. Looking for an easy fix, she signs up for an art class, thinking all her problems will soon be solved. Sheโs in for a surprise: her new instructor is a sword-wielding taskmaster who doesnโt care about manga one bit. But maybe this unconventional art teacher is just what she needs to realize her dreams!
Itโs a bit daunting to enter a movie based on a source material you know nothing of, hoping youโll be somewhat endeared by whatโs on screen. Having never heard of Josei-manga artist Akiko Higashimura and the source material Kakukaku Shikajika (aka Blank Canvas: My So-Called Artistโs Journey), I was slightly worried that I wouldnโt connect with director Kazuaki Sekiโs live-action adaptation of Higashimuraโs source material, which had its North American Premiere at the 2025 edition of the Fantasia International Film Festival in the Cheval Noir section.ย
Fortunately, anyone can resonate with this inspiring, albeit predictable story that tracks Akikoโs (played in the film by Mei Nagano) life from an aspiring artist to the mangaka she is known today. Anyone will be able to latch onto her grasp on life and the world through the unconventional teaching she receives from Kenzo Hidaka (Yo Oizumi), her art school mentor who shows Akiko what making art truly requires. Hidaka isnโt your typical art teacher โ heโs dressed in gym clothes and carries a bamboo sword that he brandishes on many occasions. But Akiko will soon learn that his heart is in the right place, as he perceives the world โ and art โ differently than most of his contemporaries.ย
The result is an easygoing picture thatโs sure to capture the emotions of people who dare to step into this bright and colorful world, filled with evocative, often poetic images, to envelop the audience in Akikoโs journey. For a while, Sekiโs movie treads in very conventional, crowd-pleasing territories, but the story he tells is universal. Even those who donโt aspire to be artists will be profoundly moved by how the film discusses Akikoโs dream-chasing journey of pushing through her personal challenges to get to where she is now. Against many unrealistic odds, she never gave up and ensured that, no matter what her teacher would say or make her do, her dreams would come true.ย
That itself is something anyone can relate to, especially when Hidaka repeatedly tells one thing that Akiko must do in order to become the better artist she wants to be: โJust draw.โ However, when she enrolls in university to continue her studies, things take a turn for the worse, and this is when Blank Canvas began to lose me. Thereโs a specific choice made early on in the movie, where Akiko narrates her story in the third person, dedicated to someone close in her life, that supplants most of the emotional, dramatic moments of its latter half. While it is certainly moving, especially a final sequence of immense poetry that sits with the characters in ways I didnโt expect after a relatively zippy and fun introductory half, it still didnโt produce its intended effect, because I immediately knew what would happen to one of the characters as soon as the film opened.ย
Had we not known early on that something hugely drastic would happen to Akiko, perhaps I wouldโve joined the chorus of tears, sniffles, and nose blowing that flooded the Cinรฉma du Musรฉe audience during Blank Canvasโ latter half, because its last scene is genuinely incredible. So is Mei Nagano, who portrays Akiko with so much sensitivity and grace that itโs hard not to fall in love with the character. The chemistry she shares with Oizumi, as Hidaka, is also incredibly palpable and often hilarious, especially as the teacher pushes Akiko to her limits. Yet, Seki also never loses sight of its moving emotional center, especially as the film reaches its tearjerking conclusion.
Both Nagano and Higashimura were in attendance during the filmโs North American premiere, and the adulations they received when the credits rolled were enough for them to break down into tears as the movie totally won over the Fantasia audience. Even I, someone who didnโt know what movie I was going into, not knowing a thing about the manga, and Higashimuraโs story, was also moved by the reception โ and standing ovation โ it got at the end. I may have been stone faced during the scene where everyone cried, but I certainly will remember this screening as a highlight of this yearโs Fantasia.
Synopsis:In a world where environmental collapse has left survivors to fight over the precious remaining resources, a young womanโs loyalties are tested by the arrival of a wounded man who discovers her family has a secret supply of freshwater.
Earlier this month, R.T. Thorne reinvigorated interest in Canadian genre cinema with the incredible 40 Acres, a post-apocalyptic thriller that efficiently asked cogent questions on the fate of humanity after its most precious resources were depleted due to a fungal pandemic, which led to a global food chain collapse. The film is one of the best Canadian-made genre films in years, because it puts its central group of humans first and foremost and allows us to meaningfully sit with them before Thorne goes all in on a succession of intricately shot and choreographed action sequences that rank high as some of the yearโs very best.
Now, documentarian Hubert Davis, in his fiction filmmaking debut, wants to treat the same ideas Thorne developed in his character-driven drama The Well, which recently had its world premiere at the Fantasia International Film Festival in the Cheval Noir section. In a way, it acts as a quasi-response to Thorneโs feature, as it basically tells the same story of a group of survivors in the Canadian wilderness who learn to live in a world where their most precious resources are depleted. In this case, it is water, a human necessity, that has become dangerous for humans to drink. It makes people terminally ill and is actively poisonous to consume.
In and of itself, the concept is fairly interesting, even if we canโt help picking apart the similarities Davisโ film has with Thorneโs. Unfortunately, the movie ends up being one of the dullest pictures of the festival, and one that seems uninterested in developing anything it presents, whether the character relationships, which take a considerable chunk of the movie, or its central thematic underpinnings related to the loss of its most precious resources.
Davis makes the gutsy decision of introducing us to its central conceit, in media res, where voiceover narration fills the audience in on what they need to know about the world they will inhabit for the next ninety minutes. After that, Davis begins to worldbuild on the fly, making us aware of whatโs going on through dialogues where characters become walking and talking exposition machines, almost like an RPG where we are thrown into a world with little to no resources and begin to understand whatโs going on as non-playable characters begin to explain to us the mechanics of the game, and what the player should understand.
However, this is where Davis began to lose me. The approach itself is interesting, but the overtly melodramatic, self-serious tone, where the filmmaker believes weโll immediately be interested in whatโs happening without an active connection with the protagonists, completely sinks his proposition. Who are these people? Why should we care about anyone on screen? Davis never gives us a compelling reason to, nor does he let us sit with any of the protagonists meaningfully. Instead, he prefers to meander in listless platitudes that offer very few moments of introspection or rumination. It doesnโt take long for us to check out and not give a damn about someone, or anyone, really.
The Well is also far too lethargically paced, preferring to bathe in endless, meaningless conversations instead of letting its admittedly well-captured naturalistic photography speak for itself and give the characters some room to breathe. Davis believes that we will instantly fall in love with the characters and world he presents on screen, or at least that the audience will resonate with the important message he shares, even without a hook to anchor us into the picture. It also doesnโt help that each actor ridiculously performs their respective characters, but itโs not entirely their fault.
The dialogue they are given is laughable and doesn’t sound like what any rational human being would say. It brings some unintentional hilarity, recalling M. Night Shyamalanโs The Happening. However, unlike that disasterpiece, thereโs no active entertainment to be had in The Well. Just ninety painstakingly dull minutes of pure tedium that gives Canadian genre cinema the bad reputation it frequently gets, even if its status was improved not long ago with R.T. Thorneโs incredible 40 Acres.
In fact, youโre better off watching that movie, as its political messaging is heard loud and clear, the artistry on display is staggering (especially its gun-toting climax), the music and soundscapes are genuinely incredible, and Danielle Deadwyler once again gives one of the yearโs best performances that (always) sadly go under the radar. 40 Acres will blow you away, and unless you suffer from insomnia and want to fall asleep in no time, you shouldnโt bother with The Well.
Director:Joseph Kahn Writer:Joseph Kahn, Dan Koontz, Samuel Laskey Stars: Brandon Routh, Mena Suvari, Malina Pauli Weissman
Synopsis:Science teacher Hank’s life changes when he reconnects with his first love and suspects a new student is his daughter, all while facing an alien threat in their town.
There are more than a handful of successful film directors who got their start in the heyday of the music video. David Fincher, Spike Jonze, and Michel Gondry are a few of the most prolific who come to mind. Though these auteurs understood the art of the short form story that is a music video, they have evolved to tell feature-length stories. Joseph Kahn has been directing music videos steadily since the mid-’90s with some of the biggest names in the music business and his features have yet to show an evolution beyond his music video aesthetic. Ick is no exception.
For some reason, Ick is in a hurry to end. The opening sequence is a long drawn out montage that could have been the entire plot of another film. It moves so fast that you barely have time to cringe at the poor CGI in many places. It’s not always fair to criticize movies without studio tentpole budgets for their visual effects choices, but if your film relies on a monster and significant effects to tell its story, there have to be some other things in the budget to cut in order to get it right. Even the gore is rushed with mayhem too dark to see and dozens of characters never seen before and barely seen as they die.
It doesn’t help that the plot is razor thin. It’s so thin that Ick can’t come up with an actual reasoning for the Ick itself. What it does have is cribbed heavily from any version of The Blob or Invasion of the Body Snatchers, though, those films have a subtext that comes through, while Ick fails to have much of a text. Even the most intriguing part of the plot, Hank (Brandon Routh) might be Grace’s (Malina Pauli Williamson) biological father, is short changed. There is no resolution and barely time to get to know why Hank is even interested in having a relationship with Grace. The rush to the end is like this was made with those that have ruined their attention span with endless short influencer videos.
It also feels like the writers think Gen Z are a bunch of pompous windbags. Every teen is parroting something to the point that there’s a character, Dylan (Harrison Cone), who is the epitome of performative wokeness, it’s like the chants of a mob, but he’s off by a few beats so he’s louder than the rest. Every word from his smug mouth is frustrating and it takes far, far, far too long for Grace to actually put him in his place. The adults aren’t much better as most of them are conspiracy spouting, deep state obsessives. It makes one wonder who this film is for. One or two characters like these would be adequate to suggest a moderate centrist’s eye roll and smirk, but there are no characters that aren’t Hank that actually have normal human interactions.
Hank is the only reason the film has any watchability to it. Brandon Routh has an ability to be charming even when his character’s a bit of a moron. He’s got the hero’s build and strength of cause. He’s also in on the joke and can deliver a line with an extra bit of conviction that makes you pity this hapless science teacher he plays. Routh has a perfect bit as he sits, contemplating what he will do about the Ick. He turns on his crummy MP3 player from when he was a teenager and queues up “Hey There Delilah” by the Plain White Ts then says, “[expletive]. This song rips.” It’s just a perfect moment hearing him say that with a straight face and for that song.
As much as it is fun hearing a bunch of pop-punk songs from the early ’00s, it’s no basis to build a movie around. It’s a poorly executed, half-cocked approach to a not well thought out film. Even though it is mercifully short and Brandon Routh is exactly the right fit for this type of character, it’s not worth the time and effort to try and see it. It’s a better use of your time and nostalgia to see if The All-American Rejects or Good Charlotte are playing your local county or state fair or local resort and casino.
On this episode, JD is joined by Megan Loucks to discuss Kiyoshi Kurosawa’s new film Cloud! For those that are familiar with Kurosawa’s work, you’ll know that there’s a lot to Cloud that is familiar to this style, and then an ending that is incredibly subversive. There’s a lot to discuss with this film and we had a great time talking about all of its weird and fun quirks.
Synopsis: The stark personality differences between sisters Karen and Jule become apparent as their families come together for a birthday party.
In a bucolic and picturesque field in Switzerland stands a haunted house. The ghost inhabiting it is a mother and sheโs alive. Ramon Zรผrcherโs The Sparrow in the Chimney is a tale of generational dysfunction and questions Leo Tolstoyโs maxim that โevery unhappy family is unhappy in its own way.โ Karen (Maren Eggert) appears to be the locus of unhappiness in her family, just as her mother before her was. When Karen moved her family into her now-deceased motherโs home she put herself, and them, in a beautifully situated site of depression, withdrawal, and resentment. โI sometimes feel lost in her,โ Karen tells her younger sister Jule (Britta Hammelstein) โI donโt know where I have gone.โย
Itโs Karen’s husband Markusโ (Andreas Dรถhler) birthday and the celebration brings Jule, her husband Jurek (Milian Zurzaway), her young daughter Edda (Luana Greco), and baby Leni with her. As much as their presence is a needed distraction for Markus and Karenโs two children who live with them: young and shy Leon (Ilja Bultmann) and firebrand Johanna (Lea Zoe Voss), the gathering reveals how broken Karenโs relationship with her family has become. With her eldest daughter, Christina (Paula Schindler), flying to the house and the neighbor, Liv (Luise Heyer), vying to replace Karen as matriarch โ the house becomes an emotional tinderbox filled with justified resentment and no-holds-barred anger.
The shift from warm and inviting, a sunlight kitchen where Leon is preparing a roast, to foreboding comes in through the mid-afternoon awakening of Karen. The family dog is barking and Leon trepidatiously opens the door to his motherโs room (his father has been banished to the cellar for โsnoringโ). Karen barely speaks and seems to drift like a dark cloud into the house. A sparrow is indeed caught in the chimney and, in releasing it, Leonโs shirt is made dirty. Later, Karen scolds him for it and deliberately pulls out a shirt he doesnโt want to wear and forces it on him. Although she seems to have a pane of glass between herself and her family, Karen occasionally does knock at it, mostly to enact a small unkindness.ย
Johanna openly hates her mother. Their first interaction is her arriving home from school. โYouโre late,โ Karen notes. โYouโre insane,โ Johanna retorts. There is limited sympathy from Karen that her daughter is suffering from a degenerative disease which will one day leave her motionless. During a particularly heated argument where Karen reaches out to strike her, she says, โDonโt think Iโll spare you just because youโre crippled.โ Johanna responds, โDonโt think Iโll love you just because youโre my mother.โ Later, Leon echoes Johannaโs anger and tells Karen, โI hate you, and I wish you were dead.โ Even Christina, the preferred (by Karen) daughter, admits that she canโt stay for long in the house. She thinks of her siblings and father all the time, but those thoughts lead to her recalling Karen sitting alone, away from them all. She left the house to forget that aspect of her memory and being there reinforces the withholding distance between them that Karen canโt take back. Markus has been pushed so far away from Karen that his affair with the possible arsonist and former biologist Liv doesnโt so much seem like infidelity as it does a way for him to survive.
Adding a party to this familial maelstrom where Juleโs current happiness with her family contrasts with the misery inherent in the house pulls Karenโs rigid coldness into sharp contrast. Itโs Jule who gives Johanna the history of her grandparents (an affair conducted by the grandmother, a tragic end for her grandfather) and her frankness in explaining how much she too hated her mother emboldens Johanna and Leonโs destructive behavior. The place is poisoned by history, and, like an island in a pond nearby, crowded with screeching cormorants (metaphorical in the home, literal on the island) who have claimed the space leaving no room for anyone to rest safely.
Zรผrcher blends the all-too-real tensions of a family dealing with a matriarchโs depression and coldness with a disturbing surreality. As it stands, the house is a magnet for budding sociopathy and unremitting antipathy. Karen deliberately burns her hand in one of Leonโs dishes simply to feel something. Liv likens herself to a firefly (the garden is lit with them) who is poised to poison the slower insects โ in this case, Karen. Johanna aggressively flirts with her uncle. Leon, who is the victim of bullying, in turn victimizes something smaller than him. Karen and Jule turn on each other with the latter calling the former a vicious monster. A gloriously festooned garden filled with cheer, false and real, doesnโt gloss over the rot. Yet within this deep malice-bound space Zรผrcher and Karen see an extreme solution.
The Sparrow in the Chimney is a forensically observed and impeccably acted psychological drama of generational unhappiness. Maren Eggertโs near expressionless face is perfect for Karenโs intentional isolation from those she should love and who should love her. Itโs a bravura performance which is complemented by child actor Ilja Bultmann as Leon descending into a darkness at odds with his age, and Lea Zoe Vossโ agent of desperate chaos, Johanna. The audience is situated in the suffocating bitterness and sharp (sometimes hilarious) extremes of behavior in a family lost to disappointment and disgust. An intelligent and scathing film which offers redemption in a fiery dreamlike manner because for this family only scorched earth can meet scorched earth. The Sparrow in the Chimney is a dark, disturbing, and vicious portrait of a family that needs to reset to survive. To leave behind the haunted house and let the past with its tendrils suffocate the present to sink into oblivion.
Directors:Pierre Perifel, JP Sans Writers:Yoni Brenner, Etan Cohen, Aaron Blabey Stars: Sam Rockwell, Marc Maron, Craig Robinson
Synopsis: The Bad Guys are struggling to find trust and acceptance in their newly minted lives as Good Guys, when they are pulled out of retirement and forced to do “one last job” by an all-female squad of criminals.
Even thoughThe Bad Guys 2 comes from Universal Pictures, after watching the first two films in this budding animated franchise, Iโd say itโs the closest thing weโve had to Looney Tunes in decades. The movies are packed with exaggerated slapstick and over-the-top physical comedy thatโs genuinely hilarious. The visual gags are fast-paced, with snappy timing that echoes those classic cartoons.
Of course, thereโs that signature mischief over maliceโthese characters may be โbad,โ but they create an oddly delightful sense of chaos. Still, the film evolves with surprising emotional depth and heart, growing beyond simple cartoon antics. The Bad Guys 2 also happens to be a waggishly good time at the movies.
The last time we saw our favorite mischievous group of thieves, they had gone from being โbadโ to oh-so-good. But while theyโre still adjusting to their new reputations, living up to them has proven difficult. Take Mr. Wolf (Sam Rockwell), for exampleโheโs discovering that staying on the straight and narrow isnโt as easy as it looks. Working a nine-to-five job, heโs struggling to keep up with the bills, and the temptation of a quick fix through a life of crime begins to creep back in.
Joining him in his struggles are Mr. Snake (The Orderโs Marc Maron), Mr. Shark (Craig Robinson), Ms. Tarantula (Jackpot!โs Awkwafina), and Mr. Piranha (Transformers: Rise of the Beastโs Anthony Ramos), who all grumble about feeling lost in this new lifeโthough they know itโs better than their former scheming ways. Of course, the only way to get the gang back into something exciting is to pull a Michael Corleone: just when the Bad Guys thought they were out, they get pulled back in.
Thatโs because the group is framed. These once-proud criminals are forced back into the underworld of crime and misdemeanors. Their goal? To prove their innocenceโand clear, uh, their good names.
Pierre Perifel returns to helm the film, directing his second featureโboth animated entries in The Bad Guys franchise. The first was super cute and undeniably cool, and this sequel maintains that same zippy comedic tone, laced with just the right touch of darkness that made the original so enjoyable. The overall sight gags are noticeably improved, which is all you can really ask for in a sequel to a mildly recommendable animated original.
Of course, it helps when the script is from a pair of writers responsible for Idiocracy, Tropic Thunder, and the Rio franchise of animated films. That would be Etan Cohen and Yoni Brenner, who add the element of the โbad girlsโ to the equation. That includes the welcomed addition of voice talents like Danielle Brooks, Natasha Lyonne, and Maria Bakalova, who want the guys to pull off one final job.
The animation in The Bad Guys 2 is stunning, light years above anything Smurfs produced a couple of weeks ago. There is a vibrancy and kinetic energy to the effects that marry perfectly with the comedic style that will have you laughing out loud and constantly engaged. This animated comedy, perfect for adults and kids alike, offers a positive message about how doing the right thing is hard, but always worth it.ย
Sometimes, adults need to learn that, too.ย
You can watch The Bad Guys 2 only in theaters starting August 1st.
Peter Bogdanovich, who passed away in 2022, would have turned 86 on July 30, 2025. As we approach his birthday, we look back at the singular career of a director who lived, breathed, and ultimately reshaped our understanding of cinema’s past.
During 1970s New Hollywood, a revolution was underway. A generation of auteurs, inspired by the turmoil of their times and the freedom of a collapsing studio system, were forcibly creating a new American cinema. Francis Ford Coppola was dragging the gangster epic into the shadows of Dostoyevsky; Martin Scorsese was mapping the profane poetry of the streets; and Brian De Palma was refracting Hitchcock through a prism of modern alienation. Off to one side from the โMovie Bratsโ was Peter Bogdanovich. He was not a revolutionary kicking down the doors; he was a master restorer, lovingly tending to the classical architecture his peers were so eager to abandon. Bogdanovich stands as a brilliant anomaly of his era, a director who used the radical freedom of his time not to break from the past, but to canonize it.
While his contemporaries were killing their idols, Bogdanovich was interviewing them, writing definitive books on John Ford, Howard Hawks, and his personal North Star, Orson Welles. His encyclopedic reverence for the Golden Age was his greatest asset, and eventually a creative straitjacket. This deep dive into his career reveals that his most vital work was the product of a delicate balance: his profound knowledge of film history anchored in the contemporary genius of his then-wife and collaborator, Polly Platt. When that anchor was lost, the critic-king was set adrift in a sea of nostalgia, only to find a new, more personal shore decades later.
His legendary run of films from 1971 to 1974 – The Last Picture Show, Whatโs Up, Doc?, and Paper Moon – represents a near-perfect fusion of past and present. They are the work of a partnership in perfect sync. In The Last Picture Show, Bogdanovich channeled the stark, elegiac grandeur of Fordโs westerns and the deep-focus melancholy of Wellesโs The Magnificent Ambersons. Yet the film never feels like a mere style exercise. It was Plattโs contribution as production designer and credited co-writer that infused his classical compositions with a raw, lived-in authenticity. She found the texture in the peeling paint, the dust on the floorboards, and the awkward fumbling of adolescent pain, grounding Bogdanovichโs anachronistic tendencies in a reality that felt both timeless and immediate.
Similarly, Whatโs Up, Doc? is a flawless reincarnation of a Hawksian screwball comedy, and Paper Moon looks as if it were unearthed from a 1930s time capsule. But the filmโs emotional core, the genuine chemistry, the sharp wit, and the surprisingly tender relationship between Moses and Addie Pray resonated with a contemporary audience. This was the magic of the Bogdanovich-Platt synergy: she acted as a bridge between his library of influences and the living, breathing world of the 1970s. She kept the films anchored and relevant to modern audiences.
Peter knew movies, Polly knew people.
After their professional and personal split, that anchor was gone. Bogdanovichโs subsequent films became untethered, showcases of his technical virtuosity but missing the bridge to the present day that made his earlier work so resonant.. The most notorious example is At Long Last Love, his 1975 attempt to resurrect the Cole Porter musical. On paper, it looks like a classic Bogdanovich project. In execution, it was a catastrophe. Stilted and airless, it felt less like a loving homage and more like an academic thesis statement. It had the form of the classics but none of the heart, none of the contemporary resonance that Platt had so expertly helped to craft. Without his collaborator to balance him, the critic-king was making films for an audience of ghosts.
Even a director like Steven Spielberg, equally steeped in film history, sought to channel the emotional spirit of classic Hollywood, the wonder of Capra, the spectacle of DeMille into modern populist myths. Bogdanovich, in his wilderness years, was more often focused on replicating the specific formal language of his heroes. One translated, the other transcribed. Adrift from the present, his work became pastiche, and audiences, sensing the lack of a contemporary pulse, turned away. One gets the impression that during this period, Bogdanovic was more interested in making movies that Orson Welles would be impressed with, rather than trying to delight modern audiences.
Decades later, after a period of immense personal tragedy and professional retreat, Bogdanovich returned to the directorโs chair and made what might be his most quietly revealing film: The Catโs Meow (2001). On the surface, he was still looking back, telling a story about a mysterious death aboard William Randolph Hearstโs yacht in 1924, at the very heart of Old Hollywood. He was still obsessed with the past, but his relationship to it had fundamentally changed.
The Catโs Meow is no loving tribute. It is a cynical, melancholic, and deeply complex dissection of the very myths he once worshipped. Itโs a film about the moral decay beneath the glamour, the bitter rivalries and desperate sadness of the figures he had spent a lifetime lionising. This was not a director imitating Orson Welles; this felt like Peter Bogdanovich, the man who had lived through dizzying fame and devastating loss, offering his own weary, wounded perspective on the Hollywood dream. Here, the critic-king was no longer simply curating the myths of the past; he was dissecting them with the weary authority of someone who had survived their fallout. The film is less a celebration and more an autopsy.
In finding this new, more critical voice, Bogdanovich finally reconciled with the burden of his influences. His late-career resurrection was not about abandoning the past but about finally having his own conversation with it, one coloured by personal experience, not just scholarly admiration. He completed his journey from being the cinemaโs most brilliant student to becoming a master in his own right, forever the last picture showman, who at long last, found his own story to tell among the ghosts.
Director:Nick Rowland Writers:Ben Collins, Jordan Harper, Luke Piotrowski Stars: Ana Sophia Hager, Taron Egerton, Jamie Bernadette
Synopsis: A girl marked for death, must fight and steal to stay alive, learning from the most frightening man she knows-her father. An adaptation of Jordan Harper’s award winning novel.
Equal parts gritty and touching is She Rides Shotgun, directed by Nick Rowland, based on the award-winning novel of the same name by Jordan Harper. A tense action thriller that, at its core, is a compelling story about a father doing whatever he can to protect his daughter. Centered around the life of an ex-con as he finds there is a hit out on his estranged daughter, this high-stakes crime drama takes audiences on a wild ride. Exploring the impact of having a father that has a violent past on their children, a rather simple story packs a big emotional punch from start to finish. She Rides Shotgun is packed with powerful performances that elevate it beyond any ordinary crime chase film with its tenderness and determination.
Rowland establishes a sense of unease immediately in She Rides Shotgun by opening the film with Polly (Sophia Ana Heger) awaiting her mother to arrive at school to pick her up. Long after the bell has rung, Polly is surrounded by a crowd of children that dwindles as more and more cars of parents show up. As minutes tick away, Polly tries to pass the time by climbing trees, hoping the next car is her mother’s. When asked where her mother is by a teacher, Polly admits that her mother sometimes shows up late, but soon she’d realize that it wasn’t her mother picking her up; instead, it’s her estranged father, Nate (Taron Egerton). There’s an awkwardness to their interactions, looking at one another as if they were acquaintances rather than father and daughter. After some convincing, Polly jumps into the passenger seat, a decision that will change her life in drastic ways.ย
The relationship between Polly and Nate is basically non-existent, and as their car ride goes on Polly starts noticing that something isn’t right. Wires exposed near the car’s steering wheel, paired with broken glass that falls out of the window frame while she attempts to roll her window up. Without knowing where they are going or why her father was the one to pick her up, she soon realizes that her father is hiding something. His past isn’t a complete secret, but once they are safely settled in at a hotel for the night, Nate reveals that he is on the run from police for his connection with the drug ring in their town in New Mexico. And while he carries that information with him, someone puts a hit out on someone close to him, his daughter. Desperate to get away from both the lawmen, and the law breakers, Nate gives his daughter a haircut and dye job. As they make their plans to get out, Polly learns of her motherโs fate, forcing her to make a difficult decision for her own safety.
She Rides Shotgun is Rowland’s second feature as a director, with the first being 2019’s rural crime thriller Calm with Horses. He has no issues serving up a gripping film with killer performances. Where he works best in this film is the father-daughter moments, even if this pair has a troubled past. He balances the high-stakes shootouts with the tear-jerking proclamations with ease, which helps elevate where the film falters in its main conflict. While the focus is so heavily on Polly and Nate, Rowland struggles to make the bad guys compelling, which is a shame because there’s an important message about corruption that is too quickly passed over. The looming threat of those after Polly is felt throughout the film, but is left too ambiguous for too long in the film.
There’s a dangerous drug world hidden within the film’s story that is not explored enough to feel important. While it’s the main point of each of the film’s action pieces, it takes a backseat even when it should be front and center. Nate has quite the criminal past and is no stranger to dealing with the police. And where the film could be telling an interesting story about small town corruption, it chooses to barely dig below the surface. It makes the stakes of the film feel uneven; on one hand, we see the father-daughter duo going to great lengths to protect each other, but even they are too in the dark on the reason why until it’s too late to really care. It plants some great seeds that don’t get to fully bloom, but it sure does make for some gnarly fight sequences.
Thankfully for Rowland, Egerton and Heger make each moment of their screen time charged with emotion that pulls you into their rocky relationship instantly. Egerton is no stranger to transforming for roles, but he’s nearly unrecognizable in She Rides Shotgun; with a shaved head, sunken eyes, and skin riddled with random tattoos, he’s unlike any of his prior roles. His character carries a lot of guilt around with him that Egerton captures through his facial expressions, especially when witnessing his daughter fall into dangerous situations he placed her in. Heger is captivating to watch as Polly; she is not only playing her as an intelligent child, but her ability to adapt to each increasingly scary situation she is faced with is impressive. Formidable and observant, Heger’s performance is one of the strongest of the year. Her final scene is haunting and showcases the enormous talent she possesses.
Centering the story around this frayed relationship is a smart choice; even through the chaos of gas station robberies gone wrong and high-speed car chases, there’s a beautiful exploration of both Polly and Nate and their complicated relationship. Writers Ben Collins and Luke Piotrowski tap into all the complex feelings the duo faces and make sure each moment lingers with emotional weight. Nate wants to know everything about his daughter, from her favorite show to her favorite color. There’s a genuine admiration felt between them and a desperation to keep one another safe. Even during large action sequences, their fight for survival only brings them closer, both saving one another in more ways than one. Nate sees his daughter as his redemption for all the wrongs that he has committed, and Polly sees her father as her source of courage. They have a relationship that grows stronger in the face of relentless and increasingly ruthless violence.
The stark wonder that is New Mexico is on full display here, and cinematographer Wyatt Garfield shows the silent beauty of the landscape. Wide shots of cars along a highway showcase the endlessness of the desert where mountains blend with horizons, creating a stunning golden hour glow. During the night, lights from buildings create an endless sky; the stillness in the air, seen through Garfield’s lens, adds to the unease while Nate and Polly are on the run. As the film comes to its final moments, Garfield utilizes framing that locks us in on Polly’s face, letting her performance linger with the audience and making us think about how far her character had come from her schoolyard introduction.
She Rides Shotgun is a brutal crime drama that proves its power through the moving performances from Egerton and Heger. There’s plenty of thrilling moments as this duo pushes through obstacle after obstacle, but where it shines is its touching examination of how crime impacts our loved ones. Although there’s quite a bit to be desired from the film’s main conflict, its haunting visuals and performances make this worth a watch.
Itโs the festivalโs 50th edition, and there are a lot of things happening to commemorate it. Theyโve been replaying the big hits that debuted in their fifty years, and will continue to bring in new movies from A-listers. There are the Cannes winners, including It Was Just An Accident and Sentimental Value, as well as the main gala releases. Colin Hanksโ documentary on comedian John Candy opens the festival, with films by Brian Cox (in his directorial debut), Scarlett Johansson, Paul Greengrass, Rian Johnson (the third Knives Out film), and Aziz Ansari all coming out as well. These are the films that Oscar players come to and make their mark and put their place on the radar. Here are a few of them.
Ballad Of A Small Player – Dir. Edward Burger
One year after appearing with Conclave, Burger is already back with his next film, a story about a big-time gambler (Colin Farrell) who goes to Macau to avoid his growing debts back home. Pretending to be a British aristocrat, the runaway con-artist finds solace with a woman. Adapted from Lawrence Osbourneโs novel, this psychological thriller, also featuring Tilda Swinton, brings back Burgerโs DP from All Quiet On The Western Front, James Friend, and again ups the ante on what can be another entertaining film by Burger. Conclave was my favorite film of 2024, so Iโm very intrigued.
Dead Manโs Wire – Dir. Gus Van Sant
Itโs his first film in seven years, so it is a thrill to see Van Sant returning and coming with a true story crime drama about one of the most shocking photos in history. Bill Skarsgard plays a man, believing his mortgage broker (Dacre Montgomery) is conspiring against him to take back his home, who decides to hold the broker hostage and publicly shows everyone he will shoot him on TV if not given his ransom demands. This stranger-than-fiction event, also showing at the Venice Film Festival, has Colman Domingo, Cary Elwes, and Al Pacino in a very โ70s story that feels like Van Santโs own version of Dog Day Afternoon.
Hamnet – Dir. Chloe Zhao
After her one-shot at a Marvel film didnโt work out, Zhao is back with a lush drama closer to what we saw in Nomadland. In adapting Maggie OโFarrellโs novel, Hamnet tells a historical fictional version of William (Paul Mescal) and Agnes Shakespeare (Jessie Buckley) and the death of their only child. Through the eyes of Agnes, William struggles with the grief of their loss and can only channel it with his writing. Joe Alwyn and Emily Watson co-star with Sam Mendes and Steven Spielberg as part of the producing team, which lends the movie some extra oversight.
Roofman – Dir. Derek Cianfrance
Heโs been gone for a while, but the director of Blue Valentine and The Place Beyond The Pines is back with a crime comedy – itself, a true story – about an unusual robber. Channing Tatum plays an Army officer who goes through the roofs of buildings to steal money at night and hides in the walls of Toys Rโ Us stores. Kristen Dunst plays his love interest, whom he tries to keep up with while hiding his illegal vice, with Ben Mendelsohn, Peter Dinklage, Juno Temple, and Uzo Aduba co-starring in this criminally bizarre and darkly funny film.
The Testament of Ann Lee – Mona Fastvold
After the massive success of The Brutalist, Fastvold, Brady Corbetโs co-writer and real-life partner, is taking her third round behind the camera with this historical musical of a religious sect in the 18th century. Itโs a movie they made fairly quickly without fanfare, but the anticipation is high with Amanda Seyfried in the titular role, the founder of the sect known as the Shakers. Thomasin McKenzie, Lewis Pullman, and Tim Blake Nelson co-star in what looks like a unique, musically-infused drama in the same vein as Corbetโs Vox Lux. Being also played in Venice, just like The Brutalist, certainly will have people paying attention.
Director:Kyle Newacheck Writer:Tim Herlihy, Adam Sandler Stars: Adam Sandler, Julie Bowen, Christopher McDonald
Synopsis: Revisit Happy Gilmore’s golf career after his win in the Tour Championship.
Netflix hasnโt exactly become known for gracefully handling properties that arenโt their own; whether it be the countless, suspect animation adaptations or small-screen, weightless blockbusters of books that deserved better, the platform has developed a reputation for misunderstanding what made a franchise, title, or icon popular in the first place. So it isnโt difficult to imagine the widespread disdain when it was announced that the company would team with Adam Sandler to revive his long beloved Happy Gilmore.
The original comedy, which dates all the way back to 1996, has become a cult classic and, for many, the crown gem of Sandlerโs zany filmography. Despite the reservations of just as many, paired with his contestable run with Netflix in recent years, Netflixโs sequel quickly became highly-anticipated solely due to the legacy of the first filmโฆ and it felt like Netflix knew that all too well, at least according to the worrying marketing campaign. But now that Happy Gilmore 2 has actually released, itโs become clear that, surprisingly, the streaming giant knew the assignment. This is a really solid comedy, and a shockingly reverent sequel, too.
As usual, Sandler has every dial turned to 11 here, but he also manages to retain Happyโs general personality and likability as a character beyond simply acting insane. Moments with his newly-added family, as funny and ridiculous as they often are, are tinged with a touch of sweet earnestness that may have you pulling for this character as he fights his way out of a midlife crisis. In an effort to rehabilitate himself and finance his daughterโs expensive foreign ballet lessons, Gilmore returns to the game of golf with a newfound purpose, looking to rediscover himself in the sport that gave him purpose in his younger years.
It truly is as dramatic as it sounds, and at times, the movie allows that concept the proper room to breathe. Gilmore has multiple heart-to-heart moments with his daughter regarding the concept (played by his real-life daughter, Sunny), which, again, lend themselves to the filmโs sneaky sense of levity. All the same, it usually isnโt long after that a character drinks hand sanitizer or is lobbed into a tank of lobsters at the grocery store. Youโve got plenty of Sandlerโs outlandish comedic sensibilities here, too.ย
But if youโre watching this, you went in expecting that, right? As tired as some people are of them, those same tendencies are what made the original Gilmore a classic. Perhaps itโs a matter of circumstance, and simply putting Sandler back into this universe contextualizes his goofiness in a way that works for the same reason now that it did back then. It just never gets old seeing the Sandman go ballistic on an innocent bystander shortly after driving a ball directly into a nearby pond. And while thereโs plenty of that here, Gilmore 2 also manages to widen its scope a little in comparison to the film before it, introducing new characters, environments, and dynamics into the field of play.
Not everything is a zinger, but in traditional Sandler fashion, heโs just throwing so much at you on a constant basis that something is bound to stick now and again. That, and this his second team-up with director Kyle Newacheck – a relatively new addition to the Sandler carousel, save for his middling Murder Mystery comedy – adds another refreshing angle to the overall mix. Newacheck opts for a ton of handheld, organic movements and leans into the sporadic nature of his titular character here. While there isnโt anything particularly inspiring about the filmโs visual palette, Newacheckโs taste for kinetic movements and lively set-pieces give the sequel a much-needed boost of energy compared to the platformโs other such similar comedic offerings.
Even the countless celebrity cameos – countless is no exaggeration – feel well-placed and are often both relevant and hysterical. Much like the rest of the humor, itโs all so random, eccentric, and utterly unbelievable. And so, again, just like the first film, it works. Happy Gilmore 2 will by no means blow your mind and is, by many measures, a somewhat conventional comedy in structure, tone, and pace. Yet, it manages to make two hours feel like fifteen minutes, both justifying its own existence and honoring the beloved movie that came before it. Itโs just much better than I think anyone reasonably expected. In this case, simply being good is perhaps the greatest outcome. Happy Gilmore 2 is good. Hallelujah, hallelujah, amen.
On this episode, Brendan and JD are joined by Megan Loucks to discuss Marvel’s latest film The Fantastic Four: First Steps! We’ve been looking forward to this all year given the state of the MCU coming into 2025. Marvel has been in a bit of limbo recently and it felt as if The Fantastic Four: First Steps was going to help reset things in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. Did it accomplish that? Yes and now. For many reasons, it stands apart on its own while also being a refreshing entry as well.
Review: The Fantastic Four: First Steps (4:00) Director: Matt Shakman Writer: Josh Friedman, Eric Pearson, Jeff Kaplan, Ian Springer Stars: Pedro Pascal, Vanessa Kirby, Ebon Moss-Bachrach, Joseph Quinn
Synopsis: Iris and Isaac’s first romantic weekend getaway goes awry in a most unexpected way.
Of all the tasks a person faces in life, dating may be one of the most challenging; since the rise of online dating, it has become even harder. You might think that having access to more people would make finding a partner easier, but it often just leads to more confusion and fatigue. Someone you feel a strong connection with might be just in it for fun, already looking at the next potential match, even if they take you on a romantic getaway to a remote cabin on the lake. Thatโs the story of Oh, Hi! by writer/director Sophie Brooks.
Oh, Hi! begins with Isaac (Logan Lerman) and Iris (Molly Gordon) driving to a romantic getaway at High Falls. The two are seen in the car singing, laughing, kissing, and genuinely enjoying each other’s company. The romantic banter between them is maybe a bit over the top at times, but still feels realistic, especially since the โrelationshipโ is still in the early honeymoon phase. They are inseparable, and the chemistry between Lerman and Gordon makes it seem like theyโve been together much longer than they actually have. However, itโs shown that despite their great appearance together, they donโt really know each other all that well yetโthey’re still trying to understand each other on a deeper level. After an intimate moment where Isaac is chained to the bed, this lack of understanding fully comes to light as he tells Iris he isnโt looking for a relationship and that sheโs not the only girl heโs seeing romantically. Understandably upset, Iris leaves him chained to the bed overnight and the following morning plans to win him over against his will.ย
The scenes where Iris tries to win Isaac’s affection are among the funniest and most thematically powerful parts of the film. Sophie Brooks crafts these characters with humor and authenticity, making them believable. Iris’s frustration is palpable, and Molly Gordon delivers a hilarious performance as a manic, earnest girl desperately trying to connect with someone who doesnโt care either way. Though absurd, her behavior feels genuineโa plea for connection. Molly Gordon dominates these scenes, making a strong effort to carry the film. The first act benefits greatly from her performance and the filmโs dark humor, which is both stressful and cringeworthy yet also funny.ย
However, all the momentum gained quickly fades once the twelve hours Isaac agreed to pass, and Irisโs attempt at winning him over turns to keeping him trapped to avoid dealing with the repercussions. When Isaac insists his feelings havenโt changed and plans to contact the police, Iris rebinds him and calls her friend Max (Geraldine Viswanathan) forhelp. The arrival of Max and her boyfriend Kenny (John Reynolds) halts themovieโs momentum entirely. This shift isnโt due to the characters but results from the story losing its plot-driven focus. Numerous conversations between Iris, Max, and Kenny go nowhere, as Isaacโs character becomes irrelevant. The film shifts from exploring complex themes of dating to attempting comedy that never quite lands in any meaningful way, causing the plot to become sidetracked and lose its momentum. It almost seems as though Brooks’s initial idea for the film lost its way, and she struggles to reconnect with the core themes. The dialogue between characters was already absurd in a funny and endearing way, but eventually transitions into something far past believability. The film takes some unusual turns, exploring witches and potions that feel monotonous and meaningless, and as a viewer, I felt tied to my chair with no escape.
In just this year alone, several films, such as Companion and The Materialist, have explored the complexities of relationships in various ways. For a while, Oh, Hi! was doing a good job of bringing something different and relevant to the table. Still, the longer the film dragged on, the less I cared about the characters and the situation they were in, because it began to feel like they didnโt care all that much either. It began to feel less like Iris wanted Isaac to understand how trapped she had felt in the vulnerable position he had put her in, and more like she was in over her head with no way out. The humor became stale, and at times, it was rehashed with the same jokes told by different people. Once the film lost its sense of comedy, it truly lost its way as well.ย
The end of the film forces the audience to suspend disbelief to an exponentially large extent. These characters, who were at war with one another for different reasons, wake up and understand the other’s point of view without any apparent reason for why they would have done so. After a tiresome second act, the film rushes to its conclusion in a less-than-satisfying way. One of the major problems is that it didnโt feel like the film took many risks. A film that raised questions about the difficulties of modern dating felt too nice, and the bow tie ending accentuated that idea, as it didnโt feel as though there was much of a point to it.ย
There is a good movie in Oh, Hi!, it just wasnโt the version that was released. The genuinely funny performance from Molly Gordon and equally as charming Logan Lerman is essentially wasted on a film that knew what it wanted to say but couldnโt quite figure out how to convey it. The script’s beats are surface-level at best, and while I initially understood the characters’ motivations, they were quickly discarded in favor of absurdist comedy that wasnโt absurd or comedic. At one point, Isaac proclaims to Iris, โThe problem is that I was too nice?โ And I think the same could be said about Oh, Hi! as well.
Synopsis: Avril, a young lawyer, goes to great lengths to save her client, a repeat-offender dog, from capital punishment. This dog helps Avril accept her own human complexity.
Courtroom films, even if the film is a comedy, often have a complexity and drama that is rare for our court rooms in reality. There are grand speeches, weeping testimonies, harrowing witness statements, intrigue, bombshells of surprise information, gasps, and gallery participation. That is what we relate to. The passion of the moment and of justice. Dog on Trial has all of that, but it also has a canine defendant who is confused by the whole affair.
Dog on Trial is a funny movie, but it takes the defense arguments Avril (Laetitia Dosch) makes on behalf of Cosmos (Kodi) very seriously. Laetitia Dosch and co-writer Anne-Sophie Bailly have brought forth in their screenplay a compelling case for a dog sentenced to death for what comes natural to him. The courtroom becomes a fantastic menagerie of humans attempting to explain the psychology and nature of dogs. One of the best scenes is when one expert sets a sound board in front of Cosmos for him to answer questions posed by the judge. This goes surprisingly well as the button Cosmos hits to answer the first test question is coherent. Even the next button for the second test question is apt, but when the judge asks too complicated of a question, the button pushing gets erratic. Then Cosmos is just pushing the buttons for his own pleasure.
While the fun of this film is pure and sweet, the depth of the story is in human relations to dogs. There will be many people who have a shallow reaction to this story, an “aw, so cute,” reaction, but there is more here. The arguments of Roseline Bruckenheimer (Anne Dorval), the prosecutor, are futile because she attempts to equate this dog’s instinct with a human’s amorality. A dog never got drunk and hit its child. A dog doesn’t kill for the thrill. This is an animal and has no morality but the one imparted by biology and nurturing. There are no bad dogs, but there are bad humans who make dogs bad.
There is a feeling Dog on Trial can pull out of your chest, especially if you’re a dog person. It’s an immediate defense of Cosmos because he is a good dog, unfairly made into a pariah. The film delves deeply into the fact that dogs and humans have a kind of bond that is spiritual. Looking into Cosmos’ eyes, makes more than one human in the film see something more to the situation. This film, while very funny, is about the realities of the companionship between our two species. Rarely does the film ever engage in the “magical dog” trope, but keeps Cosmos grounded in the behavior of a real dog.
It’s strange to write, but this is a truly incredible dog performance. Kodi as Cosmos is trained so well that he is effortless in look and behavior. Yes, this performance is very much in the editing, superbly performed by Isabelle Devinck and Suzana Pedro. It’s also in the cinematography by Alexis Kavyrchine and the direction of Dosch. Yet, there is one scene especially that will make you question whether or not Kodi is a performer or just a good mimic. As Marc (Jean-Pascal Zadi) plays with Cosmos out in his pasture, Avril listens to Marc’s explanations of play dynamics. When Marc throws the stick he was tugging on with Cosmos, Cosmos chases after it and with a command, Marc stops him. Cosmos turns, not to run back to Marc, but to stare at him. He stares and it’s a look of disappointment, like Cosmos hoped that Marc wasn’t like the others. Cosmos hoped Marc would never cage him because the two of them developed such a strong rapport. It’s there in the look of Kodi as Cosmos and whether that was Kodi’s reaction in the moment or a different take, it doesn’t matter, it’s effective and seems to have been done with real instinct, not training.
A performance we can gauge on the obvious cognitive abilities of its performer is the great one by Laetitia Dosch. Dosch balances the goofy humor of her character’s inner monologue with the heft of a person who has deeply held convictions about right and wrong. Playing opposite a dog is never an easy feat, but Dosch has the temperament and skill that makes her scenes with Cosmos effortless. She’s funny and fierce. She’s sweet and serious. Dosch is terrific as Avril.
Dog on Trial could have swung for the comedy fences. It could have been a screwball affair with hammy performances from people and pets alike. It could have been overly serious and maudlin, which would have elicited laughter because it’s so atonal to the subject matter. Dog on Trial strikes a terrific balance and finds a near perfect middle that makes you forget the absurdism while marveling at it at the same time. It’s a film that is understanding of the realities in a case like this and while the verdict won’t be spoiled here, you will need some tissues when it’s read on the faces of the humans and dogs in the court. Dog on Trial is a special film that understands our connection to nature and that it should never be taken for granted.
For August, seven new films are being introduced to the closet, where a double feature is getting the re-edition treatment. While Vittorio De Sica, Kon Ichikawa, and Edward Yang are familiar names, an Egyptian legend, two independent films, and a contemporary Italian war drama are added to the growing collection of gems. It continues (with Septemberโs titles also being an enlarged growth of entries) to be a pot of gold for cinephiles as Criterion continues to expand a lot in bringing in and re-establishing entries for the 4K age. Here are the August inductees.
Shoeshine (1946)
An early Oscar winner for Best International Feature, Vittorio De Sicaโs neorealist fable of young boys struggling in post-war Italy is a triumph of the countryโs growing cinematic status following the war. The story of two boys who want to buy a horse and go to desperate lengths that land them in jail. Their friendship is tested, as they put on a show of youthful performances in the face of real-life pain that De Sica would continue to produce with later films, Bicycle Thieves and Umberto D.
The Burmese Harp (1956) / Fires On The Plain (1959)
Director Kon Ichikawa has two of his films getting the re-edition treatment, both of them meditating on the horrors of war from the Japanese point of view. In The Burmese Harp, a soldier believed to be dead wanders off to join a group of Buddhist monks to find inner peace. Fires on the Plain tracks a group of soldiers stranded in the Philippines towards the end of the war, weary of dying as well as finding themselves on the losing end of a fight that was worth nothing. Bleak and violent for their time, both films have become regarded as masterpieces in Japanโs post-war analysis and remain staples of the countryโs achievement of modern storytelling.
Cairo Station (1958)
Itโs about time that Youssef Chahine, arguably the greatest director to come from Egypt, breaks into the Criterion Collection with one of his best films. Playing the role of an obsessed seller at the train station, Chahine follows a vendor (Hind Rostom) and pushes hard to get her affection. However, he pushes his obsession to the limit, which endangers others in this brilliant neorealistic drama as part of the post-Egyptian Revolution progress.
A Confucian Confusion / Mahjong: Two Films by Edward Yang (1994/1996)
Edward Yang, one of Taiwanโs best filmmakers, transitioned from heavy dramas (A Bright Summer Day) into making comedies about families in a modern world and trying to make sense of it. In Confusion, a group of young professionals who cross paths and find challenges at work and in love, as Taiwan becomes part of the materialist world. Mahjong is a dark comedy about a group of con artists who get caught in the underworld mystery of a missing businessman and a foreign tourist who is caught in the middle. These two films delve into the modern era, exploring the challenges of shifting values in a freer world.
Compensation (1999)
Two stories in Chicago, one in 1910 and the other in 1990, follow an African-American couple with a deaf woman and a non-deaf man who deal with the difficulties of communication and the tragic turmoil that surrounds them. Criterion has brought back to life this underseen, innovative story from director Zeinabu irene Davis, which took years to get released after being filmed. Thankfully, in being rediscovered, it joined the Library of Congress National Film Registry last year, making sure more people will go see it.
Saving Face (2004)
A young lesbian couple (Michelle Krusiec and Lynn Chen) find themselves challenged when one of them has their mother, a traditional Chinese woman (Joan Chen), move in with them after learning she is pregnant. The barriers of tradition burst open as writer/director Alice Wu made her feature debut with a film based on her life, and blends rom-com with the conflicts of generations in an Asian-American setting, something rarely seen at the time. Good thing Wu refused to bow to studio concessions that the characters be White and not spoken in Mandarin.
Vermiglio (2024)
In an Italian village within the mountains during World War II, a soldier fleeing arrives and changes the lives of a family who take him in. Time passes, and the soldierโs growing love for the eldest daughter continues until the end of the war, when a shocking revelation is made about the man they never really knew. Maura Delpero writes and directs this personal tale, grounded in her familyโs history of coming from a similar area, that puts the traditions of village life in a bind compared to the rest of the modern Italian world, and what happens when a new era begins.
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we do another collective Top 10 as we discuss our favorite pre-MCU superhero movies! We also talk about JD’s trip back to Michigan and where the MCU stands in a post-Fantastic Four world.
– New Trends / Avatar: Fire & Ash Trailer (0:40) We begin the show this week by discussing some new trends in the cinema world that we find very exciting, one of which is that trailers are playing exclusively in theaters. Seeing the trailer for Avatar: Fire & Ash in a packed theater was magical, and oh boy are we deeply excited for that movie.
– JD’s Trip Home / State of the MCUnion (7:40) There were two revelations that JD had while going back home to Michigan. One of them revolves around Lady Bird and the other Hans Zimmer. How do those names relate to Michigan summers? Tune in to find out. Also, after The Fantastic Four: First Steps hit theaters and began Phase 6 for Marvel, we had some thoughts on where things stand for the MCU and what the immediate future might be.
– Top 10 Pre-MCU Superhero Movies (50:33) Before the Marvel Cinematic Universe took the world by storm, there were plenty of other great superhero movies that we all loved and cherish. And we wanted to celebrate those by discussing our collective Top 10. As always, the movies at the top weren’t difficult, but negotiating the bottom five did come with some really fun and challenging hurdles. With that said, what would be your Top 10 pre-MCU superhero movies?
If you want to help support us, there are several ways you can help us and we’d absolutely appreciate it. Every penny goes directly back into supporting the show and we are truly honored and grateful. Thanks for your support and for listening to the InSession Film Podcast!
Director:Kelsey Taylor Writer:Kelsey Taylor Stars: Maddison Brown, Ivan Martin, Kaitlin Doubleday
Synopsis: In a modern re-imagining of Little Red Riding Hood, a social pariah discovers a teenage runaway in the Oregon Wilderness and does his best to help her find a way home – a troubling exploration of trauma and redemption.
Thereโs something about the tale of Red Riding Hood and its deep-seated roots in the lore. The Brothers Grimm kingdom of dark fairytales has always had its fans and inquisitive searchers, especially in the film world. Many have tried multiple times to interpret it differently, especially concerning the darker elements connected to these cautionary childhood tales.
Maddison Brown as Dani Credit: To Kill A Wolf (2024)
The latest attempt, written and directed by Kelsey Taylor, To Kill A Wolf tells the story of a mysterious woodsman (Ivan Martin), infatuated not just with music, but with sound -shown through the disparity between his modest living and his self-assembled, high-tech sound gear and systems- who relies on music to kill his infinite loneliness. He has another hobby, he likes to unhook wolf traps in the woods, he saves wolves, rather than kills them -a bold contrast to the filmโs title- and during one of his elaborate wolf-saving missions, he finds an unconscious Dani (Maddison Brown). After he saves her, their journey begins.
Daniโs journey as the Red Riding Hood is one of being let down by one adult after the other. Unlike the woodsman, whose mystery in life is easily revoked by his openness about his emotional expression, Dani is a closed book. Itโs not easy to decipher how sheโs feeling amid the chaos. Taylor does an excellent job of shifting POVs and dismantling tropes. If there is mystery about the woodsmanโs origin and past, Daniโs inner world is a vault. Her heart is locked, not to be unearthed any time soon. Their characters couldnโt be more different, but their unity stems from a single goal: running away from pain.
Daniโs harrowing silence unfolds into scenes from her scary reality, and the hints at her sexual abuse surface along with the manipulation of her โwolf,โ rationalizing her into silence, putting her on mute. This leaves the viewers in a state of discomfort, relief, and catharsis. The truth is out, but what does a girl like her do about it? And is there anything to do about such prickly situations where one person is defenseless, young, and scared and the otherโฆa wolf!
Ivan Martin as The Woodsman Credit: To Kill A Wolf (2024)
I am surprised by Taylorโs -a director unfortunately I have not been familiar with- immaculate attention to detail. Her characters donโt foolishly exist in a vacuum but have their own inner worlds, shown in glimpses from one scene to the next. She brilliantly practices world-building for her characters like a pro, handling the tonal shifts and the uncomfortable character dynamics with a mastery that paves the way for better control of her craft in upcoming movies.
Adam Leeโs cinematography highly complements her careful direction, creating a grainy, gloomy, world that manipulates the idea of a wolf. An animal born to hunt or a sexual predator, carefully manipulating all those around him to appear as villains, while heโs the one who hides his claws in plain sight. The wolf -or the Canis lupus- is innocent in this tale, hunted down by greedy humans, while the wolf (as the director dedicates one of her chapters to him) in his human form is the predator, the real one guilty of hurting Dani; the Red Riding Hood of our tale.
But what is the wolf really? And why do we have to kill it? Is it metaphorical -the wolf of our past, haunting us, running after us in the dark trail at night- or actually approaching the predator in the dark? The film doesnโt necessarily specify those symbols with clarity. A wolf is a wolf. And a grandma is a grandma, but what if a symbol is complicit in playing the role of another. Then who is to say the fairytale doesnโt play by the rules?
Maddison Brown as Dani Credit: To Kill A Wolf (2024)
To Kill A Wolf makes the alluring woods, lonely, dark, and deep as they are, a place for refuge and shelter, but also an incubator for where the sleeping dogs lie. Secrets are buried alongside their perpetrators, and the woods with their giant trees are witnesses to all the traumas buried beneath the surface. Taylorโs film makes one car ride a woodsman makes to transport Red Riding Hood into a journey inside the forest of the self.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(750x255:752x257)/happy-gilmore-2-christopher-mcdonald-adam-sandler-032825-ca5f2505f9e448f29219f40f6cbb7a19.jpg)
