Sunday, July 6, 2025
Home Blog Page 60

Movie Review: ‘Drugstore June’ is a Familiar Comfort


Director: Nicholaus Goossen
Writers: Nicholaus Goossen, Esther Povitsky
Stars: Esther Povitsky, Bobby Lee, Beverly D’Angelo

Synopsis: Esther Povitsky stars as the titular June, a wannabe influencer juggling multiple issues: her parents pressuring her to move out, her ex-boyfriend accusing her of stalking, and two detectives who suspect she’s involved in the robbery of the local pharmacy.


It has been nearly two decades since Nicholaus Goossen directed the critically reviled, yet underground stoner favorite, Grandma’s Boy. The Happy Madison production may not have ignited the world, but it secured his place in Adam Sandler’s sphere of friends – not a bad place to be based on anecdotal stories. The intervening years have been devoted primarily to television, music videos, and stand-up specials, but Drugstore June marks his return to feature comedy directing. Together with Esther Povitsky, whose latest stand-up special he directed, the pair have created a comedy that feels spiritually in line with Happy Madison productions. The instinct to gather all of your funniest friends and put them into a movie is a good one, even if the final product may not showcase their true depth of talent. Drugstore June is far from a perfect comedy, but it teems with a creative energy that makes it a mostly enjoyable watch. 

June (Povitsky) is a product of growing up with the internet. She is chronically online, attempting to build up a following that we can only assume is a pittance at most. She believes that people want to watch her from the moment she wakes up as she talks about her recurring dreams about her ex-boyfriend (a perfectly utilized Haley Joel Osment). She is completely wrapped up in her own experiences to the detriment of herself and those around her. Despite being confident enough to want to broadcast her entire life, she is also deeply insecure. She is constantly seeking validation from others and soliciting ways to improve herself. The latter is most hilariously demonstrated in what we gather is a frequent visit to the doctor (a cameo from Executive Producer Bill Burr) about constipation that turns into a consultation about plastic surgery.

Under different circumstances, June could very well be insufferable. Yet, thanks to the inherent charms of Esther Povitsky, she somehow always keeps the audience rooting for her emotional breakthrough. Povitsky has quietly been stealing the show for the past several years as sweet vessels of nervous energy in shows such as Crazy Ex-Girlfriend and Dollface. The character of June actually feels like an exaggerated version of her Alone Together character or her stand-up persona – themselves a heightened version of Povitsky herself. Beneath the cherubic facade lies the soul of a troll – absolutely meant as a term of endearment. June is the type of person who will go to great lengths to do nothing. She is the type of person who will weep over a freezer full of ice cream being melted over her place of employment being robbed. Somehow, she can even make stalking seem somewhat innocuous. 

The film does have a firm plot in the aforementioned robbery of the pharmacy at which she works, as June is positioned as a suspect and takes it upon herself to investigate who actually committed the crime. This is merely a smokescreen for the character to cross paths with a cadre of amusing personalities. If you are a fan of the L.A. comedy scene or know the differences between the All Things Comedy, Earwolf, and Headgum podcasting networks; this is probably the movie for you. Jackie Sandler is a hilarious standout alongside Al Madrigal as the bewildered police detectives who cannot believe they are questioning a person with such little sense of self-preservation. Beloved comedians such as Nick Rutherford, Ms. Pat, and Jon Gabrus all make brief appearances, but they rarely land as big of a laugh as they do on stage. Surprisingly, it is rapper Bhad Bhabie (of “Cash me outside” fame) who lands some of the biggest laughs of the movie as a weed dispensary employee. 

Among the untested bit performances that litter the film, it is almost comforting to have someone like Bobby Lee (Mad TV) anchoring the story in a more substantial way as June’s very forgiving boss. Lee has a past of outrageous antics in real life, but the gentle approach he brings to this character is refreshing and aids somewhat in June realizing her potential. Beverly D’Angelo (the Vacation franchise) and James Remar (Dexter) lend some gravitas as June’s parents, who, as June says herself, have set a very confusing example for how she approaches life and relationships. The evolution of her relationship with her family, including her brother in an uproarious turn from Brandon Wardell (I Think You Should Leave with Tim Robinson), is the complementary piece of the puzzle alongside her learned experiences that push the movie towards some sort of thematic excavation. For as unserious as the movie is for most of the runtime, it does have a heart. 

Drugstore June is a somewhat frustrating experience. For as passingly enjoyable as the film is, it should be so much better considering the talent at its disposal. There are enough laughs to make it worthy of your time, but not so much that you will be dying to recommend or revisit it anytime soon. If you have no preexisting affection for any of the talent involved, you will likely be in even more dire straits. Nicholaus Goossen and Esther Povitsky have created a story that is comforting in its familiarity yet, like its main character, not ambitious enough to push the genre forward. It is a fine effort from everyone involved, but coasting on charisma will not work in future efforts. 

Grade: B-

Movie Review: ‘Here’ Lives Life on Life’s Terms


Director: Bas Devos
Writer: Bas Devos
Stars: Stefan Gota, Liyo Gong

Synopsis: A Romanian construction worker living in Brussels crosses paths with a Belgian-Chinese doctorate student of moss, just before the former is about to move back home.


Films of 90 minutes or less, like the ones Belgian filmmaker Bas Devos seems to have a penchant for, are often reduced to descriptors like “small”, or “muted”, or “restrained”. And though these sorts of descriptions can feasibly apply to most of his work, including Devos’ latest 82-minute wonder, Here, his minimalistic approach to storytelling isn’t necessarily what defines his filmmaking. Rather, it’s what makes it sing, what makes it stand out as profound and draped with feeling, something rarely found at the movies these days. 

We start Here with Stefan (Stefan Gota), a Romanian man working on construction sites in Brussels; this is where the film takes place, though the things it’s most curious about lie beyond the city’s borders. Stefan is about to head home for summer break — back to the familiar — when he encounters another visitor, of sorts, named Shuxiu (Liyo Gong), a doctoral student of bryology, specifically the moss growing in and around Brussels. As Stefan’s urge to return home intensifies, he empties the contents of his fridge to make soup for those he has met while in Brussels as a sort of farewell; Shuxiu, meanwhile, seems to be embracing her newfound home, letting it become part of her as opposed to a piece of her past.

At first, their stories are unfolding and on parallel paths, though they are heading in different directions: One away from the foreignness; the other, further into it. It’s notable that the film starts inside one of the buildings Stefan has been working on, this physical representation of the birth of something bigger, something unknown, perhaps perpetually unknowable. But as we venture further away from the rumbling city, the real birth occurs. Of course, it’s in nature, where the synthetics of the city wash away and Stefan and Shuxiu, both together and apart, are able to find beauty in simpler, natural forms. A drop of water on a leaf; a chirping bird; wind gusts. All things we could hear inside the walls of that building in which we began, now coming into pure focus.  

Devos and his cinematographer, Grimm Vandekerckhove, keep their gaze placed high above the city in these first few moments so as to place an emphasis on nature’s perpetuity amidst the ever-changing infrastructure of a growing city. Despite Stefan’s occupation, we are compelled to be more interested in the things he has the opportunity to witness outside of these concrete structures on which he works. And when not in the forest among the mosses and water droplets lingering on leaves after a rainstorm, we long for its gentle hum. Which is not to say the film falters when it retreats back into the city to further structure our man’s potential departure, but that it is aware of how different every environment tends to be from its outside counterparts.

Here could easily be linked to (or double/triple-billed with) two of its fellow fall festival standouts, Wim Wenders’ Perfect Days and Aki Kaurismäki’s Fallen Leaves. Each of these three films concern, in part, men going to work, battling internal conflicts in some form or another, and finding some kind of  love and connection, whether romantic or platonic, though it doesn’t matter how or where. What matters, to the filmmakers and to these films, is how much beauty lies in the little pleasures that life and mundanity, at large, have to offer. 

In both Here and Perfect Days, the environment, specifically plants, plays a significant role in the lives of its characters; they find serenity when surrounded by nature. In one key moment, Stefan finds a strange assortment of seeds in his pocket, unsure where they came from. Shortly thereafter, he’s safeguarding them as though they’re magic, the makings of a beanstalk. In Here and Fallen Leaves, romance looms, though its fruition doesn’t make or break either work; it’s merely a device deployed in an effort to cement connection between strangers, and far from their connection’s defining element.

In all three films, the act of living life on life’s terms is front of mind. And while Here’s exploration of that idea is not exactly vast, it’s also far from diminutive. Instead, it’s individualized, for both the characters under Devos’ microscope and every unique viewer. Emotions are subtly conveyed in this film, but immensely felt, because that’s what really matters. A lesser film might trigger an emotional outburst of some kind in an effort to prove to audiences that the characters they have invested time in are capable of feeling as deeply as they are. Here, however, is a film that values its characters’ interests and desires almost as much as they do, and thus commands the audience to do the same. If you’ve never cared about moss before, you’ll almost certainly never look at it the same way.

Grade: A-

Movie Review: ‘Madame Web’ Spins in Useless Circles


Director: S.J. Clarkson
Writers: Matt Sazama, Burk Sharpless, Claire Parker
Stars: Dakota Johnson, Sydney Sweeney, Isabela Merced

Synopsis: Cassandra Webb is a New York metropolis paramedic who begins to demonstrate signs of clairvoyance. Forced to challenge revelations about her former, she needs to safeguard three young women from a deadly adversary who wants them destroyed.


Madame Web has some of the most blatant and awful product placement we have seen since Keanu Reeves and Jennifer Connelly pulled up to a McDonald’s parking lot to try their new line of coffee known as the McCafe in The Day the Earth Stood Still. So, you can’t help but be confused about whether to thank the Pepsi-Cola corporation, blame them, or feel bad for them. 

They stop short of Bill Cosby opening up a can of Coke in the center frame of Ghost Dad and replying with “ahh” to signify refreshment. No, the studio has the filmmakers have the product placement practically be the hero of the story in defeating a foe, which is so outlandish that you can’t help but be impressed with the courage to sink the comic book genre to an all-time low.

This is the fourth film in the spectacular downfall of Sony’s Spider-Man Universe. The resounding thud of Madame Web has inspired me to start a petition for the studio never to make another SSU film again. S.J. Clarkson (Anatomy of a Scandal) directed this gigantic cinematic cliche. She co-wrote the script with Claire Parker, who took over the suicide mission from the Morbius writing team, Matt Sazama and Burk Sharpless. The result is a bloated episode of the television series Heroes with the leads sleepwalking through their roles. 

The story follows Cassie Webb (Dakota Johnson), a paramedic living her most average life in New York City. She and her partner, Ben (Adam Scott), drive around, saving lives. Cassie was an orphan because her mother, Constance (Halt and Catch Fire’s Kerry Bishe), died looking for a spider in the rainforest that cures hundreds of diseases. 

The twist is that she travels while pregnant with Cassie. When she locates the predatory arachnid, her guide, Ezekiel (Napoleon’s Tahar Rahim), takes the eight-legged freak for himself. Constance is shot, but an indigenous Peruvian tribe can deliver the baby, but not before biting Cassie’s mom, which gives her clairvoyant powers that have remained dormant until now. 

She then has visions of three teenagers who are going to be kill a demonically dressed Spider-Man. One is the daughter of a woman, the shy Julia (superstar Sydney Sweeney) who Cassie saved. Another is Anya (Isabell Merced), who lives in Cassie’s building. The final one is punk rock skateboarding chick Mattie (Selah and the Spades’s Celeste O’Connor), who gave Cassie the middle finger after she stopped her ambulance from running her over during oncoming traffic.

There’s simply no rhyme or reason for almost anything that happens in Madame Web. For one, the four female characters coming together have no real reason for existing other than to sell you diabetes and dementia-causing fizzy water and steal your hard-earned money at theatrical prices. The attempted backstory connecting Cassie and Sims to the teenagers is inexplicably lazy. 

So are the head-scratching time cuts. Cassie can travel to a jungle in Peru to talk to members of the Las Arañas tribe. Yet, Cassie comes back the same day, over 3652 miles a few hours later, to help Ben defend the girls who have no reason to be part of the story, to begin with, other than to spark a franchise for Sweeny, who has little to do in the movie in the first place. 

There’s no backstory to establish Rahim’s villainous character, not even during his jaw-droppingly bad exposition scene with Jill Hennessy’s unnamed NSA agent. That scene defines what’s wrong with Madame Web. Sims repeats the story endlessly. That’s the same device used consistently with Johnson’s titular character. 

However, the scenes are so poorly put together, edited, and acted with Johnson’s trademark “whispering in monotone” (thank you, Please Don’t Destroy) in a wide variety of intense situations that it’s like experiencing nails across a chalkboard repeatedly in a nightmare version of Groundhog Day. We can only pray that the rodent doesn’t see a sequel in our future.

Madame Web even squanders the fun of being an unofficial prequel to the Spider-Man franchise, where Ben is supposed to play Uncle Ben. His sister-in-law, Mary Parker (Emma Roberts), alludes to her unborn baby as the future Tobey Maguire, Andrew Garfield, or Tom Holland. (Considering this SSU entry quality, my money is on Garfield.)

I’m not sure what else you can say about Madame Web. The film feels like the filmmakers are working from a storyboard rather than a script because hardly anything connects individual scenes. All I know is this is my Hudson Hawk. It was one of the most painful theatrical experiences of my entire life. I owe an apology to The Marvels—one with flowers, candy, and jewelry to smooth things over. 

Grade: F

The Story of the Two Wolves: How Coppola and Luhrmann Imagined Two Different Elvises

I hesitated for so long before writing this essay, for one, because comparing two performances is a bizarre thing to do, especially without bias. It’s not like science where people can measure quantities and moderate time to create the perfect equation. We are comparing art, performances, and acting, which is always a tricky thing to execute.

The topic has been crossing my mind for a long time, though. See, from 2022 till late 2023, Elvis Presley was everything people were talking about. And for good reason, Presley, like Michael Jackson, galvanized the people of his time but ultimately became a somewhat controversial figure as times progressed. He was a successful rock and roll artist, had a Kardashian-worthy televised real life that added to his brand –Colonel Tom Parker was probably a PR genius before someone laid the rules for PR techniques- and his whole life was a rollercoaster of huge triumphs and disasters. 

To the outsider, Elvis Presley was one of the pop culture images that represented the American dream; a life of excess, sexuality that struggled with expression in light of religious piety, a matriarchy washed in overt masculinity, and flamboyance that insisted on a hypermasculine image. Presley was as polarizing and confusing as America, this dazzling nation, not just to non-Americans but Americans themselves. As far as controversial figures went, he was the typical rock and roll artist; a tormented musician, harboring dark secrets of his own, living a hectic, wild life that ultimately culminated in his early demise.

I fervently defended Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis, especially during the 2022 award season. I thought Austin Butler’s performance was brilliant, and he deserved the Best Actor Academy Award despite all the respect I had for Brendan Fraser. That year felt like a fever dream for cinephiles. It reignited my passion and love for cinema, and it allowed me to rediscover Elvis Presley as a singer. I started compiling playlists and listening to them on my way to work or the gym or on busy traffic days. I immersed myself in the Black music that Elvis borrowed –or stole from- in the movie and his life. I remember striking up conversations with strangers on Twitter; film critics, cinephiles, and Elvis fans, and we were all wondering what had happened. Did we succumb to a mass hallucinogenic experience when we went to the movie theater that year? What did Luhrmann give us when he introduced us to this movie?

So, when Sofia Coppola announced she was making Priscilla, I was skeptical, to say the least. I wasn’t familiar with Jacob Elordi’s work beyond Euphoria –although to be honest, I hadn’t even heard of Butler until Elvis in 2022- and I thought it was too early to revisit a character already iconized by one actor in the same decade. But I was excited that there would be another film focused on the woman’s POV. We would finally get Elvis’s ex-wife’s story and see other aspects of this vibrant man’s life, maybe a different aura of his energy.

This was until I watched Priscilla and Elordi exceeded my expectations to the extent of making me hate Elvis. I saw the dark side of him; a spoiled, freaky individual with an Oedipal complex and intense mood swings. In Coppola’s eyes, Elvis was an obsessive man, a groomer, and an insecure artist incapable of making decisions on his own or of listening to people who dared defy him. 

It struck me as odd how I could love both versions of Elvis when they were opposites. I was surprised at how I found that both actors did well with what they were given. Admittedly, Butler was more carnivalistic and exposed, and that garnered him –especially due to the biopic film medium – award accolades and a movie star status. But it should be noted that Elordi benefited a lot from Priscilla as well, and his entry into Hollywood –combined with his careful PR campaigning as the giant sultry seductress in Saltburn– gave him a place among the movie stars he was far away from, trapped in TV land.

The actors’ approaches to Elvis couldn’t be more different. While Butler took the route of studying, dedicating, understanding, and loving the man beneath the sequins and the glitter; Elordi seemed to carefully detach himself from the Presley image, choosing to dismiss the whole thing as a joke, and showing clear disinterest in Elvis as a performer or a rock icon. He was chill and relaxed in playing a dark man, tormented by grief and all the isolation that celebrity life brings. Butler performed from a supra-identity, something above the present, a higher self over the already established star image of Presley. Of course, credit should also be given to both directors because their approaches in structuring both Elvises were polarizing and fascinating to watch.

Coppola approached Elvis and Priscilla through an ultra-feminist lens. She hated Elvis and didn’t show him in any positive light. Her lighting and camera angles shot this giant beast who snatched the delicate dove Priscilla from her young, sheltered life. She saw him from an unsympathetic lens –no matter what she said, sorry Sofia, babe- and created a sinister presence that made me delete all his songs from my playlist. After Priscilla, I realized I wasn’t keen on watching any of his clips or his interviews. I wanted to get this man out of my head.

Luhrmann, on the other hand, molded an enigma of Elvis through Austin Butler. He wasn’t interested in giving Elvis darker dimensions as much as he was interested in deciphering the code of what makes an average man a star. What drove women wild after a man, chasing him wherever he went, going crazy over his tiniest bits, and obsessing over boring stuff like what he ate for breakfast, and who his parents were? He was trying to uncover one of the universal secrets. He needed an actor he could build his fascination over, thus came Butler and he was the perfect vessel for this transcendence. To make that movie, Luhrmann glossed over many of Presley’s shortcomings. He portrayed Elvis and Priscilla as two love birds when they were not. He didn’t dig deep at the creepy Gladys-Elvis relationship that Coppola masterfully showcased in Priscilla through Elvis’s brief hints at his mother, and her domineering photos all over Graceland. 

Instead of analyzing both perspectives, the media turned the ordeal into a bloodsport, pitting both actors against each other, but rarely making the comparison of seeking what the directors –the real masterminds behind both images- wanted to say through their movies.

The question that irked me after all that was whether I loved one movie over the other. Whether Elvis Presley still had a place in my heart after watching nauseating scenes of him seeking a child and grooming her later to be his wife in Priscilla, then rewatching Baz Luhrmann’s film and realizing it was so naïve and silly to show them as two same-age individuals, using Butler’s baby face features to match Olivia DeJonge’sdocile beauty. 

It’s difficult to pinpoint where things go wrong. I know Baz Luhrmann’s film will always be in my heart. The “Trouble” and “Baby Let’s Play House” performances, in particular, were electrifying, and watching them in the movie theater was almost psychedelic. I can’t say the same about Sofia Coppola’s film that I found thought-provoking and scary, like all her other saccharine-poison movies about women coming-of-age. I thought about Priscilla for hours and hours after finishing it and found it brilliant. It hurt my feminist soul to watch a young woman make her ultimate dream come true, only for her to realize that a dream involving a superstar would ultimately end up as a nightmare. She loved an image, not knowing she was marrying a whole system operating on storytelling, brand management, and spoiling a young man beyond recognition so that he becomes a ghost of a human being, a shell that will always feel empty, no matter how many pints of water are poured down his throat.

I will always love both films, and I find both actors very in command of what their roles demanded them to do. As I said goodbye to them, though, I realized what Elvis and Priscilla did to me. They turned me off biopics. For good!

Biopics are a tricky territory; for one, actors have to be faithful to the character they’re playing. Then, the director has to have a deeper message beyond outlining someone’s life from cradle to grave, to evade the “too boring, too archival” booby trap. Then, there’s the worry that the script cannot simply be faithful to the reality of things but also must be innovative. Additionally, there’s the landmine that actual people –the subject’s family or past lovers- might get hurt when the nature of their relationship is exposed. Biopics are a lot of work, and they are even more tiresome when people spend so much time promoting them based on the fact that the leading actor or actress embodied or became the character. It drives people, like me, insane, and somehow after the Elvis and Priscilla discourse, things have gone more sour, like they used up whatever remaining energy to enjoy a biopic without thinking too deeply about whether an actor truly got it or not. Not to mention how disappointing it was to shift camps from “Elvis the bird who was forced to fly forever, and whose marriage to Priscilla was like any other failed marriage culminating in jealousy and infidelity” to “Elvis the creep who groomed a 14-year-old girl to be his wife, preserving her virginity so that he would be the first one to touch her.” Vacillating between these two mindsets was truly exhausting and, as a cinephile, both experiences put out the fires in each other, even when Butler was brilliant in Elvis, and Elordi was convincing and menacing in Priscilla.

Movie Review: ‘Bhakshak’ Highlights the Transformative Power of Journalism


Director: Pulkit
Writers: Jyotsana Nath, Pulkit
Stars: Bhumi Pednekar, Sanjay Mishra, Aditya Srivastava

Synopsis: Revolves around the journey of an unwavering woman’s quest to seek justice and her perseverance in getting a heinous crime to light.


The role of a journalist, or their mission, has been heavily debated over the years. Should they objectively report the news or involve themselves in a story to hold the people in power accountable? In Bhakshak, Vaishali Singh (Bhumi Pednekar) wants to do the latter after she receives a tip from her source that a government-funded shelter home has been engaging in the abuse (and murder) of young girls. The police know what is happening but do not intervene, as the man who runs the home, Bansi Sahu (Aditya Srivastava), has several government officials and police officers in his pockets. 

As Vaishali learns more about what’s going on, she wants to bring this story to light to expose all the figures involved, but her family thinks it’s a futile – and dangerous – effort. Her news channel barely gets any views, and Sahu immediately targets family members to shut her up. However, Vaishali never backs down despite these intimidation tactics, even when her brother-in-law gets severely injured and wants to investigate the story as deeply as she can so the truth can be uncovered to the public and the people responsible for these heinous crimes are behind bars. 

This causes a division in her family, with plenty of one-dimensional dialogue scenes attempting to give emotional stakes to the proceedings. Her family is more concerned about Vaishali’s husband than her quest for the truth and would rather she procreate before it’s too late. Yeah, instead of attempting to save young girls from extreme abuse, her family’s focus is on Vaishali having kids. However, she immediately claps back with one hell of an impassioned monologue, in which she reverses the situation and asks her family, what if she was stuck in a home with no way out and was forced to sell her body to Sahu just to survive? It’s at that moment when Vaishali’s quest for objectivity leaves her mind, as it has now become a life-or-death situation for her and the girls who are still being abused by the men and women who run the shelter. 

Produced by Gauri Khan and Gaurav Verma, Bhakshak asks timely questions about journalism’s purpose in society, especially in a country where corruption runs rampant. And while its flaws stick out like a sore thumb, the importance of a film like this cannot be overstated. Director Pulkit doesn’t shy away from showing harrowing moments of abuse either. While nothing explicit is shown on screen, the agonizing screams from its victims are enough to make your stomach churn. 

Perhaps the antagonists are stretched out to be as one-note as possible, but Srivastava’s portrayal of Sahu is terrifying in and of itself. He posits himself as a calm and patient man who has done a lot for the community, which is what he continuously says to Vaishali, only for his darker side to reveal itself as the camera observes him in the shelter, making innocent girls beg for their lives as he beats them with a belt and rapes them. Vaishali sees right through Sahu’s calm demeanor and fake smile and will stop at nothing until his entire operation shuts down. 

However, it will prove far more complex than she initially thought, especially when she learns that Mithilesh Sinha (Chittaranjan Tripathy), who works for the Child Welfare Association, is a key player in Sahu’s operation, paid off to tamper with files and bring anyone who escaped from the shelter back into Sahu’s hands. The corruption is even deeper when government officials deliberately ignore taking action at Sahu, but some things will have to change once Vaishali publicizes their involvement. 

The best parts of Bhakshak are when Pulkit observes Vaishali believing in the transformative power of journalism as a vehicle for truth to be conveyed since the ones in power don’t want it to come out. In that sense, journalism is treated here as a watchdog for democracy, which many scholars believe is its primary function (Rasmus Kleis Nielsen disagrees, but that’s a story for another time). Pulkit treats it as such and gives its central figure enough time to shine so that the truth comes out naturally when all the pieces are laid out. 

As such, Pednekar gives a career-defining performance after a streak of lousy turns. Her plentiful monologues as she gradually gives more proof to the public are confidently delivered, and the film’s bravura sequence in which she begs Indians to fight for what’s right and stand up against oppressors is as timely of a message as ever. This arc is the only reason Bhakshak is worth watching — showing the lengths a journalist has to go for the truth, especially in a climate where trust in the media is at an all-time low, and users turn to angrier, less truthful depictions of society. 

Against all odds, Vaishali shows how transformative journalism can be, especially when used against corrupt governments who would rather fill their pockets with dirty money than bring these criminals to justice. It’s a tale as old as time but one whose message needs to be reaffirmed in an era when journalism faces more challenges than ever. Journalism is a deeply human activity in which its best pieces humanize its subjects in a way that no one else can. Vaishali not only brings out the truth of a corrupt system but also humanizes the ones who have been oppressed and abused for years when nothing has been done. As a result, the victims saved by Vaishali’s journalistic activities are the real heroes of the story, the ones we must remember when the full picture of this story is revealed. 

Through this figure of a truth-seeking Vaishali, Pednekar reminds us all why journalism must – and will – survive. 

Grade: B

The Best Of Berlinale’s Winners

After Sundance, the next important film festival is the Berlin International Film Festival, or Berlinale for short, held every February. Since 1951, this has become a major place for international releases, equal in stature to Cannes and Venice during the year. Among the films making their premiere are Seven Veils from director Atom Egoyan (The Sweet Hereafter), Spaceman starring Adam Sandler and Carey Mulligan, and Treasure starring Lena Dunham and Stephen Fry. It is almost forgotten because it is at the beginning of the year, but several films have carried on from Berlin towards the end of the year as a major awards player. Here are a few notable winners from the top prize, the Golden Bear.

12 Angry Men (1957)

Sidney Lumet’s debut film took home the top prize with his single room drama of a jury debating the fate of an accused killer and a single man (Henry Fonda) holding out on convicting him that easily. With Martin Balsam, Lee J. Cobb, Jack Warden, and Ed Begley, Lumet makes a hot day even hotter inside with a passionate discussion of presumption of innocence contained in a small room. It’s an actor’s film where everyone is on their A-Game and it is a pressure cooker which the young Lumet was able to make in the beginning of his illustrious career. 

The Ascent (1977)

The last film in the short career of Larisa Shepitko before her tragic death is an astonishing piece of work set in the harshest winter during the Second World War. It follows two Soviet partisans who are captured by Nazi collaborators and pressured to give them information, one who is willing to die keeping quiet and the other being more willing to talk. Nearly banned for its semi-religious undertones, The Ascent is about integrity and patriotism in the face of the enemy and in such a desolate state in war. 

Veronika Voss (1982)

Native director Rainer Werner Fassbinder was finally given his due at home with this story of a former German actress, once a star, and her new relationship with a journalist. When the journalist discovers that Veronika is under the influence of a doctor who gives her countless drugs to take all her money, the journalist tries to break Veronika from the doctor’s spell. It is the last of Fassbinder’s BRD Trilogy with The Marriage of Maria Braun and Lola, and was the penultimate film of his career before Fassbinder’s sudden death that same year, age 38. 

The Thin Red Line (1998)

Oddly, the film was part of Berlinale 1999, so it won after its release in the United States. It worked out well since Terrence Malick’s comeback after twenty years was shut out from winning any Oscars and it is a much worthy win for this deeply philosophical story during the Battle of Guadalcanal. A major ensemble cast featuring Sean Penn, John Travolta, Jim Caviezel, Nick Nolte, John C. Reily, and Woody Harrelson deal with the horrors of war, the beauty of nature they fight in, and whether personal glory is worth it, with Hans Zimmer’s mesmerizing score, John Toll’s lush cinematography, and Malick’s timely direction that makes Red Line a standout.  

Bloody Sunday / Spirited Away (2002)

Two films shared the Golden Bear that year, one introducing us to Paul Greengrass as a film director and one anointing the legendary career of Hayao Miyazaki. 

In Bloody Sunday, Greengrass gives us a docudrama about the tragic events of January 30, 1972, in Derry, Northern Ireland when British soldiers shot upon a protest crowd, killing 14 people. Using his background in making documentaries, Greengrass pieces together the moments leading up to the tragedy and its aftermath with an incredible force of power, now more than 50 years after the tragedy. 

With Spirited Away, it became Miyazaki’s magnum opus that led him to his Oscar victory for Best Animated Feature and made Miyazaki a truly international star. His fairy tale is a mix of Buddhism, the spirit world, and traditionalism versus modernism which catapults us to another level of imagination only he could have created. For an animated movie to get the top award at an international film festival, no less one of the big ones, is a testament to how great and beloved Spirited Away is. 

Follow me on Twitter (X): @brian_cine (Cine-A-Man)

Follow me on BlueSky: @briansusbielles.bsky.social 

Women InSession: Sharon Stone Favorites

This week on Women InSession, we take a look at the great Sharon Stone and discuss our favorite movies that she’s starred in over the years! Stone was a massive star and has some iconic moments in cinema history, and we had a lot of fun talking about her rise and fall.

Panel: Kristin Battestella, Jaylan Salah

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

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Women InSession – Episode 72

To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Source app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcasts and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and for listening to our show. It means the world to us.

Movie Review: ‘Bleeding Love’ is an Act of Forgiveness


Director: Emma Westenberg
Writers: Vera Bulder, Ruby Caster, Elle Malan
Stars: Ewan McGregor, Clara McGregor, Jake Weary

Synopsis: A father takes his estranged daughter on a road trip in an effort to get her out of trouble. Along the way they meet all types of strangers, as their strained relationship is put to the test.


Emma Westenberg’s New Mexico set drama Bleeding Love is, at times, too raw to not feel that it is a deeply personal story for Clara McGregor and her father Ewan McGregor. Both actors have spoken openly about their issues with addiction. Ewan became an alcoholic after starring as Renton in Trainspotting in 1996. Clara was heavily medicated for anxiety disorders. Clara publicly denounced her father for divorcing her mother and starting a new family with a younger actor. The issues of abandonment, addiction, and resentment fuel Turbo’s (or Daughter – Clara McGregor) deep distrust of her father. She almost died of an overdose earlier in the day when Father (Ewan McGregor) convinces her to go from San Diego to Santa Fe to meet a man who might be interested in exhibiting her art.

The screenwriters, including Ruby Caster, Vera Bulder, Elle Malan, and Clara McGregor waste no time setting up the fractured dynamics between Daughter and Father. Daughter is listening to “I’m Yer Dad,” by Grlwood and ignoring every effort Father is making to communicate with her. She stares out the window, sickly and sweaty. She makes Father pull over so she can pee and then runs off into the desert. Where she was planning to escape to is irrelevant. There is nothing for miles. She just doesn’t want to be with her father.

The opening circles back to Ewan McGregor’s breakout role as Renton in Trainspotting. One thing Renton did a lot of in that film was running. Here, as a man playing someone in his late forties, he is chasing after his daughter – aged twenty. It is a reminder that there is a generation who saw Renton and his escapades as something almost cool before it lurched into inevitable tragedy. The question the film asks is if Daughter, who is now faster than Father, is going to end up a statistic to drug abuse. And just how much of her predilection for addictive behavior came directly from the alcoholic man who walked out on her when she was a child?

Bleeding Love has the gritty realism of someone hitting rock bottom and trying to ignore the fact that they have. But it also has a hazy fairy tale quality. From the flashbacks to young Turbo (Devyn McDowell) and the perceived fun that a child has with a reckless parent, to the odd assortment of people Father and Daughter meet on the road. Some are magical helpers, and some are big bad wolves. Westenberg’s flashbacks have a distinct Florida Project feel. 

Father has rebuilt his life via AA and is doing everything he can to help daughter rebuild hers. Yet, daughter has no reason to trust him. Why should she? For his part, Father has to do more than say sorry; he has to prove he does love the child he abandoned. No easy task because a ‘mea culpa’ doesn’t suffice when he has been gone for her formative years. He can be as good humored and concerned as he likes in Daughter’s eyes – but nothing fixes the fact he now has a new family with a son who he reads bedtime stories to. Something that she didn’t get in her chaotic childhood.

Westenberg uses New Mexico to her advantage. Christopher Ripley’s cinematography captures the beauty and the strangeness of the state. Deserts, dive bars, strip malls, abandoned spaces, bizarre themed motels, and collectives made by people living on the fringe of society. A busted tire means Father and Daughter are picked up by a gun-toting astrologist tow-truck driver. Elsie (Kim Zimmer) takes her to her found and actual family of generous people living mostly off grid. Daughter meets Kip (Jake Weary, who in real life is Kim Zimmer’s son) who is dressed as a party clown and tries to seduce him to get booze and drugs. The hapless guy is half smitten by Daughter, but also intimidated. He doesn’t realize she’s underage and is ill prepared for the blowback he gets from Father.

A gift of a pumpkin gets handed on to a truck stop sex worker, Tommy (Vera Bulder) who helps when Daughter is bitten by a spider on the side of the road. In a glitter filled moment, Father and Daughter watch Tommy perform in the headlights. Tommy is going to get out of town and be a playwright and actor – she’s headed for New York City and the boulevard of broken dreams. Maybe Daughter can provide her art for the background sets to her plays? Maybe Tommy will make it… maybe Father and Daughter will too.

Another encounter which happens after Daughter realizes that Father is not taking her to meet a gallery owner, but instead is driving her to rehab is with a feral drug addict and his partner (Travis Hammer and Eve Kozikowski). Eli and Kentucky fill her full of dangerous drugs and dump her on the road. Father desperately searches for her in bars. While Daughter spins out of control in one scene the cross fade has a bartender putting a shot of liquor in front of Father. Is it possible they will both be overcome by their vices?

Music is the one point where the good memories exist for Father and Daughter. They joyously sing Leona Lewis’ ‘Bleeding Love’ (which doubles as the title of the film, which was originally called You Sing Loud, I Sing Louder). ‘Seabird’ by the Alessi Brothers is another key work. Ewan McGregor is not only a distinguished dramatic and comedic talent – he is also a well-known song and dance man. The connection Father and Daughter through music is essential. It’s unfiltered joy and pain.

Clara McGregor is a captivating screen presence and her natural chemistry with Ewan is palpable. The script takes decided and quite funny digs at Ewan – the presumption that Father and Daughter are actually a couple by many characters is quite pointed. Bleeding Love is obviously fiction – but the elements of emotional truth will resonate with many fathers and daughters. People have to take responsibility for their lives and the damage they caused and are causing. 

Eventually Father has to give Daughter the keys to her own life – a decision which is built out of a tenuous trust on both their behalf. Father admits the damage he has done: “Things start to slip away. I was acting like a child, but I had a child,” he says in an impromptu AA meeting. He is speaking directly to his daughter. Daughter has to admit that she is indeed an addict, and that she can’t stop anytime she likes.

Bleeding Love is an accomplished first feature. There are moments where it can be a bit heavy handed with the metaphors, and like its protagonists it is not without flaws. However, it is ultimately a work about redemption and trust. “You are like me. But better. I love you more,” is inscribed in Father’s diary which he gives to Daughter. A road trip across New Mexico and the space trail with added Roswell weirdness. A fairy tale. An extended apology. An act of forgiveness. Bleeding Love is a calling card for both Clara McGregor and Emma Westenberg. 

Grade: B-

Movie Review: ‘Suncoast’ Hits the Right Notes When It Counts


Director: Laura Chinn
Writer: Laura Chinn
Stars: Nico Parker, Laura Linney, Woody Harrelson

Synopsis: While caring for her brother along with her audacious mother, a teenager strikes up a friendship with an eccentric activist who is protesting one of the most landmark medical cases of all time.


The film Suncoast made its debut at Sundance last month and had a short turnaround on Hulu a few weeks later. The movie is a semi-autobiographical tale of its writer and director, Lauren Chinn. She has written a story about her experiences helping raise her brother, who was stricken with a terminal illness. The story is emotionally raw while combining the type of coming-of-age narrative that is empathetic and unafraid to strip away the sugarcoating from the mother-daughter relationship.

Nico Parker (Dumbo) plays Doris, the character inspired by a small window of her high school life. Doris is a loner, socially awkward, and, unfortunately, has no friends. That’s not because she’s a bad kid. She has been cut off from the rest of the world because she is helping take care of her brother, Max, who has brain cancer. The tumor has taken over his body, and he can no longer speak or move. (It appears that he may have a condition known as aphasia.)

As a result, in order to pay the medical bills and send Doris to a better school, her forthright mother, Kristine (Laura Linney), works seven days a week. However, Max’s degenerative disease is progressing to the point where he needs all-day care at a facility called Suncoast, a hospice facility in town. Kristine, overcome with guilt, decides to sleep in the same room as Max so he won’t be alone. The move is devastating to Doris. However, she begins to form new friendships, inviting a group of “cool” kids to her home because her mother no longer lives there.

Chinn’s movie embraces the modern trope of friends forming a support system around Doris, which is refreshing. What’s nice about the script is that these kids act like dumb teenagers but are considerate enough not to dismiss Doris’s situation callously. The other support comes from a man Doris meets at Suncoast, Paul (Woody Harrelson). The character acts as a temporary surrogate parent, guiding her through complex thoughts even if Doris doesn’t want to hear them.

Now, the character of Paul may be based on someone or a composite of a couple of characters from Chinn’s life. However, the relationship is inappropriate for various obvious reasons. A teenage girl hanging out with an adult male nearly four times her age without parental consent is borderline negligent. We also consider this a storytelling device to move the plot along and highlight how consumed Kristine is by ignoring her other child’s emotional needs—you have never seen a teenager want to be needed by a parent more.

In a striking scene, when Doris tells her mother she’s her child too, Linney is cold and flippant, snorting at such a remark. Linney can create a character detached from being mindful of the people she has left in her life, which is maddening and also sad. Doris then becomes an evolving character by slowing coming to grips with othechild’Chinn’s time limit. There are several scenes like that in Chinn’s semi-autobiographical tale, including a jaw-dropping one where Kristine harshly pretends Max is about to pass to get her daughter to come home after sneaking out to be with her friends.

The point of Suncoast is that you have a child like Doris who is achingly trying to be seen. By anyone, really. It’s hard to argue with a script inspired by actual events, but Suncoast doesn’t recognize how much Doris is a child in crisis. One of the reasons I have issues with biographical films is that a filmmaker who is the subject has a brutally unfiltered view of others (like Kristine), and the author, in turn, will show a filtered view of themselves. Essentially, deep insights into childhood isolation, loneliness, and depression are largely ignored.
And that’s fine, to a degree. Suncoast’s tale about a mother and daughter’s relationship that a thread has held onto for years can be emotionally raw at times, perhaps using too many film cliches to keep the story moving. However, Linney’s performance, which evolves from an emotional wrecking ball to a cocoon of warm reassurance, has a beautiful candor. Overall, Chinn’s film hits the right notes when the story counts, and her coming-of-age can resonate with her audience.

Grade: B-

Episode 572: Best Picture Nominees Draft

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

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we open the show by talking about this year’s crop of Super Bowl trailers and end the show with another draft as we sift through the Best Picture Nominees that lost the Oscar!

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!

– Super Bowl Trailers (2:04)
The Super Bowl is one of the biggest cultural events of the year, and with it comes a variety of fun movie trailers. This year we saw footage for Deadpool & Wolverine, Wicked and Twisters, among others. Since we had already seen teasers for the new Apes and Quiet Place movies, we decided to focus on the big three that were new to us. The discourse on all three were pretty wild, and understandably so, and of course we were itching to give our thoughts on them as well.


RELATED: Listen to Episode 516 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed our Top 10 Movies of 2023!


– Best Picture Nominee Draft (34:12)
Last week on the show, we had some fun drafting our teams of Best Picture Oscars winners. This week, we thought it would be equally exciting to expand the pool and talk about the Best Picture nominees that lost the Oscar. So for this draft, the winners are ineligible. We simply drafted from the movies that were nominated for Best Picture and didn’t take home the top prize. There are, of course, a ton of great movies to choose from here, and it made for an arguably more challenging exercise. But boy it was fun! Are you Team JD or Team Brendan?

– Music
Ashes – Celine Dion
Surf Rider – The Lively Ones

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 572

Next week on the show:

Something Coen Brothers Related

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

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

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE

Movie Review: ‘Cobweb’ is Tangled Meta-Cinema


Director: Jee-woon Kim
Writers: Jee-woon Kim, Yeon-Shick Shin
Stars: Park Jeong-su, Krystal Jung, Oh Jung-se

Synopsis: Described as an experimental and genre-defying drama shot entirely on sound stages in support of a film-within-a-film narrative.s.


Cobweb can easily be viewed as another exercise in filmmakers’ self-importance in the world around them. And on the surface, it can be. However, as Jee-woon Kim’s black comedy unfolds, the filmmaker’s subversive film experience begins to poke fun at the establishment while simultaneously challenging the establishment about why truth is essential in any entertainment art form. Kim’s South Korean tale of obsession is a darkly funny and skillfully crafted work of meta-cinema.

The story follows Kim (Parasite’s Song Kang-ho), a director obsessed with finishing his current film. The director’s career has been on a downward slope since his acclaimed movie, which was made after the death of his mentor. The production company funding his project is under strict budgetary restrictions and also under the eye of the South Korean government’s censorship program (known as “The Korean Motion Picture Promotion Corporation,” created by President Park Chung Hee, known as the authoritarian Yusin System).

The movie, AKA Cobweb, is finished, but suddenly, a reworked ending develops inside his head, and he asks for two more days. The company’s owner, the widow of his mentor, Chairwoman Baek (Jang Young-Nam), refuses to give Kim extra time. In part, her staff is also worried about how the government may react to such a daring ending. That’s until the daughter of his late mentor and co-owner, Shim (Jeon Yeo-been), a staunch supporter of Kim, reads the rewritten ending and thinks it’s a masterpiece. She grants the days while Baek is out of town.

Kim’s script works because of the supporting characters he draws, one of the best ensembles you may see this year. There is Kang (Oh Jung-se), a Hallyuwood star who never met an actress he shared the screen with but didn’t sleep with, even though he’s married. He gets Yu-rim (Krystal Jung) pregnant and smothers her, to her dismay, when she only cares about returning to being the star of her K-drama. Some of the movie’s best scenes are between Jung’s Yu-rim and Yeo-been’s Shim, who have a legendary feud, while the latter acts like a tyrant to keep the cast in line.

Kim’s Cobweb isn’t a composite of a group of directors but obviously of himself. His obsession offers a dark (sometimes playful) commentary on filmmaking. You learn a lot about the process from the film. In particular, the third act’s climax is how the scene would be shot in one glorious tracking shot. Almost all the actors are offered their moments to shine comedically. In particular, Young-Nam and Yeo-been have often hilarious deadpan deliveries. 

Cobweb will remind you of films like Black Bear and Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) in the way you may question what’s real or not. (Kim has several compelling scenes from his film shot in stunning black and white.) Also, there is an obsession with an artist’s vision. What was striking is how Kim’s film puts truth on trial in Cobweb, which is revealed in the film’s highly entertaining third act. For example, someone like Shim could not possibly be an actor, and Yu-rim could find truth in her character, even in salacious scenes.  While, by the end, showing the subversive veracity of what truth means to the central figures themselves. 

That makes Cobweb a story of redemption seen through the eyes of Song Kang-ho’s interpretation of Kim’s moral and professional character. The film is a filmmaker’s journey of self-discovery and reinvention of themselves. 

Grade: A

Movie Review: ‘Lisa Frankenstein’ is an Enjoyable Bolt of Lightning


Director: Zelda Williams
Writer: Diablo Cody
Stars: Kathryn Newton, Cole Sprouse, Liza Soberano

Synopsis: A coming of RAGE love story about a teenager and her crush, who happens to be a corpse. After a set of horrific circumstances bring him back to life, the two embark on a journey to find love, happiness – and a few missing body parts.


It’s hard to describe the feeling you get leaving the theater after watching Lisa Frankenstein. There’s a hodge podge of emotions. You’ll find yourself grossed out, confused, strangely melancholy, and in stitches at the wackiness that hit you like a strange dream. Is Lisa Frankenstein perfect? In parts, yes, but as a whole it feels a little too much like chopped up pieces sewn into a new form.

The film is a little slow to get going. With director Zelda Williams’ flair for dreaminess, we sort of get trapped in a state of not knowing how we should feel about certain characters or situations. Much of LisaFrankenstein plays like a fantasy sequence, even with its own fantasy sequences within. It was hard not to wonder if a theory can be developed, like the famous Ferris Bueller’s Day Off theory*, that everything after Lisa gets a shock from a faulty tanning bed is all in her head. This script by Diablo Cody is not as snappy as some of her previous films. It has some excellent laughs, but it lacks some of the bite she’s known for, possibly because of an effort to make this a more accessible PG-13. Where the script really struggles is in the overall story.

Lisa Frankenstein is a mishmash of genres sewn together. While it’s a horror comedy, it also fits into the subgenre of coming of age, with direct homage to ’80s teen films of the John Hughes variety and 19th century love stories a la Jane Austen. None of these really quite connect and they fail to spark something truly supernatural. Though, once the film leans into its strangeness, it takes on something extraordinarily enjoyable.

Especially Kathryn Newton’s exceptional performance as Lisa. Her performance has several different layers to it from her grief over her mother, her anger at her father remarrying so soon, and angst at switching schools just before senior year. She takes every change in circumstance and weaves some beautiful magic from it, releasing Lisa from her cocoon of insecurity into a terrific goth butterfly. It’s just a nerdy girl coming into her own. Newton is matched perfectly by the physical performance of Cole Sprouse as The Creature. Sprouse can communicate so much with a look and a grunt which is as impressive as it is entertaining to watch.

There’s a beautiful alchemy in the craft of the film that keeps the audience engaged. Meagan McLaughlin’s costumes from The Creature’s band tees and blazers to Lisa’s incredible goth outfits are stellar. They bring the characters to life in new ways. The same goes for production designer Mark Worthington, art director Michelle C. Harmon, and set decorator Andrew W. Bowfinger’s teams creating a cemetery to swoon over, superb fantasy sequences on practical sets and some truly amazing ‘80s interiors. Praise to the makeup and hairstyling teams, as well, for a superior job on The Creature’s different states of decay as well as the fabulous period hair.

Lisa Frankenstein, when put under the microscope, is a little lacking. The nuts and bolts are there, but the product seems only partially finished. It could be that the film needs a couple of viewings before it really sinks in. It’s thoroughly enjoyable in spite of its flaws and it will make you appreciate REO Speedwagon’s “Can’t Fight This Feeling” in an entirely new way. See it with a bunch of people because the crowd reaction is almost as enjoyable as the film.

*The Ferris Bueller’s Day Off theory is that when the camera zooms in on Ferris’ friend Cameron’s face at the Art Institute of Chicago, Cameron has a small break with reality and we enter Cameron’s fantasy for the rest of the film.

Grade: B

Movie Review: Lousy Carter Capitalizes on Krumholtz


Director: Bob Byington
Writers: Bob Byington
Stars: David Krumholtz, Martin Starr, Olivia Thirlby

Synopsis: Man-baby Lousy Carter struggles to complete his animated Nabokov adaptation, teaches a graduate seminar on The Great Gatsby, and sleeps with his best friend’s wife. He has six months to live.


What would you do if you had six months left to live? I think this is something we all think about. There is a kind of freedom in the impending doom.  Would we spend all of our savings? Spend time with loved ones? Or something darker. Would we push social mores and acceptability?  Or is it some devious crossover between all of these? There are a lot of directions one can go in this circumstance. Lousy Carter makes many of these choices, perhaps a few too many, despite its scant runtime.

Writer and director Bob Byington does have a secret weapon at his disposal. The grungy charm of David Krumholtz is on full display here. As the eponymous Lousy, the movie follows him from stem to stern. This aforementioned charm is completely necessary, because he is about to make, well, lousy choices. He is able to wave away the morality due to a combination of maternal mistreatment and his death sentence via mystery diagnosis.

Briefly, Lousy Carter was a promising animator and, on the strength of that, was given a position at a college teaching English, specifically “The Great Gatsby.” Yes, it is silly that he is teaching an entire course on one book in a graduate program, which the film gently pokes fun at. His dream is to create an animated Nabokov film, which sounds like, to put it likely, a difficult sell. But this is really all means to an end type plot material. It allows him to crush on his young student, Gail (Luxy Banner), who almost steals every scene she shares with Krumholtz. Unlike most minor characters in a film such as this, she seems to have a full interior life, and that is almost solely to do with her performance. She plays a mixture of disgust, interest, wariness, and amusement with Lousy and his obvious attempts to ingratiate himself to her.

There is also an odd subplot which features Lousy sleeping with his best friend’s wife. Said best friend, Kaminsky is played by Martin Starr and is quite funny, but let’s face it, if you’ve seen his monotone delivery in Silicon Valley, among other performances, then you’ve seen this one too. There’s a few running gags here that never really catch on. No one, including his own wife, can quite remember his first name and there is no idea of actual friendship between Kaminsky and Lucky. This is played for laughs that never really arrive. The criminally underseen and undercast Jocelyn DeBoer (watch Greener Grass immediately) in her role of Kaminsky’s wife, Olivia, is giving her all, but there’s not much for her to grasp on to. 

But the film really soars when it is focused on Lousy’s considerable neuroses. This is compounded in scenes with the incomparable Steven Root, playing his Jungian analyst. Root, obviously having a grand time, puts on a wildly stereotypical Freudian style accent, while matching his demeanor and seated position to a perfectly placed photograph on the wall behind him. These scenes are not breaking new ground, but it definitely allows playfulness and an insight into Lousy’s mildly deranged mind. It is not surprising that a character in analysis has a widely difficult relationship with his mother (Mona Lee Fultz) and his sister (Trieste Kelly Dunn). Allowing Krumholtz to riff and engage completely with this man who is clearly avoidant, forces the slight empathy needed towards a man who is trying to have sex with a student, not doing his job, and let’s not forget, having sex with his best friend’s wife. 

Although I enjoyed watching Lousy Carter, it does feel like this could be a truly great short film. It finds itself stretching credulity with its characters, but never to the point of snapping completely. As mentioned, much of this is due to Krumholtz and Banner. His consistent attempts to woo her, combated by her clear awareness and edge, has moments of pure mastery. It should be noted that Byington’s script is sharp and incisive in its best moments. There may not be quite enough meat to chew on in Lousy Carter, but sometimes those few bites make it worth the cost of the meal. 

Grade: B

Podcast Review: Orion and the Dark

On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss the Dreamworks/Netflix animated film from Sean Charmatz, and written by the great Charlie Kaufman, in Orion and the Dark! We already have a major contender for Best Surprise Movie at this year’s InSession Film Awards. It’s early, but Orion and the Dark was one heck of a surprise and we had great fun talking about why Kaufman’s sensibilities work here.

Review: Orion and the Dark (4:00)
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Writers: Sean Charmatz
Stars: Jacob Tremblay, Paul Walter Hauser, Colin Hanks

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Orion and the Dark

Odd and Unusual Sharon Stone Films

From early horror and obscure thrillers to Razzie worthy bads and maligned comedy, these peculiar films peppering Sharon Stone’s repertoire remain surprisingly entertaining viewing despite their flaws – or maybe because of them.

Deadly Blessing

Wes Craven (A Nightmare on Elm Street) directs Ernest Borgnine (McHale’s Navy) and the debuting Sharon Stone in this 1981 rural cult thriller that will be too stereotypical and country slow paced for some viewers. Fortunately, Peeping Tom angles, peering camera depths, blinding lights, red photography, and scary shadows provide the sinister afoot. Extreme religious implications, farm country isolation, creepy barns, and the backwoods lack of technology create fear. This is not for those afraid of snakes and spiders! Although the music accents the scares and suspense alongside some lovely character moments, innocence, and well done themes; the flat script leaves certain dramatic and supernatural elements unexplored. The pieces don’t all fit together as Borgnine’s stern and spooky looming and Stone’s very effective heebie jeebies don’t always mesh. The weird ending combines slasher and mystical scaries but the uneven girl power versus scream queens ends up as unfulfilling and out of place. Thankfully, there’s a very freaky bath tub scene and enough mystery and creepy atmosphere for fans of the cast and crew.


Allan Quatermain and the Lost City of Gold

James Earl Jones (Coming to America) and Cassandra Peterson (Elvira: Mistress of the Dark) join the titular Richard Chamberlain and his lady love Stone in this 1987 sequel to King Solomon’s Mines based upon the H. Rider Haggard adventures. Unfortunately, snakes, chases, and gunfire can’t distract from the cringe worthy colonialism, white savior heroics, nondescript interwar setting, and eighties anachronisms of this cheap, rushed, turbulent production. Superfluous characters with terribly racist accents, poor dialogue, and weak backstory waste time when our arguing, no chemistry couple could have uncovered the gold pieces and Phoenician daggers themselves. The uneven first half hour can be skipped in favor of the lovely waterfalls, rainbows, sunsets, and lions, but the various terrains and picturesque views are just montages with a very thin script occasionally peppered by fun booby traps.

For every decent action moment, two more Temple of Doom knockoff sequences drag on, and the overplayed score forces the adventure on even when nothing is happening. This almost has to be seen to be believed, yet these mistakes have much in common with today’s franchise ad nauseam – strung together stories, shoddy action sequences, flat characterizations, and danger wrongly played for humor. Contrived perils are resolved easily through happenstance, and although he never has to reload, Quatermain’s only successful when using his gun. Overacting Stone’s Jesse is treated as capable sassy one minute then petulant and screaming the next, stomping her foot or clingy as needed. Peterson is also wasted as a non-speaking evil queen, and the evil priest slave labor a la Mola Ram goes on fifteen minutes too long with no rhyme or reason to the laughable gold weapons, thunder, yelling, and yes, golden showers.

Scissors

Craft shears, elevator attacks, and red bearded culprits spell tension, repression, and paranoia for ingenue Stone, doctor Ronny Cox (Total Recall), and Steve Railsback (Lifeforce) twins in this 1991 thriller. The claustrophobic atmosphere is thick thanks to penetration symbolism, sleazy old men, and scissors as self-defense. Frenetic camerawork, distorted angles, and zoomed in details reflect Angie’s understandable fears amid seemingly kind men who nonetheless linger uncomfortably close in her personal space. Angie retreats to her pink apartment with a room for her creepy doll restorations – dressing the hip 26 year old in a little black dress one minute and childlike in white lace the next. She looks at herself nude but turns away from her piggy puppet toy watching her and avoids discussing her childhood in regression therapy. Our doctor applauds her strength, but we wonder about her background and the underlying male dominance controlling her psyche. An attempted romance with a soap star neighbor is stilted by his lecherous wheelchair bound brother, and their making out on her little white daybed is also weird – innocence mixed with steamy music, shadowed lighting schemes, peepers looking through the blinds, and our smiling piggy.

Angie is threatened again in a dark movie theater, running away in fear while men stare but don’t notice anything’s wrong. She hides in the dark with her dolls but is called to a stenographer job in an under construction building with a swanky sample apartment and elaborate machinations. Stone carries the suspenseful build in solo scenes – sans the corpse in the bedroom – as panoramic overhead spins and colorful lighting changes reflect Angie’s unraveling. Choice pans, carnival crescendos, duplicitous mirrors, and a voyeuristic camera follow Angie as she recoils before still silence while she bangs on the soundproof windows. It is however a mistake to break from the trapped isolation for obvious twin stunt double struggles and the old pencil rubbing on the notepad contrivances. The traumatic source is also apparent despite pointless red herrings and superfluous characters, and things get silly as her deprivation increases, descending into camp with the corpse at the doll tea party. The flashback probably shouldn’t be so laughable, but the turnabout topper embraces the preposterous psychological analysis.

The Muse

Writer and Director Albert Brooks (Defending Your Life) is losing his edge screenwriter Steven Phillips and Sharon Stone is the muse who helps him finish his latest script in this 1999 Hollywood play within play farce. Everyone’s a fake stealing ideas, and studio executives admit to churning out repetitive bad action movies just to meet three picture deals. These snotty execs lied about liking Steven’s last picture and it’s not their problem if he depends on this next writing income to support his family. They suggest he take a vacay, go back to the smaller films they earlier claimed no one was buying or perhaps he try television. Clever one on one conversations laced with Hollywood mirror to nature remain relevant as Steven leaves Paramount before being denied at the Universal Studios gate and walking across the uphill backlot only to meet nepo hires who also never see the real Spielberg. No one’s telling Steven’s writer friend Jeff Bridges (The Big Lebowski) that he’s too old to write because he had a hit movie, and talk of writers having short lives or killing themselves hint at a deeper Hollywood darkness.

Our writer must accept this windfall with no questions asked, but always without a pen Steven also expects it easier, wanting Sarah to write his script for him. His wife Andie Macdowell (Groundhog Day) has to roll with the Tiffany gifts for his muse and put her family first, becoming slightly cliché with her own onscreen safe and domestic cookie business. Steven objects to the idea that Laura’s Cookies will support them when he’s turned out of his own bedroom and can’t finish his script before a deus ex machina oil strike idea from Sarah and one more everyone believes everything in Hollywood wink. At times, the tone here is flat, mirroring downtrodden writer Brooks instead of embracing the whimsy peppered by sardonic cameos from James Cameron, Martin Scorsese, and more. Fortunately, Stone’s whirlwind diva remains memorable thanks to her increasingly outrageous intrusions. Her funky hair style matches her shiny, feathered pajama frocks while folding fan exaggerations and snappy mannerisms hit home the creative hurricane. Is Sarah really an uplifting deity in disguise or a manipulative couch surfer faking it to make it? Wild errands for Spago salads, aquariums trips, and demanding the walls be painted a nicer color are all part of Steven’s inspirational experience, and this zany commentary deserves multiple viewings.


Cold Creek Manor

New York skylines, business flights, and scary accidents lead to a perilous country renovation for Dennis Quaid (Innerspace) and Sharon Stone in this 2003 thriller from director Mike Figgis (Leaving Las Vegas). High end style, brick manors, overgrown charm, and unusual slaughter tools forgive the cliché driving to the scares and redneck rest stops. Spiderwebs, children’s clothes left behind, vintage family portraits, and saucy Polaroids set off older phones that feel more rural rather than dated. Overhead camera angles, up close shots, in and out of focus usage, slow zooms, and pans in the stairwell provide eerie while intercut conversations build tension. Snakes, nasty old men, threatening dialogue, and tavern violence accent the backwoods car chases, animals in peril, and buried evidence as storms approach. Unfortunately, the trailer park naughty, shirtless handyman, foreclosure dilemmas, and mano y mano contests are weak, trying too hard alongside several unnecessary characters compromising what should be taut isolation. Nobody pays attention to the son with all the information or the real estate deal that would have saved everyone this trouble. Evasive editing doesn’t distract from the confusing logistics, affairs contrivances, and claims that the pretty rich white people have no other resources to leave. Although this tries to be a sophisticated, steamy, cerebral thriller and the quality pieces don’t quite come together before the weak rooftop standoff; the most frightening scenes are the quiet chills and this can be bemusing if you enjoy the house horrors. 

Movie Review: ‘Bob Marley: One Love’ is Too Many Kinds of Biopic


Director: Reinaldo Marcus Green
Writers: Terence Winter, Frank E. Flowers, Zach Baylin
Stars: Kingsley Ben-Adir, James Norton, Lashana Lynch

Synopsis: The story of how reggae icon Bob Marley overcame adversity, and the journey behind his revolutionary music.


Biographical films are always slippery. There is sometimes a sweet spot where a director can give a meaningful cinematic version of the subject. There are other times when so many details of someone’s life are alluded to but not discussed to retain the perceived integrity of the people involved. Then there is the biographical picture which just jots down key points and makes a lot of the “facts” up. And then, there is the biographical film where the audience feels like they need Wikipedia just to understand what is going on. Unfortunately, Reinaldo Marcus Green’s Bob Marley: One Love is a mix of every category except for the one it should be in – the sweet spot.

Opening with some facts such as Bob Marley was born in 1945 in the Saint Ann Parish in Jamaica, was raised by a single mother, grew up in the hardscrabble area Trenchtown in Kingston. Despite his struggles, by 1976 he was the most famous Jamaican music artist in the world. The film loops back to his early childhood on a plantation with his white British father who left his mother; his teen years where he meets and falls in love with both music, Rastafari, and Alfarita Anderson (later known as Rita Marley), his evolving music career, and the pivotal shooting before the Smile Jamaica concert which made him decide he had to flee Jamaica for the safety of family, friends, and to protect his own life.

Robert Nesta Marley is played by three actors – primarily the regularly excellent Kingsley Ben-Adir. However, there is a mostly wordless child version who leans on his mother’s chest, runs out of a can fire chasing or being chased by a man in British colonial garb. The teen version of Bob has conversations with Alfarita in Trenchtown after his mother has emigrated to the United States. They both feel they are in some ways orphans – they both love to express themselves through music. They become enraptured by the teachings of Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie I and Jamaican politician, Marcus Garvey.

Beyond the short prelude, the audience is thrust into Bob Marley’s life just before the day of the 56 Hope Road shooting on December 3rd, 1976. Bob gets up early. Runs with his friends and fellow Wailers, plays football with them. Has his kids Ziggy and Stephen with him. Gunshots can be heard all around. Kingston is a controlled city and Jamaica was declared to be in a state of emergency in January 1976 by Prime Minister Michael Manley. Violence is everywhere while two parties are struggling for political control. Bob is interviewed by world journalists about the Smile Jamaica concert, ostensibly organized by Manley’s People’s National Party to help usher in a kind of peace in the region.

Reinaldo Marcus Green and his extended list of screenwriters use the early part of the film up to, and including, the shooting to do a massive information dump. We see Bob as the family man, interacting with his children and his wife, Rita (Lashana Lynch). We see Bob the musician and patois speaking Rastafari inspiration to the people of Jamaica. We see Bob interact with his Wailers and jam with them. And we meet his friend and manager Chris Blackwell (James Norton). They are celebrating during the evening at the large house on Hope Road when a group of young men, more than likely sent by Manley’s opposition Edward Seaga, break in and shoot four people. Included in those four are Rita who was shot in the head, Don Taylor, Louis Griffths, and of course Bob. “Is Seaga men! Dem come fi kill Bob!” someone yells in the chaos. 

The most indelible piece of acting Ben-Adir does in the film is when he looks into the eyes of the young shooter. At first, it is almost a warm welcome when he sees the youth, then the realization that the boy has a gun in his hand. That realization registers not as fear but profound disappointment verging on empathy. In that one small exchange, the film has perhaps said everything that needed to be said about the hope for peace which Marley held and his general goodwill to people.

No one is fatally wounded – but the bullets are still bullets, and Rita especially is lucky to have escaped with her life. Two days later, Bob has organized his exit from Jamaica. He is sending Rita and the children to his mother in America, and he will go to London with any of the Wailers prepared to follow him. Two days later he also plays the Smile Jamaica concert beginning his set with ‘War’, his song set to the proclamation of Haile Selassie. After the shooting and the Smile Jamaica concert Bob Marley: One Love just falls into a lot of labored tropes.

Bob is depressed. Bob is disconnected. England is a safer refuge. He goes to see The Clash: which acknowledges the rise of Ska – but also the white nationalist skinheads also around. White coppers are still racist, and he gets put in prison for marijuana. Bob becomes less depressed when making his most famous album “Exodus” (which according to the film was inspired by the “Theme from Exodus” by Ernest Gold written for the 1958 Preminger epic). Bob is cheating on Rita. Bob is the chief who everyone listens to. Bob notices that people around him aren’t acting ethically. Bob flashes back to the shooting, his formative years, his childhood. 

“Exodus” becomes a world-wide smash and Bob Marley and the Wailers tour all over Europe being greeted with champagne by Royalty and politicians. Yet he both longs to return to Jamaica and dreads it. He becomes violent with Don Taylor. Rita tells him, “This is not the way,” and yells at him for his flaws which are almost all justified in the film.

There is a prestigious amount of talent in the film. Both Lynch and Ben-Adir are doing their very best with the material they are given, and both make one feel like they understand Marley’s music. The understanding of Marley’s music comes down to the fact that many of the Wailers are played by children of the original members. Almost all of them are musicians. For the concert performance, Stephen Marley takes on Ben-Adir’s vocals. Do a quick rundown of the cast and it includes Micheal Ward, Ben Gandolfini, and Tosin Cole. Anna-Sharé Blake, Naomi Cowan appear as the other I-Threes along with Lynch.

Bob Marley: One Love is very much a family affair – and perhaps that is what hampers the film the most. Few films can do an adequate cradle to the grave portrait of any artist with a career as influential and important as Bob Marley’s. It is also nigh on impossible to explain everything that was going on in Jamaica not only at the time, but right back to its colonized history. If the audience wants to know anything concrete about Marley they are consistently blocked by vagueness and proclamations by other characters about his greatness. Hence when we see that the man on the horse in the pith helmet isn’t his Norval Marley, but Haile Selassie offering the ten-year-old boy his hand in friendship and fatherhood; the gesture which is supposed to be filled with power and mental liberation for Bob, is just confusing.

Bob Marley: One Love is buoyed by the performances when it slows down long enough for the audience to absorb them. Kingsley Ben-Adir does some outstanding work as Marley – inhabiting his accent, his mannerisms, and stage presence. Likewise, Lashana Lynch, herself of Jamaican background is wonderful as Rita when she actually has a chance to act. James Norton is often doing solid but unnoticed work as an actor. 


Despite everything Reinaldo Marcus Green does to lend veracity to the film, including shooting on location in Jamaica and the Hope Street mansion, and the addition of reputable musicians, Bob Marley: One Love is overwhelmed by shallow artifice. Those who know little about the icon, peace activist, pan-African symbol, and one of the most important musicians of the twentieth-century will emerge from the film feeling not much wiser. For fans, the film is flimsy and overly metaphorical. Bob Marley: One Love claims to be the apogee of understanding who Bob Marley was in encompassing his complexity – yet it is both rote and confounding. Bob Marley deserves better, as does the audience.

Grade: D

Podcast Review: Argylle

On this episode, JD and Brendan reveal who the *real* Agent Argylle is as they discuss Matthew Vaughn’s new film Argylle! Finally. The trailer has been in theaters for what feels like a year now, so it was borderline cathartic to see and discuss the absurdity of Vaughn’s latest.

Review: Argylle (4:00)
Director: Matthew Vaughn
Writers: Jason Fuchs
Stars: Bryce Dallas Howard, Sam Rockwell, Bryan Cranston, Catherine O’Hara, Henry Cavill

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

The Great Preservationist: Henri Langlois

When I was young and getting into movies, I wanted to get my hands on everything. I am still working to get my hands on anything. As I dabbled in film classes, I realized that I had no talent in writing scripts or directing, so reading about movies and watching them is what I settled on. Eventually, when I learned about the French New Wave, a man who was not a filmmaker came to my attention as a pioneer in many respects. That person, Henri Langlois, was this oaf of a man with a personality of love that attracted every young cinephile to his abode full of dreams on celluloid. I wanted to be like him. Watch movies, preserve movies, show movies – under government funding. It’s a dream job and Langlois founded it themselves. 

Henri Langlois was born in 1914 in Turkey and moved to France when he was eight. From childhood, he was highly interested in attending the cinema and immediately wanted to work in something related to movies. Every Thursday and Sunday afternoon, Langlois would be at the cinema, but his father wanted the young Henri to be a lawyer and so sought to enroll him in law school. But Langlois defied his father by intentionally failing his entry exam, simply submitting a blank page before leaving the school and going to his local theater. He said, “I’m the black sheep of the family. I loved cinema too much.” 

Finding work in a printing press, Langlois would meet Georges Franju, who would later direct Eyes Without A Face and Judex, and with fellow filmmaker Jean Mitry, they founded the Cinematheque Francaise in 1936. With early assistance by Paul-Auguste Harle in funding and no government funding until 1945, ten films were part of the first collection and slowly would grow based on requests for donations. As a columnist for a film magazine, Langlois wrote about the importance of preserving silent films as talking pictures were normalized and many silent films were presumed lost. Franju credits Langlois’ push to save silent films in helping him become a better director because he would constantly watch silent films recommended by Langlois. 

By the start of Nazi occupation in France in 1940, Langois and company had successfully kept a vast collection of movies and memorabilia. This included old cameras, projection equipment, costumes from period films, and vintage theatre programmes. When the Nazis ordered the destruction of all films prior to 1937, he and others smuggled most of their collection out of Paris and hid them in various places, holding secret screenings until the end of the war. Langlois would describe the loss of movies as, “a crime against civilization.” His main curator was German exile Lotte Eisner and she would hold that position of the Cinémathèque Française until her retirement.

It is at the Cinematheque Francais where directors from the French New Wave got together and watched films as critics before becoming directors. Francois Truffaut, Jean-Luc Godard, Claude Chabrol, Eric Rohmer, Alain Resnais, and others would attend daily screenings and become friends with Langlois. They were called, “les enfants de la cinémathèque,” or ‘children of the cinémathèque.’ It also changed government support when funding went up from 3.4 million Francs between 1945 and 1959 to 20 million Francs from 1959 to 1968 and moved into the much-bigger Palais de Challiot. However, it resulted in more scrutiny on the Cinematheque, conflicting with Langlois’ way of working in it.

With his eccentric way with his preservation methods, Langlois faced consistent criticism from the French government’s Ministry of Culture. He was accused of neglecting administration and having no approach in proper recordkeeping such as the library’s ownership rights, as well as being careless with thousands of films which deteriorated and blocked researchers from gaining access. In 1959, some of its collection was lost to a nitrate fire, and Langlois would be in conflict with the International Federation of Film Archives, in association with counterparts in London, Berlin, and New York, which he had a role in establishing. His stature however prevented any serious changes at the Cinematheque. Years of battles resulted in the firing of Langlois in February 1968 by the French Minister of Culture Andre Malraux. 

The massive pushback against the decision became worldwide as protests led by leading French film figures including Truffaut, Godard, actress Simone Signoret, and director Jean Renoir spilled out onto the street. The police were brought over to break the protest of over 3000 people in front of the Cinematheque and became violent, with Godard suffering a gash and his noteworthy glasses being shattered, a foreshadowing event for protests in May that year leading to the cancellation of that year’s Cannes Film Festival. Dozens of actors, writers, and directors around the world signed a letter calling for Langlois to be reinstalled including Orson Welles, Ingrid Bergman, Charlie Chaplin, Stanley Kubrick, Alfred Hitchcock, Akira Kurosawa, and Federico Fellini among many others. Eventually, Malraux changed course and Langlois was reinstated two months later.

For his work in film preservation, he was awarded an Honorary Oscar in 1974, “for his devotion to the art of film, his massive contributions in preserving its past and his unswerving faith in its future.” From ten films at the start, the collection reached over 60,000 films by the early 1970s. Langois’ collection was so big that when it was donated to the newly established Musée du Cinéma, the amount total spanned two full miles. Langlois remained active until his death on January 13, 1977, but his passion, now in a more modern building with Costa-Gavras (Z) as President, is still alive for current film lovers to see in person. 

Follow me on Twitter: @brian_cine (Cine-A-Man)

Follow me on BlueSky: @briansusbielles.bsky.social 

Women InSession: Joan Fontaine Overview

This week on Women InSession, we discuss the great Joan Fontaine and what made her a special actress! She had a prolific career accompanied by three Oscar nominations and one win for Suspicion. There’s of course her famous fued with her sister Olivia de Havilland. There’s plenty to talk about with the great Joan Fontaine.

Panel: Kristin Battestella, Zita Short

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

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
Women InSession – Episode 71

To hear this Extra Film episode and everything else we do, download our apps on the Amazon Market for Android and the Podcast Source app on IOS devices. The mobile app covers all of our main shows, bonus podcasts and everything else relating to the InSession Film Podcast. Thanks for your wonderful support and for listening to our show. It means the world to us.

Episode 571: Best Picture Winner Draft

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

This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we discuss the sad news of Carl Weathers passing last week and reflect upon Philip Seymour Hoffman as it’s now been 10 years since we lost him. But we end the show with some great fun as we do an Oscars Best Picture Winner draft!

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!

– Carl Weathers / Philip Seymour Hoffman (2:45)
Last week was a saddening one with the news of Carl Weathers passing at the age of 76. He was an absolute legend that we will miss deeply. His role as Apollo Creed is iconic. His work on Happy Gilmore is remarkably funny and engaging. And most recently, he was a revelation in The Mandalorian, on screen and behind the camera. So, we of course wanted to spend some time talking about his amazing career. Last week also marked 10 years since we lost the great Philip Seymour Hoffman. It’s hard to believe. It’s a loss that still stings heavily. So we wanted to talk about that a little bit further as well given some of the conversation out there recently about Hoffman and his career. 


RELATED: Listen to Episode 516 of the InSession Film Podcast where we discussed our Top 10 Movies of 2023!


– Best Picture Winner Draft (34:12)
With the Oscars on the horizon, we wanted to have some fun talking about previous Best Picture winners. We’ve already done a Top 3 list on the subject, so this time around we wanted to have some fun by doing a draft. As we’ve done previously, we did ten rounds drafting the best “team” of winners we could. In a few days, we’ll release the lists on social media for you all to vote on and determine who won this draft. Are you Team JD or Team Brendan?

– Music
My Heart Will Go On – Celine Dion
Roots and Beginnings – Howard Shore

Subscribe to our Podcasts RSS
Subscribe to our Podcasts on iTunes
Listen on Spotify
Listen on Stitcher
InSession Film Podcast – Episode 571

Next week on the show:

Best Picture Nominees Draft

Citizen Kane movie

Help Support The InSession Film Podcast

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

VISIT OUR DONATE PAGE HERE