Director: Corey Sherman Writer: Corey Sherman Stars:ย Isaac Krasner, Dora Madison, David Johnson III
Synopsis: A teenage boy’s unexpected crush turns a camping trip into a weekend of self-discovery in this heartwarming coming-of-age comedy.
Coming-of-age stories have been a staple in indie cinema since its inception, bringing audiences into relatable firsthand experiences or spotlighting lives not personally experienced. These stories allow filmmakers to tell intimate stories recanting their own lives or new original ideas. When those who tell these stories allow us into their most embarrassing or formative moments, we learn new perspectives, making the world feel smaller than it is. Big Boys tells an all-too-relatable story about accepting yourself for who you are, quirks and all.
There’s much to enjoy from this queer-centered debut from Director Corey Sherman. A lovable lead, mortifying moments in front of a crush, and an idyllic summer trip away from home. Centering around the life of fourteen-year-old Jaime (Isaac Krasner) as he prepares for a weekend camping trip with his brother Will (Taj Cross), his cousin Allie (Dora Madison), and surprise guest, with her boyfriend Dan (David Johnson III). Sherman tells a unique narrative within Big Boys about a queer teen navigating through life with those who he is closest to.
Audiences first meet Jaime as he’s packing in his room, cluttered as any teen’s space is, with assorted junk piles under the bed and an unkempt bed stacked with supplies for the coming trip. Double, triple, and quadruple checking his list to make sure no item is forgotten, it’s quickly established that Jaime, although he has many moments of emotional immaturity, is much more mature than teens his age. This is made alarmingly apparent when Jaime’s older brother Will enters his room unannounced, poking fun at his younger brother and his detailed prep work for their trip, a common theme throughout Big Boys.
Sherman establishes early on that Jaime has a close relationship with his family, and when he finds out that his cousin Allie has invited her boyfriend Dan to their cousin’s trip he’s agitated. The day of the trip arrives and Jaime meets Dan for the first time, Jaime, from the moment he lays his eyes on Dan, has found his type. Dan is easy on the eyes, and as clichรฉ as the description of tall, dark, and handsome can be. And in true awkward fashion, Jaime makes an ill-timed, yet hilariously dry bear-eating camper comment that those in the room giggle off. But from this moment Big Boys has Jaime experiencing everyone’s most formative teenage moment… their first crush. It just so happens that his first crush is his cousin’s burly boyfriend.
The majority of Big Boys takes place at a campsite over the course of a weekend, and from the moment the group arrives, Jaime makes it his mission to impress Dan. Grabbing kindling for a fire, carrying heavy coolers, or flexing his culinary skills by showcasing his secret stash of spices he brought along. We learn who Jaime is as he explores these new feelings. Setting the film in such a centralized location allows it to feel deeply intimate; when Jaime retreats to his tent after an embarrassing moment, it feels like we are closed in there with him, reliving those times when we were too vulnerable with our crushes. There’s a closeness with this family, but also their proximity to each other often leads to Jaime never truly being alone with his thoughts.
Jaime, as a character, is endearing; it’s easy to see yourself as him, and it’s refreshing to see a lead that takes up space, both in a personality sense and a physical sense. Jaime, who towers over his older brother Will, has bright hair compared to his brother’s dark hair; they couldn’t be more different. Will is more concerned with hooking up with random girls he meets and scoring drugs, compared to Jaime, who expresses that when he is ready to go all the way with someone, it’s going to be with someone he cares about and writes in a journal the reasons why he could or couldn’t be gay. Their relationship isn’t perfect and is often a point of conflict; Dan teaches Jaime that he needs to stick up for himself, a lesson that Jaime cherishes.
As Big Boys progresses and the trip nears its end, Jaime and Dan have bonded over just about anything that could be imagined; from burger seasonings to Alicia Keys. They share a final awkward situation out in the woods when they get lost on a trail, and Dan has to take his shirt off to make a bandage for Jaime’s wound. Sherman closes the film out by letting Jaime express his identity using their final moment in the woods, facing his queerness and not shying away from it. For Jaime’s character, it feels like the most natural ending, as someone who has shown incredible maturity from the start of the film. Knowing his feelings were real even when some of his closest family were pushing him in another direction.
Visually, the film radiates summertime from the first frame to the last, thanks to the cinematography by Gus Bendinelli and costuming by Laiken Landry and Karla Garcia. The look and feel of coming-of-age stories are just as important as their story; they help transport us to this sliver of time. Bendinelli captures the glittering of the lake water as Jaime pokes his head above the surface, or the beams of luminosity peeking through the breaks of leaves as he rests on a boulder. Paired with the costuming of Landry and Garcia, Jaime’s personality can be seen almost exclusively through visuals. Emerging from the lake to spit game with his older brother while pulling a wet shirt that is clinging to his body, or wearing his baseball cap backward to match his new crush, Dan.
Overall, Big Boys finds its stride with exploring the relatable growing pains of its lovable lead Jaime, with a queer twist. The film is overflowing with chemistry between its small cast with plenty of moments of heartfelt sincerity to be felt. Sherman finds himself nominated for the John Cassavetes Award, along with Krasner receiving a nomination for Best Breakthrough Performance for the 2025 Film Independent Spirit Awards. A film that reminds us of the importance of queer stories and their ability to make us empathize.
I never had children of my own. But I co-parented a child for three yearsโthree of the most torturous, bittersweet years of my life. Nothing has ever hurt deeper. And no cut has felt ripe and exposed as that child that I mothered getting ripped out of my life. Or, to be more blunt, flaying myself off that childโs life to escape an abusive relationship.
Being motherless and experiencing motherhood in a way that I couldnโt find a proper definition for has made me hungry for any sort of connection, relatability, or a sense of solidarity with fellow women who have gone through crazy, inexplicable bursts of motherhood experiences, ones undefined by law or religion.
Motherhood is sacred and scary, a talisman for every woman until she tries it. Like the Vestal Virgins guarding the holy fire in the Temple of Vesta in Rome, each woman waits for her turn to guard that fire. Many women are crushed when the maternity train passes them. They feel excluded and lonely, as if there is a private club whose secret membership a woman obtains with difficulty, and later feels ostracized if her friends talk in front of her about the membership’s advantages (or disadvantages).
In my community’s motherhood club, I was an only child. My friends talked about breastfeeding, so I talked about my morning cappuccino. They talked about clothes stained with puke, and I spoke of cat fur on my cashmere sweater. I found myself locked in a cinematic shot from the protagonistโs POV, like a scene in Roman Polanski’s Tenant, and everyone sighs dramatically, explaining, โYou don’t know how hard it is to be a mother,โ their eyes are hostile and unkind.
I find my release in horror films where mothers are evil and controlling. Even in the way they love their children, they are by no means perfect. They are cruel or violent in more than one instance without trying to embellish this. Horror films often portray a bleak, neurotic mother figure, stripped of any angelic grace or sacred aura of motherhoodโher fragile, innate essence left exposed and vulnerable, inviting threats rather than reverence.
In films such as Carrie And Psycho, the mother pushes her child into the abyss and causes them to go crazy with her domineering personality and her authoritarian religious manner. In Friday the 13th, Pamela Voorhees (Betsy Palmer) creates a little monster by constantly protecting Jason from the outside world, exploiting his illness to control all the details of his life.
Horror films also overthrow all theoretical values and idealsโnothing is perfect, inviolable, beautiful, or infallible from criticism and ridicule. The mother appears in many of them as a symbol, in which the dark side expands until it swallows everything in its path; the mother does not behave as she should and does not love her children as nature dictates.
The mothers I prefer have always been in horror movies.
As I have worked to process my own complex relationship with motherhood, I turned to horror films. As a source of comfort and an escape, but also as a resource to help me understand this beautiful, twisted bond between mother and child.
I have chosen to analyze films from three points of view: the relationship between the mother and the mothered, my connection to how motherhood is portrayed in the film, and how the aesthetics help elevate the storytelling from monster design to lighting, hair, and makeup.
Mama: The Monster of Loss
In Mama, directed by Andrรฉs Muschietti, motherhood comes in the form of the wild energy of nature with its opposite poles: cruelty and tenderness, indifference and pity. It is cruel to those who take shelter from it to teach them life lessons while expressing kindness and refuge in those who lean into its chaotic energy. This is the case of the two girls, Victoria (Megan Charpentier) and Lily (Isabelle Nรฉlisse), whose father is trying to kill them after heโs lost his mind and killed their biological mother. “Mama” is a woman from whom they snatched her child, sent to a psychiatric hospital, and after she tried to escape with it, kills the father and takes them both in.
In this film, Mama is not kind or affectionate. She is unrestrained and untamed, like motherhood, when it turns into a crushing monster that swallows everything that stands between it and what came out of its womb.
She is also a surrogate mother, the role Iโve played before, and I find myself sadly repeating in most of my current romantic relationships. Mama, like me, has been cursed with that eternal hunger for a child thatโs not hers, abandoned or neglected by the biological parent, so she steps up to fill in the role that the original mother should have occupied. In that childโs eternal hunger for a motherโs tenderness and nurturing embrace, Mama overpours, but because she is a soul of a forest, a creature, no more no less, she does that in ways that only showcase her savagery.
Prosthetic Supervisor Montse Ribรฉโs makeup and hair for Mama fascinates me. Her emaciated form, her distorted figure, her jerky and twitchy movementโvery fitting of a woman formerly spending a portion of her life in a mental asylumโand her disheveled, wild, uncombed hair, the way she flips it around her head as she swiftly moves, crawls, and creeps into the corners of the house where the two girls reside with a โfalseโ other mother, then suddenly jerks and attacks, she has a mix of a wild animalโs physicality and a sleek ghostly movement.
The Babadook: Depression as a Monster
How far will a mother go to love a child? How does a mother know her child wonโt swallow her entire existence? What if a child is born into the world to bring their mother misery instead of light?
The Babadook is a feature about motherhood and the ghost of depression, specifically postpartum depression. In the film, the mother Amelia (Essie Davis), lives with her son Samuel (Noah Wiseman) alone after her husband died in a car accident while driving her to the hospital. She has a guilt complex for losing her handsome, loving husband in favor of giving birth to her boy. Her toxic feelings petrify in the form of severe depression, which grows until they break free from her and become a monster in the name of Babadook that takes her and Samuel as hostages in their houseโthe Babadook ensnares them both in a vicious cycle that feeds itself backward.
Extreme closeups trap me in Ameliaโs world and force me to react to her isolation in motherhood while raising her son. It makes me wonder if motherhood is, in fact, suffocating and could sometimes bring misery to the mother rather than pride and joy. What if I become one of those sad, depressed mothers? What would I do if the maternal outpouring of emotions work in reverse, and instead of happiness and joy, I feel pain and bitterness? The camera focuses on Ameliaโs face, which lacks a single hint of a smile, and my insides curl in repulsion, especially when the camera pans to a shot of her son, small and annoying, as the camera’s POV is her viewing her son. As I eye him, donning the gown of Amelia, I wonder to myself, โWhatโs worse: not having a child entirely, or being unable to love my child?โ Amelia and Samuelโs home is shrouded in mystery, dimly lit and morbid, like a funeral home. Large frame sections are obscured in pitch darkness, ending any hope in sight. The Babadook is a physical manifestation of Ameliaโs postpartum depression and the feeling of secretly hating her son, a sin that she cannot face. The resentment enlarges inside of her until it becomes an actual monster in the form of The Babadook.
Lights Out: The Monster of Untreated Mental Illness
Lights Out shows untreated mental illness as a familiar ghost, one that haunts the living and refuses to leave. Diana โthe half-demon, half-humanโ is a manifestation of Sophieโs (Maria Bello) mental illness; psychosis and schizoaffective disorders come to mind due to the nature of Sophieโs behavior, but also severe clinical depression. Diana is Sophieโs untreated mental illness, but she is still afraid to lose her, even though she has caused the collapse of all other aspects of Sophieโs life, including her relationship with her children. Sophie desperately clings to her deteriorating mental state in an attempt to rebel against the destruction of her identity as a mother.
Depression has been the only thing that allows the mother to feel that she is just a woman and not a vessel for giving birth, nursing, and watching over the child who comes out of her uterus to take over her existence and threaten her identity. I understand Sophieโs plight, even her adherence to her mental illness, refusing treatment. A warped mind can sometimes wrap itself around a disorder or a disturbance to create an identity. Surrounded by many mothers, I often hear their complaints about how it has become only about the baby that they sometimes wonder, โBut who am I? Where have I gone?โ To Sophie, Diana, in all her darkness and oppressiveness, is a testament to her individuality against the pull of her role as a mother.
Cinematographer Marc Spricer plays with varying degrees of light and shade. In every lit room, there is a dark corner or two. It is a testament to the elusive nature of the mental illness and when trauma is triggered. Sophieโs children live in the tiny spots where the light stays as opposed to their motherโs pitch-black room. To them, their mother becomes a source of alienation, an uncanny presence rather than a source of nurture and warmth. The film is shot in ways that place Sophie always in the darkened corner or the door’s opening, a silhouette rather than a fully-fleshed human, a ghostly presence rather than a supporting, loving figure. Even to the viewers, she appears untrustworthy. I wonder, as a woman with multiple diagnosed mental disorders, had I decided to have children, would they have seen me as Sophie hiding Diana? Would I have become a trustworthy figure in their lives or a source of fear and misery?
The Others: Motherhood As a Sin
What is a mother’s greatest fear? To accidentally cause the death of her child. We hear a lot about negligent homicide, so what about a mother who accidentally killed her two children in a fit of raging madness? Enter Grace (Nicole Kidman) in The Others, who dealt with one of the greatest taboos in the world of motherhood: a mother murdering her child. In a moment of utter despair, Grace kills her two children after hearing the news of her husband’s death in World War II. Then, she self-punishes to cleanse her great sin (she is a religious mother who raised her two children on Christian teachings) and commits suicide.
As someone with mental and behavioral disorders, this fear has always walked by my side like a shadow; what if, by some unimaginable burst of darkness inside me, I hurt the ones I love? Itโs one of the reasons I refused to have children and not even once tried to seek to get pregnant. Itโs why I always picked complicated and far-from-stable relationships. Part of my commitment-phobic personality has been a fear of what commitment may bring: devotion, compromise, and the possibility of motherhood as a sacrificial other self. But what if the caregiver, the kind, nurturing soul in those childrenโs lives, is the threat they should be protected from?
Photo by Jessie Eastland
Director Alejandro Amenรกbar and cinematographer Javier Aguirresarobe drew inspiration from German Expressionism while shooting the film. Playing with shadows and lighting, the contrast between darkness and light has contributed to the atmosphere of burying Graceโs ultimate sin, her denial of the murder of her children. The way she imprisons herself with the children in a large mansion devoid of light is also expressed through the use of sheets, drapes, blinds, and monochromatic coloring in the costume design department. The contrast between the warm light of the candles, the opaqueness of the fog scenes, and the blackness that absorbs every color in its wake work to enhance Graceโs deteriorating mental state after ending her childrenโs lives, and her clinging to a nonexistent hope of โrighting an irreversible wrongโ. Her silly motherhood dream of โall can be fixed to protect my childโ haunts me.
Aliens: Tokophobia and Monstrous Motherhood
From an outsider, non-avid sci-fi fan perspective, the first four Alien movies are about one central theme: the intense dynamic between Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) and the Queen Xenomorph. All of the sci-fi special effects, the intricate plot details, the masterful direction, and the brilliant cinematography mean nothing without the face-off between two mothers, a mother who never had children of her own (Ripley), and another who has had an abundance of them, so much so, she keeps planting them in other peopleโs bodies so that she can procreate more (Queen Xenomorph).
I fell for the Queen Mother just as I fell for Ripley: two women, their motherly instincts being tested. Ripley is always escaping the insertion of the xenomorph tails and tentacles inside her. But at her core, she is evading that inevitable destiny of getting pregnant. In every one of the first three Alien films, we get an uncomfortable scene of Ripley and an attempted insertion, possible fertilization of a baby xenomorph inside her. What does that communicate, not just about Ripley but also the generalized fear that women experience of pregnancy, conception, giving birth, and losing a child? The Queen Xenomorph, on the other hand, is the queen of a hive, so she has no sensitivities about having thousands and thousands of children. She goes as far as using other peopleโs bodies โunwilling surrogatesโ to carry the burden. Her ferocity and merciless violence make her a mother in the wild, a Mama Bear protecting the cubs from intruders, a lioness grabbing peopleโs necks and sinking her fangs into their carotid. Even though Queen Xenomorph is a predator, I donโt love her any less than Ripley. In her hive, she has her reasons for going after human intruders, using their bodies as incubation pods for her hatchlings. When tables are turned as in Alien: Resurrection, humans donโt prove any better than her when they capture the xenomorphs and execute torturous experiments on them. From her point of view, she is not a real villain, but a misunderstood hero of her own tale.
Swiss Surrealist painter H.R. Giger created a monstrous mother by designing the Xenomorph. He left many birth, intercourse, and pregnancy symbols in the spacecraft, and the landscape of the Xenomorph lair, because, at its core, the spaceships and the Xenomorph hiveโa dark cavernous, spacious colony occupying the cooling towers of a terraforming stationโ are the tenebrous inside of a motherโs womb. So Ripley, who is a mother not biologically but through mothering another womanโs child, enters the womb of another mother โthe Queen Xenomorphโ to get rid of this other womanโs fetuses, eggs, and full-grown children, the xenomorphs. Is there anything more poetic than this? As I watched the first four films of the franchise, I felt a sense of exposure therapy, having genitalia that are eerily similar to mine. The xenomorphs’ mouths are vaginal openings, and the Facehuggers insert their penile-like zingers in the victimsโ mouths to eject their eggs. The alien derelict is a giant vagina, an erotic being, an entry into Gigerโs twisted mind, but also a fascination, a world where humans need to be swallowed for xenomorphs to come to life. A hidden, latent fear of fertilization and pregnancy resurfaced in me; to bring a child into the world, who has to be swallowed whole for this new creature to be born? Is it the integrity of my vaginal wall? Is it my womb? I hear stories of multiple births causing womenโs vaginas to look distorted and morphed, losing that tightness and firmness that a woman prides herself on as she grows older and begins experiencing her body in full. I remember the cavernous space opening of the Alien vassal and Kane getting swallowed whole to be impregnated and carrying the baby xenomorphs and I wonder about the physiology of the womb and the body and how it carries birth that may sometimes bring death on the carrier.
The Curse of La Llorona: Motherhood As a Punishment On the World
Bringing a child into the world is sometimes a womanโs greatest pride and joy. But what if itโs also her greatest nightmare? In the case of La Llorona (Marisol Ramirez), itโs an entirely different narrative than Grace in The Others, because La Llorona mourns her children by wanting to harm those of others. She drowns her children in a fit of jealous rage against an unfaithful husband, and when she wakes up from the mess she made, La Llorona rages against the world. She searches for other mothers to punish for her crime.
La Llorona represents the wild side of motherhood, unrepentant grief, and animalistic loss. If people talk about moving on and living, finding grace and bliss in everything, La Llorna objects. She demands an unforgivable, wild, and unruly state of mourning. She roams the earth, trying to find solace by depriving other mothers of their children so that they can all create a circle of lamenting women in solidarity. She commits an act of violence because she canโt bear the fact that she brought the dark omen on herself. She killed her children with her own hands and thus has been cursed forever. To pass on the curse, she has to kill as many children as she can and create more vengeful mothersโ angry spirits that find no rest just like hers. Itโs the antithesis of suffering in silence like good women do. Itโs the antithesis of a good, religious woman accepting loss with piety and faith. Itโs how I like my women the most, especially mothers. Raging and messed up. Violent and unforgiving. It aches me to see people in sorrow controlling their gigantic feelings of misery and despair, I never resonate with that. As I left a family in which I was a co-parent, I didnโt grieve in silence. I didnโt shut up about it. I was a walking ball of rage and despair. Thatโs why I admire La Llornaโs monstrous anguish and distress.
Special Effects Makeup Artist Gage Munster constructs a tapestry of a face. La Lloronaโs black silicone tears pour down constantly looking fresh, thick, and gooey. Munster also creates a wet look with a pale face that showcases her endless state of drowning, a mourning mother never finding peace or rest so her drowned corpse is as white as starch but also glazed like she has been in the river for decades but seeming like she has just fallen yesterday. Grief is tricky, and La Lloronaโs look captures the marks it has left on her. Those cheeks, tear-stricken, and engraved with her constant wailing look like cracked porcelain. It scares me, how suffering eats at the soul and the body of a dying woman. And what worse heartache than taking the life of her child? There is no word to describe the regret she must have felt then. La Lloronaโs face and her black, tarry tears sum it all.
Splice: Will a Modern, Accomplished Career Woman of Science Love an Imperfect Child?
In Splice, Elsa (Sarah Polley) creates a creature using her hybridized DNA with other species. The result is Dren (Delphine Chanรฉac), a human-animal hybrid that resembles a modern Frankenstein monster. Splice is a cautionary tale -like Mary Shelleyโs story in the pastโ of science gone too far, of motherhood, and how a modern, successful, and highly judgmental woman bearing a child can let her disappointment with her creation -her offspring- get in the way of her maternal love. What Elsa has been aiming for with Dren is slightly ambiguous. Has she been seeking perfection and scientific excellence? Was she playing god? If that is the case, then why has she been accepting of Drenโs earlier stage of development with her less human features and rejecting Drenโs more feminine evolution into a sexual entity? Why did that threaten her?
The relationship between Dren and Elsa compels and fascinates me. Iโve seen it everywhere. Mothers and daughters fighting and loving each other. Beauty queen mothers reject daughters who fall short of their impossible standards or relentlessly push them toward unattainable ideals of perfection. Brilliant mothers distancing themselves from less gifted daughters piling up bitterness like excess stomach acid in their souls. From the moment Dren develops signs of rebellion and stubbornness, Elsa takes some drastic measures and their relationship quickly escalates into pure feminine antagonism. Both women aim to assert control and dominance, leaving the sole male of the story, Clive (Adrien Brody), isolated and helpless. This sounds familiar, like my complicated relationship with my mother whom I have always revered and worshiped, and yet as I grew older, our dynamics shifted. It scared me to think one day I would have a daughter, beautiful and brilliant like my mother saw me in my childhood and young adult years, only to turn into a raging mid-thirties woman, as she struggles now trying to navigate our relationship.
Director Vincenzo Natali designed Dren after a hairless mouse, a product of a scientific experiment that fascinated him. For some reason, the character design: hairless, nude, with a stingy zinger, and animalistic clicking sounds, along with the gender metamorphosis at the end disturbed me. There is something vulnerable about Dren. Itโs inexplicable but Natali describes her as a product of many fathers, but itโs not that simple. Dren carries a sensitive ethereal presence about her like she has just come out of the womb but never grew out of that fetus status. The moment I see her, something tugs at me and I want to wrap her in a swaddle and carry her to safety. Then I remember her lethality and that scares me away from her. Drenโs physicality works for and against her, which makes her an even more haunting character. She can hurt others viciously, but they can also easily shift the power balance and hurt her more.
Immaculate: Motherhood As a Way to Control Womenโs Bodies
In one scene from Immaculate, Sister Ceciliaโa role where Sydney Sweeney plays another manifestation of the Madonna/Whore complex for the audiencesโ discovers that she is pregnant, despite being a virgin. As she is interrogated about her sexual past and her claim of celibacy, the scene becomes increasingly uncomfortable. A beautiful, young, innocent-looking girl with zero makeup on, dressed in a nun costume that makes her appear eerily virtuous and saintly, is humiliated, embarrassed, and angry. A group of men; old, powerful zealots group on the girl and question her like detectives. In the next scene, she discovers the lack of agency and ownership over her body which suddenly becomes a vessel for what she is being told is Godโs seed implanted in her; a pregnancy without sexual intercourse. Cecilia is thrust into a forced state of adoration and worship, her body becomes a sacred temple that she dares not abuse or harm. Motherhood becomes a tool of oppression, a way to control a young womanโs body and force her into an existence that she no longer wants to partake in.
I identify with Cecilia like every young woman Iโve known or met who had to endure an unwanted pregnancy. The state of worship that a pregnant woman undergoes, disregarding her discomfort or her doubts about her state and the changes that happen to her body, forces her to continue a pregnancy she is otherwise doubtful or unsure of. Ceciliaโs dissonance with her body and her position is gaslit by everyone around her, she is not allowed to object or express concern or unease, even though the body probed, examined, and protected is hers. Yet external forces of men and women allies, those protectors of the feminine body in all its reproductive mystique, donโt seem to let it go. They donโt want to allow her access to the one she should completely have control over; her body, and her decision to be a mother or not. I sympathize with her loneliness and helplessness, it frustrates me โa woman childless by choice, unwilling, stubbornly, to seek medicated ways to make her reproductively challenged body more accepting of alternative pregnancy choicesโto see her struggling against those forcing her to accept her fate and indulge in the celebrations submissively.
Elisha Christianโs cinematography is haunting and fascinating, yet what makes the movie more relatable and intimate is Sweeneyโs innocent face and beautiful features framed through the lens. Director Michael Mohan creates a halo around her face so that, in some scenes, she is more of an iconic religious female figure rather than simply a young girl devoting herself to a convent.
Production designer Adam Reamer talked about the religious symbols surrounding Cecilia. The way I observe her walking through long, dark corridors stands out. Long shots and wide angles frame her as a little girl trapped in vast spaces, confined within gigantic institutes. These spaces exert fear in her heartโnot just of institutionalized religions where individuality doesnโt matter, but also of her own body and what it harbors, bears, or delivers. If any actress other than Sweeney had been picked for this role, it wouldnโt have been that effective, as her ability to shapeshift between a coy seductress and an innocent fair maiden is incomparable to the modern talent of her generation.
Conclusion and Afterthoughts:
Motherhood is scary for a woman who has not crossed the dark tunnel of childbirth, so what motivates women like me who have not experienced pregnancy and childbirth to write about motherhood? What motivates any female filmmaker to capture a fleeting topic that has never been part of her life on the screen? I approached motherhood as Icarus approached the sun, analyzing horror movies, and looking for clues in between the lines. But after the end of the experience, I felt empty. Motherhood is something no longer on my radar. Polycystic Ovary Syndrome has accompanied me all my life, walking side by side like a shadow, and unlike many women who suffer from the same disorder, I didnโt freeze my eggs. I never even wanted to. It felt bizarre to me that something I feared so badly would be something I would go to extreme lengths to preserve. Unlike my mother who married young and had me a year after marriage, I never even got married. And as she enjoyed a young motherhood, mine wouldโve been what they scientifically call geriatric pregnancy, as I navigate the final years of my thirties.
I canโt even fathom how that makes me feel. My emptiness has no root in regret but rather an otherness that surrounds me and suffocates me with a knot so tight that sometimes it leaves me unable to breathe. I tried every trick up my sleeve to be a normal woman, to have normal relationships, and to take the safe route of work, marriage, and children. But all my pursuits failed. I ended up the dark, raging, lonely poet with all kinds of bizarre feelings and relationships, mothering myself rather than my nonexistent children, and failing to find a catalyst for the aching in my soul.
Director: Peter Hastings Writer: Peter Hastings, Dav Pikey Stars:ย Pete Davidson, Poppy Liu, Lil Rel Howery
Synopsis: Dog Man, half dog and half man, he is sworn to protect and serve as he doggedly pursues the feline supervillain Petey the Cat.
Dav Pilkey published the final Captain Underpants book in 2015, ending the series’ twelve-book run, which lasted almost twenty years. These children’s books were interactive action graphic novels every kid had to get when the Scholastic Book Fair came into town. The end of the series was followed by a commercially and critically successful Captain Underpants film in 2017 and a TV show that ran for 3 seasons, which was also positively reviewed. However, when it came to the bookshelves, something was missing when Captain Underpants was taken off. Luckily, Pilkey didnโt make fans of the style wait long as Dogman released only a year after the end of Captain Underpants run and, in only 9 years, the spin-off series has surpassed its predecessor with 13 books being released and is already finding a home on the big screen.
The film Dog Man is the origin story for the media-proclaimed โSupa cop.โ After an explosion injured police officer Knight and his sidekick and K9 best friend Greg in opposite ways, two surgeons decide to combine the only usable parts of the twoโKnightโs body and Gregโs headโto create Dog Manโa police officer with the body of a human and the head and brain of a dog.ย
Told in breakneck pace, Dog Man, while energetically fun, sadly doesnโt live up to Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie. Truthfully, this film was more of what I believed the original Captain Underpants movie would be – one that felt like the ever-popular graphic novels were transformed onto the screen. Captain Underpants effectively launched a successful television show because the film did more than just what the novels gave them; there was an expansion into the lore and characters while keeping the same whimsical sense. In the case of Dog Man, the whimsy along with bizarre language, pacing, and story felt too abundant at times, and many of the qualities that make the books such an easy and exciting read became lost in translation.ย
Thatโs because, for the novel, the audience can go at their own pace. The film’s beginning flies by so quickly that there isnโt enough time to breathe and take in what is happening. Dog Man is attempting to catch his arch-nemesis Petey (Pete Davidson), an orange cat whose goal is to be as evil as possible and the same cat who caused the explosion creating Dog Man. Told through montages of Petey being caught, escaping Cat Jail, and repeating, these scenes zip by with no time to engage, or even enjoy, much of the hilarity that primarily works. Many of the side characters, such as Chief (Lil Rey Howery), Sarah Hatoff (Isla Fisher), and Mayor (Cheri Oteri), provide enjoyable dialogue of people dealing with this bizarre situation, and many of these characters have some sort of goal that is made apparent and provide depth to the story. However, Dog Man and Peteyโs duels, which should be the film’s high point, feel stale, and while kids may enjoy the chaos of the two rivalsโ feuds, it can become exhausting over time.ย
It isnโt until Peteyโs attempt at cloning himself, only to make a child version of himself that takes 18 years to grow into an actual clone, that the film slows down. When Liโl Petey (Peteyโs clone voiced by Lucas Hopkins Calderone) is introduced, the audience can finally breathe; the pacing slows drastically, and the plot regains structure. Liโl Petey ruins Peteyโs plan to revive a dead telekinetic fish named Flippy (Ricky Gervais), who Petey ultimately abandons in the street. Dog Man saves Liโl Petey from death and brings him home, teaching him how to enjoy life and what it offers.
When Flippy is successfully brought back to life and sets out to destroy all do-gooders, there is reflection in both Dog Man and Petey as they must work together, causing both to discover what matters to them most in order to defeat the evil fish and his army of buildings brought to life. While there is an attempt at an emotional climax involving fatherhood and the search for the beauty of life, the characters themselves werenโt fleshed out or interesting enough to make these moments work on anything more than surface level, which, as stated earlier, is because this film isnโt much more than the book brought to the screen. This isnโt meant to be a knock for Pilkeyโs vision; itโs just that what he creates on paper doesnโt translate perfectly to the big screen. Why Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie worked as well as it did was because it adapted the source material and made it into something that worked for all audiences, whether you were a fan or not. Unfortunately, Dog Manโs case, there is not much that an average movie-goer can connect with overall.
On the other hand, like Captain Underpants: The First Epic Movie, the animation here uses exciting 3D characters, and the 2D book aesthetic utilizes every visual space. At the very least, Peter Hastings accomplishes bringing Dav Pilkeyโs graphic novels to life. Even if the film may be disorganized at points, visually, there is something worth looking at, and for fans of the franchise, something that feels familiar. Even someone new to the franchiseโs zaniness should be able to engage visually, even if the story doesnโt connect.
This is why, even though there is a lack of visual focus that would make you believe a dog actually made the film, Dog Man still finds a way to be, at times, enjoyable. The animation is as engaging as the books are, keeping Dav Pilkeyโs vision front and center, and once Liโl Petey is introduced, the film story finds a modicum of structure. However, the shallow story can accentuate some of the overzealousness visually, causing audiences to feel exhausted only part way into the film. Itโs an enjoyable time for kids, but unless you are familiar with or are a fan of the franchise, this might be one to keep in the doghouse.
On this episode, JD and Brendan review the comedy-horror film from Josh Ruben in Heart Eyes! It might not be the greatest as a horror film, but as a rom-com it’s really funny and charming. It’s a compelling duality that offers some compelling intrigue, even if it is a bit jarring at times in the film.
Director: Scott Derrickson Writer: Zach Dean Stars:ย Miles Teller, Anya Taylor-Joy, Sigourney Weaver
Synopsis: Two highly-trained operatives become close after being sent to protect opposite sides of a mysterious gorge. When an evil emerges, they must work together to survive what lies within.
The Gorge is undeniably entertaining but feels like a collection of incomplete ideas hastily stitched together. The leads are charming and share genuine chemistry, while the opening sequence delivers action and occasional thrills. Yet, just as a scene transitions into an exciting development, it is often undercut by a lazy explanation.
To make matters worse, the film seems unsure of its own identity, veering wildly from an โ80s coming-of-age indie comedy to a flimsy monster movie that rigidly follows the genre playbookโstep by step, as Sgt. Al Powell would say. The Gorge is frustrating, and the filmmakers missed the mark on their potential.
This is a 10-part miniseries crammed into a 120-minute film.
The Gorge follows former United States Marine Levi (Whiplashโs Miles Teller), one of the three greatest long-range snipers the world has ever known. Now a mercenary who occasionally works for the government, Levi is haunted by his dreams, relying on three and a half ounces of whiskey each night to manage his nightmares. And no, he can’t take prescribed medicationโits side effects would compromise his professional abilities.
Levi is approached by Bartholomew (Sigourney Weaver), a government โspookโ who loves his Army record and the fact that if he dies on this mission, no one will care. Levi accepts, flown to an undisclosed location to live in a lookout tower to relieve J.D. (Sope Dirisu), who has been manning his post for over a year, and to keep an eye on a narrow valley encased by fog.
According to J.D., Levi is taking over and securing the gates of hell.ย
Across from the edge of a deep, impenetrable gorge with slippery rock walls stands Drasa (FuriosaโsAnya Taylor-Joy), a Russian mercenary and Leviโs Eastern counterpart. She has just said goodbye to her father, who is dying of cancer. Drasa and Levi begin communicating through pen and paperโa detail that, Iโll admit, is rather adorableโuntil they witness what emerges from the gorge. Then, all hell breaks loose.
The Gorge was directed by Scott Derrickson and written by The Tomorrow WarโsZach Dean. Both of those films were well-received, featuring tighter, more coherent storytelling and a clear sense of identity. Deanโs script borrows tropes from various genres, attempting to graft them onto a horror backdrop that never quite fits. Meanwhile, Derrickson, who captivated audiences with The Black Phone, fails to create the sense of unease that should be a staple of any monster film.
Instead, both seem more preoccupied with a romance that never earns its keep.
Yes, Teller and Taylor-Joyโs chemistry is simply that of two good-looking people finding each other attractive. The filmโs most entertaining scene has them flirting across the gorge while firing guns at monsters creeping up the wallsโa spectacle that serves as the most blatant metaphor for sex since Mr. & Mrs. Smith, with both of them spraying bullets all over the gorge. Yet, the script bypasses any meaningful overtures to establish real love, instead relying on a single night in bed as justification for them risking their lives for each other.
We learn nothing about these characters that would help us understand their motivations or actions. Instead, the film uses this lack of depth as an excuse to propel them into increasingly absurd action sequences, all in pursuit of uncovering the “truth” behind why theyโre thereโthe most cornball example of action-plot maneuvering since Independence Day.ย
They even manage to turn on modern computer systems despite supposedly being shut down since World War II.ย
Oh, and somehow, they have an endless supply of bullets without reloading, show zero signs of trauma, and keep going strong after 72 hours of nonstop fighting against creatures, bad guys, and the impending end of the world? The Gorge leaves no room to breathe, explore character motivations, or develop into something truly thrilling, meaningful, or honest.
Instead, it strings together loosely connected plot holes with clichรฉs that feel more like cinematic CliffsNotes than a story you can fully immerse yourself inโfor better or worse.
You can stream The Gorge on Apple TV+ on February 14th!
On this episode, we talk about all the trailers we got at this year’s Super Bowl, including The Fantastic Four: First Steps, Thunderbolts*, Jurassic World Rebirth, Lilo & Stitch, How to Train Your Dragon and Hurry Up Tomorrow!
Director:Dougal Wilson Writers:Mark Burton, Jon Foster, James Lamont Stars: Hugh Bonneville, Ben Whishaw, Antonio Banderas
Synopsis:Paddington returns to Peru to visit his beloved Aunt Lucy, who now resides at the Home for Retired Bears. With the Brown family in tow, a thrilling adventure ensues when a mystery plunges them into an unexpected journey.
Itโs futile to think that Paddington in Peru could ever be as good, if not better, than Paddington 2. Yet many moviegoers were ready to throw in the towel and prematurely qualify the latest installment in Heyday Filmsโ adaptation of Michael Bondโs children’s stories as a disappointment because director Paul King went on to make Wonka, and Sally Hawkins did not return to portray Mrs. Brown. Why would you ever doubt one of the most lovable characters in all of childrenโs media, one who has stood the test of time and became a staple of British culture long before King brought him to life on the screen in 2015 is beyond me, but such is the Film Twitter bubble, I guess.ย
Of course, you canโt top Paddington 2. That film will likely be considered one of the greatest sequels in cinema history a few decades from now (many already strongly think it is). But does Paddington in Peru truly need to? Absolutely not, especially when whatโs on-screen retains the same charm and imagination that King laid forward in the first two movies, even if Sally Hawkinโs absence does linger on the family dynamic. With respect to Emily Mortimer, who gives a fine portrayal of Mary Brown, the relationship she has with Hugh Bonnevilleโs Henry Brown, alongside her children Judy (Madeleine Harris) and Jonathan (Samuel Joslin), doesnโt connect as strongly as it did when Hawkins played the character.ย
But thatโs about the only glaring โflawโ Dougal Wilsonโs endearing third entry in the Paddington saga has. It retains the same levels of charm and wonder as the first two movies, notably in the wondrous visual language returning cinematographer Erik Wilson gives to Windsor Gardens as the titular character (voiced again by Ben Whishaw) has since he became a British citizen from the last time we left him in the arms of Aunt Lucy (Imelda Staunton). How a marmalade-loving bear can receive citizenship in the United Kingdom, I have no idea, but itโs part of what makes these movies so ineffably fun. Paddington is a British icon, after all, so why canโt he become a citizen? Thereโs your answer.ย
However, the celebration in the Brown household is short-lived when Paddington receives a letter from The Reverend Mother (Olivia Colman) of the Home of Retired Bears that tells him his Aunt Lucy has gone missing. With Mrs. Bird (Julie Walters) tagging along, the family travels to Peru, hoping to reunite Paddington with his beloved aunt. Upon their arrival, they are quickly thrust into a treasure hunt after the discovery that Lucy ran away from her home in search of the mythical El Dorado, which gold-obsessed boat captain Hunter Cabot (Antonio Banderas) is also looking for with his daughter Gina (Carla Tous).ย
This classic treasure-hunting story doesnโt reinvent the wheel, but neither did the first two installments. I donโt recall Paddington and Paddington 2 being movies that took drastic risks with their storytelling. How they were executed made these films impact young and old audiences alike. King took what looked like a simple story on the surface and elevated it with note-perfect humor and eye-widening aesthetics that profoundly touched generations of children and might even make some of them believe in the magic of moviemaking. There hasnโt been a great live-action family franchise in forever. Studios have grown out of touch with what truly resonates with children and gives them genuine emotional power, especially in the live-action world. Theyโd rather spend money on Harold and the Purple Crayon or Lyle, Lyle Crocodile, equally horrific pictures that set the now stale world of childrenโs cinema back to potentially irredeemable depths.
Thatโs why it feels so special to have Paddington go, this time around, on a larger-than-life adventure with set pieces inspired by Indiana Jones, Werner Herzogโs Fitzcarraldo, and perhaps splashes of James Grayโs The Lost City of Z. There are obvious visual cues sprinkled throughout, but even for the children who are uninitiated to adventure cinema, Paddington in Peru has enough highly-imaginative sequences of pure whimsical energy that it becomes hard to resist what Wilson ultimately offers in front of us, especially when the titular character hasnโt lost his comedic touch from the second film, despite a change in the directorโs chair.ย
A shipwreck sequence with Paddington attempting to drive the boat but further endangering it to be destroyed by the moving rapids? This is Paddingtonโs homage to Herzogโs film, and anyone who isnโt grinning ear-to-ear during this sequence may not like cinema. I donโt make the rules. Or how about an entire climax set in front of the entrance to El Dorado featuring a boulder, marmalade-loving llamas, and a rare, venomous spider? Absolute peak, if I do say so myself. What makes both of these scenes work so well isnโt so much the well-timed humor of Whishawโs vocal turn as Paddington but how Wilson always communicates with Erik Wilsonโs camera to continuously be in service of the protagonistโs actions.
Notice how he stages the climax. We always follow Paddington despite often showcasing Cabot running after the bear. How the camera moves during a specific moment where he attempts to hide (without much success) from the antagonist side-scrolls to his angle and never breaks it until editor รna Nรญ Dhonghaรญle cross-cuts to the Brown familyโs antics on a moving plane dubbed as โThe Miracle.โ Rarely have we seen, in modern family cinema, such impeccable precision in its cutting, where every single editorial choice creates a level of tension and excitement as Paddingtonโs journey reaches its death-defying conclusion. Itโs always in service of the story, first and foremost, and nothing else.ย
It, of course, stays well within the confines of family entertainment, but one canโt deny the formal edge it has over literally every other live-action childrenโs offering made in this decade. The exterior shot of the plane traveling to Peru visualizes the aircraft through papier mรขchรฉ, while the finale is all about celebrating the legacy of adventure films, putting Paddington in a series of mild thrills that Wilson elevates through surprisingly kinetic visual style and dynamic editing. Thereโs always a sense of play in how the camera moves within the scene or in how Dhonghaรญle cuts from one frame to the next. It always focuses on the protagonist, and thatโs primarily why these movies have always worked like a charm.
Yes, the family dynamic between Paddington and the Browns remains rock-solid. And the additions of Olivia Colman, Antonio Banderas, and Carla Tous all bring newfound vigor to the proceedings. Banderas revels in a Phoenix Buchanan-type performance (though Hunterโs โother selvesโ are descendants haunting his mind as ghosts, not disguises to foil Paddington et al.) and has tons of fun attempting to overcome his familyโs curse, while Tous impresses in a genuine breakout turn. I wonder how different it wouldโve been had Rachel Zegler stayed on the project (she was sadly forced to exit, as the film was shot during the SAG-AFTRA strike), but I doubt the relationship between father and daughter wouldโve been as genuine as it feels here.
Above all else, though, thereโs Paddington, and Whishaw brings the same soft-heartedness as he did in the first two movies and gets even more emotional than the second filmโs ending upon finding out what El Dorado holds in store for him. What it is, I will not tell you. But when you discover it on your own, it will be very difficult to hold back tears. There wasnโt a dry eye in the cinema during a sold-out promotional screening, myself included. Sometimes, it feels right to cry, especially when you have Paddington at your side, reminding us that there is always good to be found in a world that feels drearier by the minute. In that sense, Paddington in Peru arrives at the perfect time and is primed to capture our hearts yet again for some much-needed escapism from the dark clouds of reality.
Navel-gazing cynics may nitpick at elements they really shouldnโt care about because when such joyful exuberance reminds you of life’s pleasures, perhaps itโs best just to sit back and have fun. Some movies demand it. Paddington in Peru is undoubtedly one of those.ย
On this episode, JD and Brendan discuss the action-comedy Love Hurts, starring the great Ke Huy Quan! After winning an Oscar for Everything Everywhere All At Once, an award he wholly deserved, we’ve been eagerly anticipating what Ke Huy Quan’s career would look like as he ventures into a new phase of his career. Let’s just hope there’s more opportunities available. We love him, but this one hurt.
Review: Love Hurts (4:00) Director: Jonathan Eusebio Writers: Matthew Murray, Josh Stoddard, Luke Passmore Stars: Ke Huy Quan, Ariana DeBose, Daniel Wu
The โactorโs showcaseโ โ much like the โoh, the places youโll goโ dramatic framework that I wrote about in this seriesโ first volume โ is nothing new to the Sundance Film Festival, nor to cinema at large. Just as there were a great many films in this yearโs program that followed characters navigating foreign environments, even more can be classified as features hinging on their lead performance(s) for dear life, some too dependent while others afford their stars the chance to revel in the spotlight, to display their chameleonic chops for a broad audience of viewers who might only be familiar with one aspect of their work, perhaps even one performance. Itโs as thrilling to watch Rose Byrne, a comedic genius in films like Bridesmaids and Neighbors, transform into a woman whose life rapidly crumbles around her in Mary Bronsteinโs If I Had Legs, Iโd Kick You as it is to see Josh OโConnor go from his scruffy horn-dog tennis pro in Challengers to a subdued, broken farmer looking to rebuild his small world in Max Walker-Silvermanโs Rebuilding (much like what the writer-director managed to achieve with Dale Dickey and Wes Studi in 2022โs A Love Song).
To the latter point, itโs even more exciting when one actor takes center stage, yet has an equally-compelling scene partner (or two) in their midst throughout the film in question, a fate that many of Sundanceโs brightest stars were blessed with this year. Take Rachel Abigail Holderโs Love, Brooklyn (C+), for instance. A modest drama about adults that fits a similar mold to the Andrรฉ Holland-starring Exhibiting Forgiveness, which premiered at Sundance last year, Love, Brooklyn also stars Holland, though the artist he plays here isnโt working with paint, but toying with words and with hearts. He plays a writer named Roger, one whose deadlines seem to shift on the daily, simply based on how uninspired heโs feeling one afternoon and how horny he happens to be the following night. He toggles between a few different locations, never putting down definitive roots in any of them yet feeling endlessly-enamored by the city in which heโs lived for some time (you get one guess as to which city that is.) Roger can be found staring blankly at his laptop in his own apartment one moment, puttering around a park with his ex Casey (Nicole Beharie) the next, grabbing a coffee with his romantically-conflicted pal Alan (Roy Wood Jr.) a few hours later, only to end up sleeping with Nicole (the excellent DeWanda Wise) to cap off the busy day. That Roger never sleeps over doesnโt necessarily add a layer of complexity to their undefined relationship, but it certainly leaves things open for the fate of every character that appears here. โI want everything, and I want nothing,โ Beharieโs Casey drunkenly tells Roger, who remains drawn to her but isnโt willing to admit that his heart ultimately lies somewhere in the void between two flirtationships. Is he keeping the door ajar for both in case one doesnโt work out, giving the other a chance to live on? Is either woman willing to wait out his indecisiveness? Is this idea of wanting everything and wanting nothing, therefore not knowing what one wants at all, really the only thing driving this filmโs ambitions?
Holder, working from a script by Paul Zimmerman, may be a bit too indecisive for her pictureโs own good, as Love, Brooklyn is almost too true to real life in most of its dialogue-driven set pieces, while its less significant narrative and stylistic choices โ the uber-cinematic Brooklyn we see here is damn-near devoid of traffic and people despite every day looking like it has thermostat privileges and has set the outdoor temperature to a balmy 74 degrees โ make it abundantly clear that weโre operating in the confines of a movie set. If only those lines were somewhat blurred, much like the relationships the film hinges on. Then at least weโd be compelled to see where things went, whether backwards, sideways, or upside-down. In any case, the trio of Holland, Beharie, and Wise are all aces, both separate and together, with Holland further cementing himself as one of independent cinemaโs finest talents and Beharie and Wise continuing to please viewers anytime they appear on screen, the audience immediately becoming aware that what they are about to watch is at least of some merit. If only their presences had stronger, more Brooklyn-appropriate material to work with.
A bit farther upstate โ not to mention a few decades back โ sits Plainclothes (B-), Carmen Emmiโs directorial debut about an undercover cop who meticulously lures gay men into shopping mall bathrooms, only to apprehend them as soon as they are most vulnerable. Fittingly, itโs when Lucas (Tom Blyth) is really hitting his stride on the job that the proverbial rug is ripped out from under him by Andrew (Russell Tovey), a mysterious, closeted man to whom Lucas is drawn. Taking place in Syracuse, New York well into the 90โs, Plainclothes isnโt quite the Cruising homage it aims to be, but itโs all the better for it, Emmi noting and thus utilizing similar tropes to what the great William Friedkin realized in his 1980 crime drama starring Al Pacino, all while getting experimental along the way. Emmi and his cinematographer Ethan Palmer run the footage gamut here, from digital photography to surveillance footage that seems to have been ripped directly from a shopping centerโs security tapes, home videos that position Lucas as a boy who has never accepted himself en route to becoming a man, and the once-updated version of 8mm film, Hi8. This tactic provides Plainclothes with a grainy, claustrophobic air that exists in lock-step with its dramatic tension, which Blyth and Tovey steadily realize as the filmโs central illicit affair inches toward catastrophe.ย
Itโs Blyth, in particular, who is awarded the showcase here, expanding on the tortured young man role heโs already once inhabited. His breakout came in 2023โs Hunger Games prequel The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes, in which he played a young Coriolanus Snow, the dictator played by Donald Sutherland in the original Jennifer Lawrence-starring quadrilogy. In the surprisingly solid prequel, Blyth went toe-to-toe with and often overshadowed his co-star, Rachel Zegler, by exhibiting a quiet, kind resolve in a character audiences were familiar with as the franchiseโs Big Bad, only to give way to the brooding darkness fans of Suzanne Collinsโ books and the original four movies expected him to have. In Plainclothes, Blythโs Lucas is often seen in close-up shots that only slightly overstep the boundaries actors should be afforded when it comes to displaying their characterโs internal conflicts, though the battle between Lucasโ duties as a cop and his desires as a human being are never not clear thanks to Blythโs chameleonic demeanor over the course of the filmโs runtime. If Plainclothes is often nothing more than an indie triumph for its star, whose own stardom continues to burgeon, then itโs a resounding success.
The problem with Rashad Frettโs Ricky (C-)is that its ceiling is rarely anything more riveting than Plainclothesโ floor, which might not be a problem if the filmโs star wasnโt as excellent and compelling as Stephan James. The actor, best known for his astonishing breakout performance in Barry Jenkinsโ If Beale Street Could Talk, plays Frettโs titular character in a similar fashion to how he played Beale Streetโs Fonny, communicating with his eyes, his furrowed brow, and with a mouth that canโt always find the words, yet still speaks louder than any verbiage could. Despite having recently been released from prison, Jamesโ Ricardo โRickyโ Smith is struggling to truly feel as though heโs able to live freely on the outside, a common trope used in films set behind bars or films about those who have recently gotten out. but tasking James with manifesting such emotional baggage is Frettโs true stroke of genius here; Rickyโs focus on recidivism โ a convictโs tendency to reoffend โ especially drives that home, as Ricky is forced to navigate the tribulations of working with a parole officer and his home life while searching for employment, a difficult balance that James strikes with poise and the evident pain of a wounded soul.
The problems with Ricky have far less to do with Jamesโ lead performance and Sheryl Lee Ralphโs astonishing turn as Joanne, the aforementioned P.O., and more with the filmโs telegraphic nature. If Frett is the quarterback here, that would make James his frustrated receiver, as the debut director is prone to point out his target before passing the ball. Sometimes thatโs in setting up a painfully obvious [redacted] that alters Rickyโs fate in the immediate future; other times, Frett seems to beโฆ well, fretting, not knowing which subplot to stick to, instead adding dozens and hoping each work in service of the emotional wallop heโs desperate to drive home. To be clear, there certainly is a devastating quality to Ricky. It just happens to be in regards to wasting excellent work from its star and not in the narrative itself, at least not seamlessly.
Director:Bernard MacMahon Writers:Bernard MacMahon, Allison McGourty Stars: John Paul Jones, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant
Synopsis: The film traces the journeys of the four members of the Stairway To Heaven rockers through the music scene of the 1960s and their meeting in the summer of 1968, culminating in 1970.
As far as estate-approved (or, in more politically correct terms, โauthorizedโ) documentaries go, Becoming Led Zeppelin is likely the least offensive of the bunch. Do we learn anything new about the bandโs formation? For those unfamiliar with Led Zeppelin, youโll probably think the documentary is insightful. On the flip side, hardcore fans may not find anything of note, yet will probably give it five stars anyway. Does it go deep enough to warrant a two-hour runtime and an IMAX exclusive run? Not really. Is it still somewhat interesting enough? I certainly found value in Bernard MacMahonโs exploration of how John Paul Jones, Jimmy Page, Robert Plant, and John Bonham became a powerhouse in rock music, even when the odds were stacked against them.ย
Itโs a tale as old as time. Newfound friends with talent in various instruments form a band that wants to be at the forefront of a revolution in music. The press scolds them, and the mainstream audience doesnโt get what theyโre doing, leading to a particularly hilarious moment that sees the band play live in front of a crowd that covers their ears and looks at the stage utterly perplexed. Yet, in the underground sphere, they experienced a success never-before-seen that eventually touched the mainstream consciousness with the arrival of their second studio album, Led Zeppelin II. For those looking for a complete picture of the bandโs history, MacMahon doesnโt offer much in that regard. He stops after the release of II because the rest, as the kids say, is history. Instead, Becoming Led Zeppelin is all about their origin story, examining how they carved a place in rock music history.ย
Well, I wouldnโt necessarily say โexaminesโ in a purely academic sense since most of it is told through anecdotes from the talking head testimonies of Plant, Page, and Jones. MacMahon also gives a decent amount of space to the late Bonham by way of an archival interview that has never been heard previously. The bandโs drummer lived a relatively secluded life and gave few interviews throughout his sadly short time on this Earth. Thatโs why it feels so important to include his own words in the documentary, as a testament to his lasting legacy and a recognition of the energy and talent he brought to Led Zeppelin that otherwise wouldnโt have given them the distinct sound they had.ย
Even if MacMahonโs documentary doesnโt cover their most influential album, Led Zeppelin IV, one who watches Becoming Led Zeppelin with a personal connection with the band will always contrast what the figures say with their lived-in experiences of discovering their music. For me, as for many people, their first experience was IV, and specifically โRock and Roll.โ When Bonhamโs intro widened my ears, it forced me to explore corners of music I never expected to discover and hear what true โrockโ really is. Thatโs why hearing Bonham and letting him discuss his upbringing in the documentary is far more respectful than having Page or Plant speak on his behalf. Instead, MacMahon has them react to his interview and show them footage theyโve never seen.ย
The camera lightly pans as they see and hear things the estate had in possession but have personally not listened to or observed until they sat in front of the filmmaker and began work on the documentary. It feels honest when Page discusses their first festival in London, having never seen the raw material and remembering their earlier days as young adults quickly thrust into a voracious world primed to eat him alive. It did, but the movie never explores this, let alone talks about the band in a broader context beyond their musical creations. Thereโs a brief mention of drug use with the throwaway line, โWe did a lot of drugs.โ Duh. Still, it completely sanitizes Bonhamโs personal struggles, which sadly led to his demise, and is deathly afraid of criticizing any aspect of their frequently debaucherous behavior.ย
Thatโs where the โestate-approvedโ part of the whole package comes in. Itโs all about painting them as saints and less about excavating a knife to genuinely explore the band beyond their successes and showcase them as the flawed, tormented geniuses they all are. Of course, this sanitization doesnโt feel as egregious as making Mike Love the hero of Frank Marshall and Thom Zimnyโs horrendous The Beach Boys hagiography. However, the PG rating of MacMahonโs IMAX documentary ensures that the movie never discusses elements the surviving band members donโt want to recall. Thatโs fine, in isolation, if these stories werenโt publicized. But they were, which makes this film feel particularly gutless, especially in our current era of incuriosity where challenging beliefs and preconceptions seems unwelcomed.ย
I wonโt deny their musical prowess and how they paved the way for avant-garde innovation to be accepted within what is considered โpopular music.โ The movie certainly discusses this through Jimmy Page explaining how it was important to break all expectations on their single for Led Zeppelin II, โWhole Lotta Love.โ This section is the best technical exercise MacMahon gives to the movie: a sequence of visual and sonic euphoria where the song is played in full after Page talks about how it was structured differently from the usual verse/chorus patterns. Itโs a richly layered and well-executed moment, and well worth the price of admission to experience this explosion of color and sound on IMAX. Still, itโs the only moment of note that justifies wanting to see this documentary in a large format.ย
The rest of it is hit or miss. The anecdotes are fun, and itโs great to see the band members discuss their meteoric, almost overnight, rise in their own words. However, these only go so far when the director isnโt allowed to actively question the figures and talk about Led Zeppelin beyond the faรงade they want to paint in. Any โauthorizedโ movie or documentary will not be a complete portrait of the people they depict since they donโt want any negativity, which will critically flesh out the story to be discussed. Itโs why Ezra Edelmanโs nine-hour-long โestate-approvedโ documentary on Prince will never see the light of day because thefilmmaker unearthed stories of abuse from the singer that the estate does not want the public to know, thus leading Netflix to cancel the release of the documentary altogether.ย
What good is documentary filmmaking for if weโre not allowed to properly document and question the people weโre talking to for our films? Sure, it can discuss the highs, but it should undoubtedly do more thanthe bare minimum. Of course, that may mean fans wonโt eat it up because the โsaintsโ theyโve envisioned them as will be immediately broken as soon as MacMahon does more than us, the remaining members as fodder so they can pat themselves on the back. And all we want is to please the fans, right?? Right???
After Peter Clifton and Joe Massot gave us the ultimate Zeppelin experience and put us inside their ever-shifting headspace with the experimental concert film The Song Remains the Same, one hoped MacMahon would give the band a full-fledged portrait thatโs more complicated than the central figures talking about how great they are. We knew that already, but what about everything else? The estate has spoken. These stories wonโt be released anytime soon, and probably never.ย
Director: Eva Victor Writer: Eva Victor Stars:ย Eva Victor, Naomi Ackie, Louis Cancelmi
Synopsis: Something bad happened to Agnes. But life goes on – for everyone around her, at least.
Sorry, Baby is told in four chapters (plus an epilogue), but everything wrong with this self-congratulatory feature debut from writer-director-lead Eva Victor can be summed up in just three scenes.
Nestled in the autumnal, mahoganied milieu of New England academia, the film follows an English grad whoโs been spiraling ever since completing her thesis. Though her career is on a promising trackโshe spends afternoons teaching the great novels of the 20th century (most prominently โLolitaโ) at her alma mater, where sheโs just become the youngest faculty member to ever obtain full-time statusโAgnes (Victor) is still spinning in the orbit of the Bad Thing thatโs swallowed her so completely she can barely envision a future. Asked whether she wants to someday raise a family, she responds that though her friends and classmates are all moving down adulthoodโs list of milestones, she canโt quite picture being a grown-up. โLike Humbertโs desire to freeze Lolita in time,โ trauma is both persistent and paralytic. Thatโs the sort of cutesy cross-text connection that might score props from Agnesโ students, but if you were catching yourself in an eye-roll just now, youโre already more discerning than Victorโs idea of the average media consumer (or at least one who attends a private liberal arts school in rural Massachusetts).ย
The scriptโs unpolished dialogue aspires to naturalism but betrays itself with interjections of awkward, overly theatrical humor. The first signs of artifice appear almost immediately: Agnesโ best friend, Lydie (Naomi Ackie), is visiting her in the house they shared during grad school and, on a stroll through the park, exclaims to a friendly stranger that sheโs a happily liberated lesbian. Just as Lydie is given a set of sociopolitical credentials instead of a personality, Victor coasts on her subjectโs progressive laurels rather than develop a creative voice. The gap in our culture left by the departure of Lena Dunhamโs Girls has never seemed so large.
The film celebrates its aversion to interactions that arenโt layered in euphemisms when Lydie accompanies Agnes to an appointment with a conveniently callous doctor. The scene blunders along as the two flag his tone and words which include but arenโt limited to โattackerโ and โcervix cultureโ (cue audience applause). Funnily enough, Agnes herself is subject to the same kind of linguistic micromanagement in the very next scene by HR types with a shared enthusiasm for prevarication, but whether Victor recognizes the irony is unclear. Sorry, Baby is so pedantically attuned to the โcorrectโ way of speaking about its protagonistโs trauma that it forgets to actually say anything. Whenever her screenplay vaguely approximates a human conversation, Victor canโt help but reduce everyone around Agnes to broad caricatures of societal apathy, a tendency doubled down on during an embarrassingly wooden classroom exchange about the merit of style.
The student she props up like a puppet so Agnes can deliver a point is unsure how to feel about a perspective as vile as Humbertโs finding such beautiful expression in Nabokovโs immaculate prose: โI really hated the stuff happening, but I really liked the sort of stuff he way sayingโฆso I was pissed.โ The filmโs own interest in the book doesnโt run much deeper. But maybe Victor deserves the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps the emphasis on โLolitaโ in combination with a typeface unmistakably borrowed from Woody Allen signals a reclamation of sorts; perhaps Natasha (Kelly McCormack), the former classmate and current colleague thatโs never liked Agnes, is the Quilty to her Humbert, a bizarro-verse projection of whom Agnes mightโve become had the Bad Thing made her as bitter and condescending as Victor seems to be herself. By crudely characterizing everyone around Agnes, Victor appears bold for lifting bullet points from a community center brochure, but in so patronizingly viewing the general public, she mistakes conformity for transgressive reeducation.ย
Her depiction of the assault (one of the rare moments in which she displays any kind of faith in her audience) is both tasteful and thematically resonant. Rather than needlessly verify what takes place, Victor removes us from Agnesโ perspective with a series of match cuts as day unfeelingly turns to night.
Insofar as it tries to emulate Noah Baumbach, the film is a success: Nothing this synthetic has passed for sincerity since 2019โs Marriage Story (Sorry, Baby is thankfully less insufferable). Once John Carroll Lynchโs good samaritan appears bearing a Good Sandwichโthe sandwich is made with pricey Calabrian chili, but the side of wisdom is all processed hamโthe movie drops any remaining pretense to naturalism. Cloaked in vintage fall fabrics and the respectability of its Oberlin-grade feminism, Sorry, Baby swaps insight for twee humor while patting itself on the back of a Merino wool sweater. No wonder the film was such a hit at Sundance. The aforementioned classroom discussion asks whether great art can be abhorrent. Sorry, Baby leaves that ancient question open-ended but proves it certainly isnโt made from good intentions alone.
On this episode of Chasing the Gold, Shadan and Erica discuss the winners (and chaos) of the Critics Choice, DGA and PGA awards that were announced over the weekend! There were some fun surprises this year with Critics Choice especially throwing us all for a loop. DGA and PGA soon follow suit, thrusting Anora into the spotlight in a big way.
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!
This week on the InSession Film Podcast, we dig further into the feature films of the legendary David Lynch and what made him such a unique and sentimental filmmaker! Plus, some discussion on this year’s Critics Choice, DGA and PGA winners.
– Awards Discussion (11:17) After some opening banter, we begin the show this week by discuss the Critics Choice, DGA and PGA winners that were announced over the weekend. It was a little chaotic, especially with Critics Choice, but after some surprises Anora has become the frontrunner for Best Picture after taking home the big prizes at both CCA and PGA. Not to mention Sean Baker’s massive win at DGA as well. It’s still a tight race, but Anora has entered the chat and isn’t going anywhere.
– David Lynch (51:15) For our David Lynch Retrospective, we go film by film (with the exception of Fire Walk With Me) and talk about how each one is impactful to the landscape of cinema. We love, or at least admire, every single one of his feature films. They’re all rich in symbolism and surrealistic imagery, but they all have an emotional underbelly that is equally undeniable. Lynch was a deeply humanistic filmmaker and his stories are just as evocative on the inside as they are on the outside. Rest in peace, Legend.
David Lynch arrives at the Governors Awards on Sunday, Oct. 27, 2019, at the Dolby Ballroom in Los Angeles. (Photo by Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)
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!
After Sundance comes our second big film festival of the year, the Berlin International Film Festival, aka Berlinale. Jury head Todd Haynes (May December) and his fellow judges will be watching an eclectic selection under the guidance of first-year artistic director Tricia Tuttle. Last year, Golden Bear winner Dahomey, A Different Man, Oscar-nominated doc No Other Land, and I Saw The TV Glow were all shown here and are now still being awarded in this Oscar season. Here are a few films that will play in this yearโs Berlinale.
Blue Moon – Dir. Richard Linklater (USA)
With two films out this year (the other being Nouvelle Vague), Linklater goes into entertainment history by telling the story of the making of the musical, Oklahoma! Ethan Hawke and Andrew Scott play Lorenz Hart and Oscar Hammerstein II, respectively, and follow their struggle to get to opening night on what would be a groundbreaking Broadway show. Margaret Qualley and Bobby Cannavale also star in this next biopic wherein Linklater reteams with writer Robert Kaplow, who also wrote the directorโs Me and Orson Welles.
Kontinental ’25 – Dir. Radu Jude (Romania)
Coming off back-to-back successful films with Bad Luck Banging or Looney Porn (which won the Golden Bear) and Do Not Expect Too Much From The End of The World, Jude has another black comedy for us. With a title inspired by Roberto Rosselliniโs Europa โ51, the story follows a local bailiff trying to throw out a homeless man from a building who suddenly has a crisis when the man commits suicide. As she looks back on how to get past it, those social absurdities pop out in her way.
The Light – Dir. Tom Twyker (Germany)
The visionary director behind Run Lola Run and Cloud Atlas (with the Wachowskis) opens the festival with a drama about a family whose life is turned upside down with the arrival of their new housekeeper. The world is in a state of disrepair, and the family, strong in keeping up appearances, suddenly has their true feelings exposed. This is the third film by Twyker to open the festival and his movie since A Hologram For The King; heโs been busy with his German noir TV show Babylon Berlin and worked with the Wachowskis again on directing episodes for their show Sense8.
Mickey 17 – Dir. Bong Joon-ho (USA/South Korea)
It may not compete for the Golden Bear, but it may be the most highly anticipated film of the festival. Bongโs long-awaited follow-up to his Oscar-winning Parasite finally arrives after delays and the trailer brings the hype. Robert Patterson plays the titular character who signs up for a job where he dies multiple times for human exploration and gets regenerated for more experiments. With Naomi Ackie, Steven Yeun, Toni Collette, and Mark Ruffalo, this looks like it will be one hell of a ride.
At this yearโs Sundance Film Festival, one could count at least 25 films that involved characters navigating unfamiliar environments, from two British teenagerโs misguided trip to Syria in search of independence (Brides) to a romantic getaway gone wrong (Oh, Hi!) and everything in between, like the historic trip to the moon documented in SALLY and a young girlโs dangerous adventure with a new friend that propels Isaiah Saxonโs The Legend of Ochi. Itโs a common, endlessly-broad framework that doesnโt always provide an overwhelming return on your investment โ see Atropia or Omaha, for example โ but thereโs often plenty to love about the journey that each film asks viewers to go on as it treks through uncharted territory, placing you directly inside the story with just as little information and beckoning you to learn as you go, just like its subjects. I, for one, would rather expect the unexpected than know precisely what Iโm getting myself into when it comes to a new film; thatโs why I appreciated By Design so much. It tells you exactly what itโs about โ a woman who becomes a chair, as one does โ but keeps you on your toes as it unfolds, the significance behind this womanโs strange transition becoming more and more clear as its brief runtime unwinds.
But novel premises donโt always deliver in this genre-fluent structure, even when the cast and crewโs tireless commitment to the bit can evidently be seen in what occurs on screen, and especially when that commitment is put to the test in something as aimless and baffling as Evan Twohyโs Bubble & Squeak (D+). Premiering in the festivalโs U.S. Dramatic Competition, Twohyโs feature film debut โ which takes its title from a hodgepodge English dish made from potatoes and cabbage, often mixed together and fried along with beef and eggs, occasionally โ centers on newlyweds Declan (Himesh Patel) and Delores (Sarah Goldberg) who are forced to run for their lives after being accused of smuggling cabbage into a country in which the vegetable is banned. A bonkers Steven Yeun plays a police officer who states within the filmโs first few minutes that in order to go on with their day uninterrupted, they must hand over the cabbage theyโve obviously hidden inside their pants and agree upon which one of them will be publicly executed for this crime, despite insisting that they are innocent.
Over the course of 97 minutes that should have felt blissfully-brief yet become more taxing as they pass, Declan and Delores encounter a cast of characters that bring splashes of life to an otherwise-grating gag, like What We Do in the Shadowsโ Matt Berry, the aforementioned Yeun, and Dave Franco, the liveliest of the bunch and the most welcome. (Though as ever, while Dave Franco should be in every Sundance movie, that doesnโt mean that every Sundance movie deserves Dave Franco.) Itโs a Jason Schwartzman here and a Willem Dafoe there away from feeling like a blatant Wes Anderson rip-off โ down to its meticulously static camerawork, shot in 4:3 by Anna Smoroลovรก โ yet itโs the unrelenting tone and the insistence on making cabbages its Chekhovโs Gun that make Bubble & Squeak enough to make a viewer wish theyโd never given it the chance in the first place. When a film is willing to take you somewhere youโve never gone before, itโs worth the effort; when it takes but a few seconds to make you realize you never went there for a reason, tapping out is all too tempting.
Perhaps the only things in this life that Iโve entertained less than cabbages are the infinite worlds offered by virtual reality, yet Flora Lauโs LUZ (C+) does its best to make the unknown confines of a semi-imagined world an alluring land for common ground to be found amongst its dwellers. The film, a diptych debut for Lau, focuses on the fractured relationships of two separate parties, the first being that of a con man named Wei (Xiao Dong Guo) and his estranged daughter Fa (En Xi Deng), who the former watches livestream not unlike the way a โcam girlโ might โ fans of fellow Sundance entry Bunnylovr may balk, though, as Austin Amelio is nowhere to be found in this online dynamic. The other relationship LUZ follows is between Sabine (Isabelle Huppert) and Ren (Sandrine Pinna), a stepmother-daughter duo who come back together after Sabine receives a daunting medical diagnosis. If you werenโt already hooked by the idea of an indie family drama co-starring one of the worldโs greatest living actresses, seeing her operate in chic Parisian fashion, all inside a virtual world, should reel you in.
These two remarkably different relationships only connect within โLuz,โ the titular virtual reality realm that affords these characters to face their problems head-on. At various moments, 2024โs Sundance-premiering The Remarkable Life of Ibelin(then named Ibelin) came to mind, as that documentaryโs subject turned to a virtual world in order to be his true self. Lauโs imagined environment doesnโt quite mimic the โWorld of WarCraftโ we see in Benjamin Reeโs film, and its virtual reality comes dangerously close to becoming indistinguishable from the real world of Chongqing, China, in which LUZ begins. The more hallucinatory the film dares to become, the more difficult it is to pin down; are we being subject to a transcendental meditation on the impact our parents have on us, or merely a unique look at the fascinating ways we can reconnect with them on our own terms? That Lau doesnโt necessarily seem too fixated on either plane allows us room for our own interpretation, a net positive for an introspective film unfolding entirely in a land we couldnโt ever begin to understand without inhabiting it ourselves. LUZ might not be one of the World Cinema Dramatic Competitionโs major standouts, but it stands out in and of itself by placing an emphasis on how drawn people can be to the images that populate our purview, even if those sights are more rooted in fantasy than in truth.
In a way, something similar could be said of Vladamir De Fontenayโs Sukkwan Island (C+), its titular setting slowly paving the way for the fantastical rather than the literal. Yet revealing just how much truth there is to what we see unfold throughout much of De Fontenayโs psychological drama would be an act of cinematic cruelty. Sure, not everything that Roy (Cโmon Cโmonโs Woody Norman) and his estranged father Tom (Anatomy of a Fallโs Swann Arlaud) endure during their remote getaway feels quite right as it happens, and it certainly seems like Tom is losing his mind the longer he and his son suffer without proper nutrients, basic hygiene, and meaningful contact with other human life. But De Fontenayโs focus is more on how an already-fractured connection between father and son can weather the storm of isolation and forced connection rather than how much wood either man can collect, or how difficult it may turn out to be for Tom to win back Royโs mother Elizabeth (Tuppence Middleton).
Problems are abundant here, not merely in regards to how Tom and Roy get on after the latter agrees to join the former deep in the Norwegian fjords, but in cinematic form, as the overlong survival drama toys with its audience a bit too freely, not misleading so much as it deliberately (and unsuccessfully) attempts to pull one over on how much youโve clocked over two hours. Based on David Vannโs 2009 autobiographical novella of the same name, Sukkwan Island is a filmmakerโs dream on paper, the sort of drama that eagerly embraces its location and allows its actors โ both of whom are given plenty of room to play here as the only two people on screen, save for the occasional visits from Alma Pรถysti, playing the pilot who flew them to deliverance โ a dual showcase, which they run with. But in the words of R.D. Laing, โMadness need not be all breakdown. It may also be break-through.โ As good as Norman and Arlaud may be, and as effective as their foreign dwelling may be in forcing them to go mad, Sukkwan Island โ like the other films here โ is too reliant on its sole bit to break any new ground. Merely traveling somewhere new doesnโt make for the feeling that youโve discovered something profound, nor more affecting than agonizing.
Director: Josh Ruben Writers:Phillip Murphy, Christopher Landon, Michael Kennedy Stars: Olivia Holt, Mason Gooding, Jordana Brewster
Synopsis:For the past several years, the โHeart Eyes Killerโ has wreaked havoc on Valentineโs Day by stalking and murdering romantic couples. This Valentineโs Day, no couple is safe.
In the tradition of Scream, Josh Rubenโs Heart Eyes opens with the introduction of its masked killer exacting a killing spree on three innocent victims at a winery after a man (awkwardly) proposes to his fiancรฉe. While unimpressively shot, Ruben compensates with nifty practical effects, from the very first moment the Heart Eyes Killer murders a helpless individual to the blood-splattering conclusion of its opening scene that profoundly grossed out the packed audience at a promotional screening.
Also in the tradition of Scream, the rest of the movie attempts to insert several meta-commentaries. It doesnโt discuss the state of horror cinema as Wes Craven (and, more recently, Radio Silence) did, but on chintzy romantic comedies that capitalize on a commercial holiday while also tackling the concept of โlove at first sightโ through protagonists Ally (Olivia Holt) and Jay (Mason Gooding, a casting that further hammers home the โScream ripoffโ allegations). After ordering the same weirdly specific modification to their drink, the two have a meet-cute at a coffee shop. They quickly experience a burgeoning feeling that theyโd like to convey to each other. However, Ally has just gone through a break-up and isnโt ready to commit to anyone just yet, while Jay is rushing into things way too fast.
Even worse, the two are forced to work together after Allyโs boss, Crystal (Michaela Watkins), hires Jay in the wake of a scandal following an advertising campaign led by Ally that focused on murder and death. Letโs just say the audience reception for this ad, as the Heart Eyes Killer runs loose in Seattle and targets specific couples on Valentineโs Day, did not go over well. Because of this, Jay invites Ally to dinner to discuss ideas for a new publicity strategy.
The entire context of the dinner seems romantic, but Ally refuses Jayโs game of seduction until she sees her ex-boyfriend. They kiss in a public space to make him jealous and, as a result, accidentally make them the target of the killer, who is stalking couples at a popular restaurant on Valentineโs Day. Thatโs an admittedly fun conceit โ the killer thinks theyโre a couple and attempts to murder them, but, in reality, they are not. Or is this the beginning of a lifelong romance that will ultimately end in pure happiness? That could be, but thereโs little fun in a movie where the audience is always twenty steps ahead of the script, no matter how devilishly enjoyable (and sometimes perverse) the kills may get.
This is a movie that desperately wants to be a cross between the Wes Craven days of Scream and George Mihalkaโs My Bloody Valentine. Yet, itโs neither because the audience always knows whatโs coming, despite how writers Phillip Murphy, Christopher Landon, and Michael Kennedy attempt to subvert classic slasher tropes throughout its runtime. Once all the characters are introduced and the moving pieces laid out in front of the audience, an astute moviegoer who has seen Cravenโs Scream films can quickly figure out the killerโs identity and how the story will (more or less) wrap up. When some action set pieces reach levels of implausibility on how the killer operates from one place to the next, one could guess that more than one assailant is perpetrating the crimes. It’s not hard to put two and two together, especially if it is a film steeped in the tradition of Cravenโs Scream.ย
Part of the thrill of watching a slasher with a masked murderer is attempting to figure out who it is and always thinking weโre two steps ahead of the screenwriters. Instead, we fall straight into their trap and have our jaws dropped on the floor when the person committing the murders is ultimately revealed. Craven frequently pulled smart red herrings in Scream, which were always surprising whenever the killerโs real identity manifested itself. In Heart Eyes, the plot contains very few active thrills and zero surprises. Everything is telegraphed as soon as Ruben establishes Jay and Allyโs relationship and gives us slight pieces of information on the people assigned to uncover the identity of the Heart Eyes Killer, Detectives Hobbs (Devon Sawa) and Shaw (Jordana Brewster).
Yes, Hobbs & Shaw. Like the Fast & Furious characters. Get it? Itโs hilarious because they make a meta-joke in front of Jordana Brewster, who has played a critical role in the Fast & Furious franchise over the years. How funny. This is the type of quip-heavy humor that permeates the entire runtime โ jokes that think theyโre amusing because they consistently wink at the audience, allowing them a slight pause in figuring out the reference before continuing or stopping the action in the middle of a scene of gratuitous violence and high-spirited thrills to lighten the mood.
Hereโs an example. As Jay and Ally are violently chased by the Heart Eyes Killer, whose vicious nature is showcased as it patiently waits for Ally to return home to slay her when she opens her closet, the two demand a time-out to explain that theyโre not a couple! Ha! But the killer doesnโt care, and neither does the audience. This overtly cynical humor couldโve worked in spades if the chemistry between Holt and Gooding felt palpable. However, since they lack any form of symbiosis and the filmmaker instead focuses on filling their screen time with as much pathos as possible, the overall result falls flat on its face.
Holt is a decent actor whose career-best turn in Marvelโs Cloak & Dagger has unfortunately fallen to the wayside because no one saw it. However, sheโs profoundly miscast and canโt match Gooding’s effervescent, natural charm, who knows how to operate in front of the camera. It results in a listless pairing thatโs only half-decent when it focuses on Jay, even if both characters are thinly developed beyond the romantic comedy attributes theyโre given at the top of the movie. Gooding, as charming as he may be, canโt transcend the โtypical hot guy who the protagonist will eventually fall in love with since our script is amazingly telegraphedโ trope Ruben boxes him in from the start. On the other hand, Holt checks every box in the โfemale lead who hates love will learn to love again by meeting the perfect guy with zero flaws whatsoever, despite a mass murderer haunting their assโ category.
Sure, some of the kills are creative. One set in a Westfalia is the filmโs major highlight because it teeters with dark humor, which is what the movie shouldโve bathed in the first place instead of being self-referential and quippy. Itโs the only moment that genuinely made me laugh, as shockingly violent and explicitly specific as the kill may be, and it got a kick out of the audience, too. However, Ruben shrouds other kills in darkness through its flat cinematography or strobe lighting to make a violent scene less shocking. It especially feels cowardly not to go all in when, a few scenes later, we get that aforementioned Westfalia kill.
Ruben then will juggle between scenes of extreme violence, such as its church-set climax, where Ally uses an unlikely weapon that has been teased to no end from the very minute it gets shown, or scenes that appear to be violent, but cut away from the kill, or hide it with some technical wizardry. It should come as no surprise that the most efficient scenes are the ones where we can see whatโs going on, but even then, the pleasures of Rubenโs picture are only sparse since we know exactly who the murderers are and how Ally and Joshโs quasi-romantic story will end. This makes for a forgettable moviegoing experience that can never overcome its screenwriting platitudes despite occasional moments of inspiration that feel fun and cathartic but lacking in legitimate tension since everything can be easily guessed.
The characters are so poorly written that one begs for Ruben to at least give us a form of connection or emotional heft to the stakes. Sadly, it never happens, resulting in a movie thatโs best left to be ditched rather than giving it a chance. Weโve all heard that story too many times. Thatโs why itโs high time to break up with shoddy horror cinema and demand better movies in return.
This week on Women InSession, we celebrate James Spader’s birthday by diving into his filmography and why he’s such a captivating actor! Everything from Pretty in Pink to Sex, Lies, and Videotape to Crash to Lincoln and everything in-between, Spader has always been a formidable screen presence that we’ve enjoyed in cinema.
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!
The list has been finalized, and the Oscar nominees are set in stone.
For four of the five nominees, this is the first time they have ever been able to call themselves an Oscar-nominated actor. Our list this year includes Yura Borisov (Anora), Kieran Culkin (A Real Pain), Edward Norton (A Complete Unknown), Guy Pearce (The Brutalist), and Jeremy Strong (The Apprentice). Each actor gave varying performances in their respective films; no one on this list is like the other.
First, I wanted to name a few performances that deserved a nomination but came up short: Denzel Washington for Gladiator II, Clarence Maclin for Sing Sing, and Bill Skarsgรฅrd for Nosferatu. Denzel was menacingly fun in Gladiator II, playing the main antagonist in a role that let one of the greats shine. Clarence Maclin played himself in Sing Sing, but that doesnโt diminish his emotional and engaging performance; at least he picked up a nomination for Original Screenplay. Bill Skarsgรฅrd was terrifying in Nosferatu, delivering a performance that was as physical as mental. He has been typecast in this kind of freak-esque role, and the commitment for Nosferatu, even going as far as permanently altering his voice, proved there was no one else for the role. However, the actor I would have most liked to see in Oscar contention is Adam Pearson for his work in A Different Man.
Pearson played Oswald in A Different Man, a film that cleverly toes the dark comedy line, and Pearson is a total rock star. From his first moment on screen, you are brought in by his charm, wit, and compassion; it’s easy to see why Sebastian Stan’s Edward was so envious of Oswald. The writing of the character works well, but the natural performance from Pearson is not what only makes Stan’s performance (maybe the best of his career) work, but what also makes the film itself work as well as it does. There were many great supporting performances both in the Oscar conversation and not, and this was one that never received the accolades it should have.
5. Edward Norton (A Complete Unknown)
Edward Norton’s turn as Pete Seger is number five in my personal rankings. Norton is an outstanding performer, and his turn as the late folk singer is more than deserving of attention; however, of his now four Oscar nominations, this one is at the bottom. Norton thrives in eccentric characters who put his entire personality on display in whacky ways. While his turn as Seger in A Complete Unknown was strong, it was drastically different and more restricted than anything we had seen from the performer before. While his singing voice worked well for the role, his character constantly felt like he was playing catch up to Timothee Chalamet’s Bob Dylan. He is the only actor on this list who didn’t give one of the two or even three best performances for their respective film.
4. Jeremy Strong (The Apprentice)
Jeremy Strong earned his first, of what I can only assume will be many, Oscar nomination for playing the villainous Roy Cohn in The Apprentice. Strong is magnificent in playing a monstrous figure who eventually is overshadowed by an even more significant, meaner, and uglier monster. Strong comes in at number four on my list because even though he owns the first half of the film, once Sebastian Stan’s Donald Trump makes his switch from pupil to Sith Lord, Cohn is relatively overlooked. One moment towards the end of the film is painfully brilliant from Strong, but overall, there were better performances and villains on this list.
3. Guy Pearce (The Brutalist)
One of those villains is Harrison Lee Van Buren Sr., played by Guy Pearce. Pearce broke onto the scene starring in Christopher Nolan’s breakout hit Memento, but since then, he has been almost sidelined to bit or character roles, especially in the past 10 years. However, The Brutalist changed that as Pearce was finally given a role with enough heft to exercise his talents. His role and performance in The Brutalist is on par with Michael Shannon in The Shape of Water as one of my favorite villain performances in the past 10 years. He is not overtly evil throughout the entire film, but like some of the best-written and performed villains in cinema, he slowly wears down the protagonist, taking advantage of them at their absolute lowest, using them for their gain, and making them feel like without their help, our protagonist would be nothing. That’s what Pearce captures so hauntingly in The Brutalist; he is a villain that does everything not to act villainous as he makes Adrien Brody’s Lรกszlรณ Tรณth, a refugee with a storied past in architecture, feel like he is nothing. However, he does it in a way where he acts as though he is defending the wants and needs of Tรณth. It’s a complex and timely performance, and what Pearce displays is masterfully horrifying.
2. Kieran Culkin (A Real Pain)
I understand the argument that this is a case of category fraud and that Culkin should be considered the co-lead of A Real Pain; it makes sense, given his extensive screen time and the centrality of his character to the plot.
However, I don’t see this as category fraud, as he is not the point of view of the film’s story. When categorizing performances, I consider the narrative and what the film is telling us. In the case of A Real Pain, we discover Culkin’s Benji through the lens of Jesse Eisenberg’s David, and even if the plot is about Benji, it isn’t Benji’s story. With that out of the way, this performance truly is immaculate. Culkin has been consistently building a stellar career, especially in more minor bit roles, but thanks to Succession, he was able to display what a talent he truly is, and what A Real Pain does best is show us all that Culkin is not a one-hit-wonder. His Benji is full of eccentricities, such as getting his entire tour group to take photos in front of war statues, that make him and, by extension, Culkin as a performer, a unique, vulnerable human. However, he isn’t afraid to take the performance into dark and sad places. You can tell he is hurting, and the film does a great job displaying this through his more quiet moments – especially the ones at the airport. What makes this performance stand above is the care that not only Benji has, but that Culkin has for the performance as well. Benji cares about everything and wants to say whats on his mind, but at the same time he holds back how he feels It’s a rare performance that perfectly blends subtlety with eccentricity, where the loudest person in the room is also the most tragic. If he does manage to sweep this season, it will be more than deserved for Culkin.
1. Yura Borisov (Anora)
While I loved Kieran Culkin’s performance in A Real Pain, nothing can top how perfect Yura Borisov was as Igor in Anora. I have been on record saying Borisov’s role in this film might be one of the hardest I have ever seen on film, at least that I can remember recently. This is due primarily to the subtlety needed to make this performance effective, and that is because the entire character is built around subtlety. Igor doesn’t care much about himself; he even spends his birthday chasing Vanya (Mark Eydelshteyn) around New York. He doesn’t overshare, not because he doesn’t want to, but because no one ever asks. However, none of that phases him. When Ani (Mikey Madison) first speaks to Igor, you can see the softness that Borisov gives the character, even saying congratulations when Ani snarkily responds to Igor’s introduction with, “I’m Ani, Vanya’s wife.” On paper, the character might not seem like much, but through Borisov’s gazes, you can tell he is the only one who truly cares for Ani and what she is going through, and the performance shines immensely. The care that Igor displays for Ani is fully realized when he speaks up against Vanya’s parents, telling them their son should apologize for what he put Ani through. No one in the film cares about what happens to Ani except for Igor, and through a superbly subtle performance, he can display so much care, emotion, and heart.
Synopsis:An aging farmer refuses to leave his long standing way of life behind at the risk of losing what truly matters to him.
One of my most vivid childhood memories involves a car ride with my mom. Sheโs driving me to my weekly trombone lesson, a short trip that takes us past my old elementary school, just five minutes down the road from our house. Its sight leads me to tell her that I think I might like to become a teacher when I grow up; โIโll teach English and coach the basketball team,โ I say. She nearly slams on the brakes before asking why in the world Iโd ever want to do that in the future, given how much Iโve always talked about wanting to go into sports broadcasting. (We see how that turned out, donโt we?) I think my main reasons for this fleeting dream were rather trite: Multiple breaks during the school year, summers off, and a built-in connection with fellow teachers and students, the likes of which Iโd seen forming around me while attending school for the better part of my young life. Thatโs the key, though: At the time that I expressed this desire, school โ and playing for my school basketball team, by extension โ was all I knew, and at a glance, it seemed like an easy future. Plus, my mom was a teacher, which explains her alarm at the future career her child pondered for approximately three minutes before leaving it behind with the exhaust fumes that spurted out of our 2003 Chrysler Town & Country.
Had I elected to pursue that fleeting path, one that I now understand to be relatively thankless and exhausting, Iโm sure I would have found a semblance of happiness, but would I have been fulfilled? Of course, thatโs an impossible question to answer, but I feel reasonably fulfilled as I continue to walk along the path I chose to take. I like that this idea is precisely what drives Cristobal Abugaberโs deeply moving short The Perfect Tomato, the internal conflict between two roads, the questions one asks oneself as one walks further down it, and what happens when external factors play a part in what direction you take next.
Nacho (Eligio Melรฉndez), an aging and dedicated farmer who has spent decades working in fields and gardens alike, has lived a simple life that some might even go so far as to call โsafe.โ He hasnโt stopped working since he was a young man so as not to break from routine, and so that his work never remains in doubt, something he has long required in order to provide for his family. Abugaberโs opening scene sees Nacho and his granddaughter Maria (Marรญa Fernanda Ayala) working together in a greenhouse, the former describing growing patterns to the curious latter, who enjoys accompanying him perhaps just to stay occupied, though sheโs a wise kid, one who seems aware of and drawn to his passion. As they travel home, sitting in a truck bed being driven by one of the farmโs many workers, we learn that her father is not in the picture, a presence that Nacho somewhat fills yet Maria still longs for; โDo you think heโll ever try one of our tomatoes?โ she asks, with Nacho telling her, โThe United States is very big,โ a way to let her down easy.
Not long after theyโve returned home and sat down for dinner, Nachoโs daughter Elena (Marรญa Melรฉndez) informs him that she has an opportunity in front of her: the opening of a pottery store in the city. Nacho expresses disbelief at the notion that his daughter would be commuting from the countryside to the city each day, though she soon informs him that they would have to move. โItโs a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, Dad,โ she tells him only after cinematography James Sweeney has cut away from a slow-zooming wide shot that captures the trio in a moment of change, a visual representation of Nachoโs walls closing in as his daughterโs horizons extend. Itโs a moment of loss for him and a massive personal win for her, leading to a crossroads that is familiar in context yet singular within this family dynamic. Nacho believes that โthe land has given [them] everything,โ and that the money he could earn if promoted to working at the ranchโs urban distribution center would add nothing to their life. โMore money? What else do you need?โ
Itโs an obvious conflictโ โYouโre giving up on your dream!โ/โNo, Dad. Iโm giving up on yoursโyet, itโs unique how Abugaber depicts it from Nachoโs perspective. Typically, weโd instinctively root on the child (grown or otherwise) whose ambitions are set to lead them to their promised land while booing the parent doing what they can to hold them back. Yet itโs difficult not to sympathize with a man who, in this situation, would be leaving behind everything he knows in order to fulfill someone elseโs desires, even if that someone else is his own flesh and blood. Abugaber constructs this tension with great care, understanding the concerns of both parties and while the filmโs resolution might feel clear to anyone who has ever seen a family-focused movie before, The Perfect Tomatoโs conclusion ultimately resonates as one about the sacrifices we make for those we love, not what we lose when we concede to them. Itโs clear that Abugaber understands that making choices for the betterment of our loved onesโ lives isnโt much of a loss at all but merely a different kind of gain. Even if it means that we must say goodbye to one form of comfort, as long as we are able to lean on those closest to us, we can discover it anew elsewhere.
So, no, I never became a teacher. I also didnโt become a world-famous trombone player or a basketball coach that the staff at other schools feared when I walked into a gym. (I never had that presence anyway.) But life shifted for me in ways that I wouldnโt have dreamt of all those years ago while driving to Vince Ercolamentoโs music school, and Iโm endlessly grateful for every sacrifice I made, and for those that the people in my life have made for me, too. I intend on repaying them, and I intend on yielding in many more worthwhile ways when I have a family of my own. You can find comfort again; family, though, is a once-in-a-lifetime gift.
Director: Jonathan Eusebio Writers: Matthew Murray, Josh Stoddard, Luke Passmore Stars:ย Ke Huy Quan, Ariana DeBose, Mustafa Shakir, Marshawn Lynch
Synopsis: A hitman-turned-realtor is forced to confront his past.
I was excited for Love Hurts. I was ready to sit back and bask in the glow of the Ke Huy Quan Renaissance. The Academy Award winner from Everything Everywhere All at Once, best known to many as Short Round from Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, has experienced a career resurgence in recent years. He’s charismatic, possesses talent far beyond his legendary childhood roles, and, in an industry where it’s increasingly rare, is known as one of the genuinely good guys in Hollywood.
Combined with the fact that Love Hurts comes from the producers of Nobody, the team that turned Bob Odenkirk into an action star, my excitement was through the roof. Then, add in one of the greatest reunions since Robert De Niro and Al Pacino shared coffee in Heat: Goonies alum Sean Astin embracing Ke Huy Quan in a heartfelt hug, delivering a dose of ’80s nostalgia we didn’t even know we needed. Oh yes, Love Hurts is poised to give any ’80s or ’90s kid the feels they’ve been missing.
However, as the film progresses, it becomes apparent thatย Love Hurtsย may be an obedience experiment comparable to Milgram. The action feels labored, the acting is stiff, and the characters are thinner than one of those Fatheads your kid slaps on their bedroom wall. The humor barely registers, and the dialogue is cringe-worthy at best. And let’s not forgetโLove Hurtsย boasts the oddest romantic pairing since Lyle Lovett and Julia Roberts (or Pete Davidson and [insert name here]).
Yet, the screening I attended had people howling at the oddest moments, making me wonder if the crowd was being held against their will and laughing out of sheer desperation. I even made a note to Google it laterโthis might be the first documented case of boredom-induced hysteria. Apparently, I’m immune.
The story follows Marvin Gable (Quan), who has just been named Real Estate Agent of the Year by his best friend, Cliff (Astin). Marvin loves his job, taking pride in finding the perfect home for every person, couple, or family. He bakes cookies for his coworkers, and everyone adores himโincluding his morbidly eccentric assistant (Crazy Love’s Lio Tipton), who remains loyally by his side. However, things take a sudden turn when a trained assassin known as the Raven (Mustafa Shakir) shows up at his office.
Why would such a beloved figure have such a violent enemy? Because Marvin is an ex-assassin himselfโhiding in plain sight (with his face plastered all over town on real estate ads, no less) from his mobster brother, Knuckles (played by Quan’s American Born Chinese co-star Daniel Wu). Knuckles has just discovered that Marvin never completed his final assignment: murdering a coworker, Rose (Kraven’s Ariana DeBoseโwho, frankly, requires a serious career intervention), after she stole millions from Knuckles years ago.
Thankfully, director Jonathan Eusebio’s film clocks in at a merciful 83 minutes, which explains why it’s missing a second act. The movie is filled with repetitive nonsense and poorly staged action sequences that look more like slow, choreographed practice sessions that want to be Nobody or something from Chad Stahelski. The movie has weird ambitions, wanting to show action inside a microwave or a refrigerator, where you can hear punches being thrownbehind closed doors. The sequences are disengaging tired, and are nothing but filler.
Then, there’s the elephant in the room: we’re supposed to believe in the romance between Quan and DeBose. I’m all for poking fun at past decades of pairing a weathered star with a 20-something woman (Entrapment, Six Days, Seven Nights, etc.), but the film takes the pairing seriously, and they have little to no chemistry. The film only works when Tipton and Shakir’s characters take a liking to each other, highlighting the film’s underlying problem.
I can practically guarantee that the film started as a very dark comedy, but to sell the script, Love Hurts went through dozens of rewrites (the script is credited to three writers: Matthew Murray, Josh Stoddard, and Luke Passmore). Instead, we get scenes where Marshawn Lynch and Andrรฉ Eriksen unload machine gun fire into a couch, which somehow manages to stop all the bullets from hitting Quan. Then, for no apparent reason, they shoot above the couch for several minutes into a wall, even though the target is only five feet away and still lying on the ground, behind the feather-filled sofa.
I’m not sure who Love Hurts was made for: fans of diabetes-inducing boba tea, people who want to see the Property Brothers end their reign of terror on HGTV, or see DeBose’s career go up in flames, but after watching it, I can only assume love is an illusion and created by the good people at Hallmark and the corporation are the ones testing our resolve.
Grade: D-
You can watch Love Hurts only in theaters on February 7th!
