For decades, Pixar could hardly miss with its original animated films.
Whether the subject was toys, fish or a cantankerous old man, the Emeryville-based computer animation studio churned out hit after hit.
But since the COVID-19 pandemic, Pixar and other animation studios have struggled to break through at the box office with the same kinds of original movies that defined the industry. Instead, sequels such as “Inside Out 2” have ruled the genre.
This weekend, Walt Disney Co.-owned Pixar will face its latest test with the release of “Elio,” an original film about a young boy who seeks connection with aliens to make up for his loneliness on Earth.
The movie is tracking to bring in $18 million to $25 million in ticket sales from the U.S. and Canada during its opening weekend, according to box office analysis. (The film’s reported budget is in the range of $150 million to $200 million.)
That would be considered a soft debut by Pixar standards, indicating the dilemma the animation business — and the movie industry writ large — faces with original content. While audiences often say they want to see new stories, box office ticket sales show they gravitate toward sequels, reboots and other familiar fare.
“You need to be launching new franchises to keep the pipeline fresh,” said Doug Creutz, senior media and entertainment analyst at TD Cowen. “Since the pandemic ended, original animated films have just been getting killed at the box office … no matter how good they are.”
Pixar executives, nonetheless, say they’re committed to telling original stories, which are key to the future health of the industry.
“You wouldn’t have Pixar without ‘Toy Story,’ our first original film 30 years ago!” Pixar Chief Creative Officer Pete Docter wrote in an emailed statement. “And while we also love digging into new layers of familiar worlds and characters through our sequels, I’d say there’s a unique thrill in unearthing a new story.”
Disney and Pixar’s previous original movie “Elemental” made just $29.6 million in its opening weekend in 2023, causing many in the industry to write it off as a flop, before strong word-of-mouth reviews propelled the film to a solid worldwide gross of $496 million.
Sister studio Walt Disney Animation Studios has also recently struggled with originals, including 2022’s “Strange World” and 2023’s “Wish.”
The pandemic had a major effect on theatrical attendance for animated films. At the onset, studios including Pixar put their new animated movies on streaming services to give families something to watch during the COVID-19 stay-at-home orders and keep people from spreading the disease.
Movies such as 2020’s “Soul,” 2021’s “Luca” and 2022’s “Turning Red” were all sent straight to the Disney+ streaming service. Despite critical acclaim — winning an Academy Award for animated feature — “Soul” grossed just $121.9 million in worldwide theatrical revenue.
Even when movie theaters started reopening, families were slow to return due to health concerns and familiarity with watching movies at home, which dented animated films’ box office potential. Pixar’s 2022 “Toy Story” spinoff “Lightyear” did poorly at the box office partially due to this timing, as well as quality issues, marketing challenges and right-wing backlash to an on-screen kiss between a same-sex couple.
Other studios, too, face challenges with originals.
Universal Pictures’ 2023 original animated movie “Migration” also saw a soft box office total. The same year, Universal grossed more than $1 billion from “The Super Mario Bros. Movie,” based on the Nintendo game franchise.
Last year, Universal’s “The Wild Robot,” which is adapted from a 2016 children’s book, debuted to strong reviews, but grossed $333 million in box office revenue, compared with the $492 million reaped by Paramount Pictures’ “Sonic the Hedgehog 3.”
So far this summer, many of the films that have propelled the box office are family-friendly — Warner Bros. Pictures’ “A Minecraft Movie,” and live-action remakes “Lilo & Stitch” from Disney and “How to Train Your Dragon” from Universal.
Last year, Pixar’s “Inside Out 2” hauled in nearly $1.7 billion in global box office revenue last year, while Universal and Illumination Entertainment’s “Despicable Me 4” grossed $969.6 million worldwide and Disney’s “Moana 2” made $1 billion.
The common denominator among these films? They’re all sequels, reboots or rely on known intellectual property.
But industry insiders and analysts say that simply focusing on new chapters of existing stories risks making the animation space stale.
“If you’re trying to grow the business, you need new content, you need new franchises, you need new things for people to be excited about,” said Creutz of TD Cowen.
But beyond the box office, Pixar original films can get exposure — and drive business — through other parts of the Disney empire. Movies eventually debut on Disney+ and characters will show up on merchandise or in the theme parks, which can expand a film’s reach.
“Pixar is in the long-term business,” said David A. Gross, who writes a movie industry newsletter. “They want to create stories that last, and if that works in bringing back a sequel, great, but there is enormous value for streaming for these pictures, whatever they do in theatrical. There are a lot of revenue streams.”
Pixar intends to release three movies every two years, and the company’s strategy is to make one original for every sequel, company sources said. For instance, “Elio” was intended for release in 2024, but was delayed by the dual writers’ and actors’ strikes of 2023. Instead, it swapped with “Inside Out 2” since sequels can be easier to move through the production process due to existing assets.
“Pixar was really instrumental in defining the look and the feel and the tone of computer-animated films,” said Christopher Holliday, a senior lecturer in liberal arts and visual cultures education at King’s College London, who wrote a book about computer-animated films.
The company “is now at one of those crossroads where they are trying to balance films that have an audience built into them,” Holliday said. “And then they’re also balancing their identity as a studio of innovation that is pushing the boundaries and the limits of computer animation.”
Next year, Pixar plans to release “Toy Story 5” as well as an original film called “Hoppers” about a new technology that allows humans and animals to communicate. In 2027, Pixar said it will debut “Gatto,” an original movie about a cat with multiple lives.
“We think audiences love originals too,” Docter said. “Sure, it might be a bit harder nowadays to break through all the noise out there, but if we do our jobs, and create something that people will love, we trust that audiences will show up.”
Some of Blake Lively‘s text messages with friend Taylor Swift could be disclosed in court, in a recent development of the actor’s winding legal battle against her “It Ends With Us” co-star Justin Baldoni.
U.S. District Judge Lewis J. Liman on Wednesday filed an order denying the “Gossip Girl” alumna’s request to keep her messages with Swift out of litigation, according to legal documents reviewed by The Times. “Given that Lively has represented that Swift had knowledge of complaints or discussions about the working environment on the film, among other issues, the requests for messages with Swift regarding the film and this action are reasonably tailored to discover information that would prove or disprove Lively’s harassment and retaliation claims,” reads the order.
Baldoni and his Wayfarer Studios filed a request for production connected to the Lively-Swift texts in February, asking for “‘all documents and communications related to or reflecting Lively’s communications with Taylor Swift” about their 2024 romantic drama and subsequent legal proceedings.
The “It Ends With Us” co-stars have engaged in a legal back-and-forth for months after Lively accused director Baldoni of sexual harassment on the set of the film and accused his team of orchestrating a smear campaign against her in December. The allegations first surfaced in a report from the New York Times. She formally sued Baldoni in federal court on Dec. 31. Baldoni and nine other plaintiffs — including his crisis PR team and executives at Wayfarer Studios — hit back that same day with a $400-million countersuit against Lively and her husband, “Deadpool” star Ryan Reynolds, and a separate defamation complaint against the New York Times.
Liman dismissed Baldoni’s complaints, which failed to meet legal standards, earlier this month. The judge said in his Wednesday order that “Lively’s motion is rooted in the broader concern that the Wayfarer Parties are using demands for communications with Swift not ‘to obtain information relevant to claims and defenses in court, but to prop up a public relations narrative outside of court.’ ”
Wednesday’s order also denied Baldoni’s cross-motion to compel Lively to produce documents connected to the production.
Baldoni’s team subpoenaed Swift earlier this year but eventually withdrew it after the singer and her legal reps dismissed it as an “unwarranted fishing expedition,” according to Variety.
In a statement shared with multiple outlets, a representative for Lively reacted to this week’s order, claiming, “Baldoni’s desire to drag Taylor Swift into this has been constant dating back to August 2024” and is an effort to influence the singer’s fan base. In the past, the devoted league of Swift supporters known as Swifites have banded together to criticize the singer’s high-profile exes and in recent years, rallied against Ticketmaster over allegations of fraud, price-fixing and antitrust violations.
“We will continue to call out Baldoni’s relentless efforts to exploit Ms. Swift’s popularity, which from day one has been nothing more than a distraction from the serious sexual harassment and retaliation accusations he and the Wayfarer parties are facing,” the spokesperson added, according to People.
Representatives for Swift and Baldoni did not immediately respond to The Times’ request for comment.
Zombies were dormant when screenwriter Alex Garland convinced director Danny Boyle to resurrect the undead — and make them run. The galloping ghouls in their low-budget 2002 thriller “28 Days Later” reinvigorated the genre. There’s now been so many of them that they’ve come to feel moldy. So Garland and Boyle have teamed up again to see if there’s life in these old bones.
There is, albeit sporadically and spasmodically. “28 Years Later,” the first entry of a promised trilogy, has a dull central plot beefed up by unusual ambition, quirky side characters and maniacal editing. It’s a kooky spectacle, a movie that aggressively cuts from moments of philosophy to violence, from pathos to comedy. Tonally, it’s an ungainly creature. From scene to scene, it lurches like the brain doesn’t know what the body is doing. Garland and Boyle don’t want the audience to know either, at least not yet.
The plot picks up nearly three decades into a viral “rage” pandemic that’s isolated the British Isles from the civilized world. A couple hundred people have settled into a safe-enough life on Lindisfarne, an island that’s less than a mile from shore. The tide recedes every day for a few hours, long enough to walk across a narrow strip of causeway to the mainland. Jamie (Aaron Taylor-Johnson) and Isla (Jodie Comer) were young when normality collapsed, roughly the same age as the kids in the film’s cheeky opening flashback who are watching a VHS tape of “Teletubbies” while hearing the screams of their babysitters getting bitten. But these survivors have managed to grow up and become parents themselves. Given their harsh circumstances, Jamie and Isla have called their son Spike.
Name notwithstanding, 12-year-old Spike (Alfie Williams) is a sweet kid. When his father slips him a precious ration of bacon, he gives his share to his mother, who now lies weak and confused in an upstairs bedroom. The script pushes too hard to make Spike naive — blank and moldable — instead of what narrative logic tells us he is, the hardscrabble child of two stunted children. His career paths are hunter, forager or watchtower guard, but he seems more like the product of a progressive Montessori school, even with his dad urging him to cackle at shredded deer intestines. When the boy’s not looking, Jamie’s shoulders sag as he trudges up the stairs to Isla’s sickbed, showing us a hint of adult complexities he alone understands.
Spike’s storyline is a fairly simple coming-of-age journey. Once he’s slayed his first infected (“The more you kill, the easier it gets,” his dad gloats), Spike decides to sneak his sick mother to the mainland in search of a mythological being: a general medical practitioner. But straightaway, the movie’s editing (by Jon Harris) starts having a fit, seizing our attention as it splices in herky-jerky black-and-white archival footage of earlier generations of kids marching to protect their homes, both in newsreels and classical retellings including Laurence Olivier’s 1944 film of “Henry V.” The chilling electronic score by the Scottish group Young Fathers blurps and drones while an unseen voice recites Rudyard Kipling’s “Boots,” a poem about the grinding Boer War that was first published in 1903, but whose sense of slogging exhaustion sounds just as relevant to us as it would to Beowulf. These theatrics sound fancy, but they play deliberately abrasive and confounding. “28 Days Later” forced the audience to adapt to the ugliness of digital cameras, and despite the years and prestige that Garland and Boyle have accumulated since, they’ve still got a punk streak.
The filmmakers seem to be making the point that our own kinder, gentler idealism is the outlier. Humankind’s natural state is struggle and division. In this evocative setting, with its crumbling castle towers and tattered English flags, we’re elbowed to think of battles, from Brexit to the Vikings, who first attacked the British on this very same island in 793. A 9th century account describes the Lindisfarne massacre as nightmarish scenes of blood and trampling and terror, of “heathen men made lamentable havoc.” Those words could have been recycled into “28 Years Later’s” pitch deck.
As a side note, Lindisfarne remains so small and remote that it doesn’t even have any doctors today. The one we meet, Kelson (Ralph Fiennes), doesn’t show up until the last act. But he’s worth the wait, as is the messianic Jimmy (Jack O’Connell), who appears three minutes before the end credits and successfully gets us excited for the sequel, which has already been shot. (Jimmy’s tracksuits and bleached hair are evidence that his understanding of pop culture really did stop at Eminem.) Their characters inject so much energy into the movie that Boyle and Garland seem to be rationing their best material as strictly as Spike denies himself that slice of pork.
This confounding and headstrong movie doesn’t reveal everything it’s after. But it’s an intriguing comment on human progress. The uninfected Brits have had to rewind their society back a millennium. When a Swedish sailor named Erik (Edvin Ryding, marvelous) is forced ashore, he talks down to all the Brits like they’re cavemen. They’ve never even seen an iPhone (although the movie was itself shot on them). Upon seeing a picture of a modern Instagram babe plumped to a Kardashian ripeness, Spike gasps, “What’s wrong with her face?”
The infected ones have regressed further still and they’ve split into two sub-species: the grub-like “slow-low” zombies, who suck up worms with a vile slurp, and the Neanderthalish sprinters who hunt in packs. The fast ones even have an alpha (Chi Lewis-Parry) who is hellbent on taking big strides forward. One funny way he shows it is he’s made a hobby of ripping off his prey’s heads to use their spines as tools, or maybe even as décor.
Dr. Kelson, a shaman, sculptor and anthropologist, insists that even the infected still share a common humanity. “Every skull has had a thought,” he says, stabbing a freshly decapitated one with his pitchfork. He’s made an art of honoring death over these decades and his occasionally hallucinatory sequence is truly emotional, even if Fiennes, smeared with iodine and resembling a jaundiced Colonel Kurtz, made me burst out into giggles at the way he says “placenta.” Yet, I think we’re meant to laugh — he’s the exact mix of smart and silly the film is chasing.
So who, then, are the savages? The infected or us? The film shifts alliances without taking sides (yet). I’m unconvinced that sweetie pie Spike is the protagonist I want to follow for two more movies. But whatever happens, it’s a given that humans will eventually, stubbornly, relentlessly find a way to tear other humans to pieces, as we do in every movie, and just as we’ve done since the first homo sapien went after his rival with a stick. That’s the zombie genre’s visceral power: It reveals that the things that make us feel safe — love, loyalty, civility — are also our weaknesses. “28 Years Later” dares us to devolve.
’28 Years Later’
Rated: R, for strong bloody violence, grisly images, graphic nudity, language and brief sexuality
Millie Bobby Brown was known for her role as Eleven in Netflix’s hit series Stranger Things which aired in 2016 – but she didn’t make her film debut until 2019
06:00, 19 Jun 2025Updated 06:06, 19 Jun 2025
The sequel to Millie Bobby Brown’s first ever film is airing on TV tonight(Image: Getty Images)
Stranger Things fans can prepare to watch Millie Bobby Brown on screen tonight – in a role worlds away from her portrayal as Eleven on the hit Netflix show.
Millie Bobby Brown rose to fame when she starred in the Netflix phenomenon, although it wasn’t the star’s first TV role. Before that, she had minor roles in television series including Once Upon a Time in Wonderland. However, it was her portrayal of Eleven that significantly boosted her career.
A huge name on TV, Millie didn’t make her film debut until 2019, when she made her feature film debut in in the Godzilla sequel, Godzilla: King of the Monsters (2019). Now, ITV is set to air the sequel to the film, Godzilla vs. Kong, which was released in 2021.
Millie Bobby Brown stars in the 2021 film(Image: Courtesy of Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. All Rights Reserved.)
The movie will air on ITV tomorrow night – with a late start time of 11.45, wrapping up at 1:20am on Friday morning. The feature length film will air straight after the late debate. The film has a run time of 1 hour and 53 minutes, but this will be slightly longer due to the adverts on the channel.
Millie reprised her role as Madison Russell, the daughter of Monarch’s Emma Russell (Vera Farmiga) and Mark Russell (Kyle Chandler).
Godzilla vs. Kong is the fourth instalment of the Monsterverse franchise, in which Millie’s character returned.
In the 2021 film, playing on ITV tonight, her character became the main human tied to the Godzilla storyline.
The movie is airing on ITV tonight(Image: WARNER BROS)
However, the Stranger Things star didn’t appear in the fifth instalment Godzilla x Kong: The New Empire, and her character is not mentioned in the film.
During filming of Godzilla Vs. Kong, Millie’s co-stars Brian Tyree Henry and Julian Dennison opened up about how much fun she was on set.
“In between takes, [we] would literally sing our hearts out. It was a lot of fun,” said Henry. “She also likes to bark,” he told Metro.
“I don’t know if that was like a moment for her, like a period of a time where she was just into barking,” Dennison added. “But she would just bark like before a take, if she needed energy, she would just go, ‘woof, woof, woof, woof,’” he continued, although he revealed he had “seen worse from actors.”
Millie has continued to star on the big screen, with her latest movie, The Electric State released on Netflix earlier this year.
The movie widely regarded as one of the best sci-fi films ever made and is an absolute must-watch for any fans of the dystopian genre
Theo begins the movie as a detached civil servant(Image: Universal Pictures )
This year has seen a significant rise in dystopian thrillers, with series like The Last of Us gripping telly viewers and films such as 28 Years Later set to grace the big screen this June. With an abundance of options, it’s easy to feel swamped, but if you’re on the hunt for a true classic of the dystopian genre, I wholeheartedly suggest Alfonso Cuarón’s Children of Men.
I only recently had the pleasure of viewing Children of Men and was riveted from the opening scene. It swiftly climbed the ranks to become one of my all-time favourite films, and I was particularly taken by its peculiar optimism amidst the bleak post-apocalyptic setting.
What Children of Men is about
The movie has a very hopeful message despite its bleak setting(Image: Universal Pictures )
The world has descended into utter chaos as humanity grapples with impending extinction. The United Kingdom stands as one of the few remaining countries still operational, albeit under an authoritarian regime.
Theo Faron (Clive Owen), a disenchanted former activist, has ceased his resistance and now meanders through life as a civil servant. He’s so disconnected from the world that he barely registers the bombings, caged refugees, and public executions he encounters on his commute.
One day, Theo is abducted by his ex-wife Julian, who heads a rebel faction known as The Fishes, battling against the government for refugee rights. Julian implores Theo to safeguard Kee, a young African refugee, and assist her in escaping the country safely.
However, Theo soon discovers that Kee is astonishingly pregnant, carrying the world’s sole known unborn child. Driven by the need to protect this miracle, he risks everything to keep Kee’s condition under wraps and get her safely to the enigmatic Human Project, scientists seeking a cure for the global fertility crisis.
So why should you watch Children of Men?
Despite its stark backdrop, the film’s protagonist embodies hopefulness in his unwavering dedication to the prospect of a rejuvenated world.
The outpouring of support for Kee amidst such turmoil underscores a compelling truth: even in the bleakest circumstances, human kindness endures, proving that we have not strayed from our compassionate nature.
One of the captivating aspects of Children of Men is how palpably real and weathered its universe feels, peppered with background information gleaned from transient news reports, advertisements, and leaflets—a testament to the environment’s rich storytelling texture.
Packed with nuances, Children of Men invites viewers to engage deeply, promising new discoveries upon every viewing.
What critics are saying about Children of Men
This movie quite literally starts with a bang(Image: Universal Pictures )
Boasting an impressive 92% Rotten Tomatoes rating from over 250 critic reviews, Children of Men was also in the Oscar race for three categories (Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Cinematography, and Best Editing) back in 2007.
Brian Tallerico of UGO hailed it as “feels more relevant than almost every film set in the present day and is better than almost every other film made this year.”
Kathi Maio from The Magazine of Fantasy & Science Fiction remarked: “This is one movie that will have a lasting impact even if you are forced to watch it on a ten-inch black and white Zenith.”
Peter Travers, writing for Rolling Stone at the time, placed it as the runner-up in his best films of the 2000s list, commenting: “No movie this decade was more redolent of sorrowful beauty and exhilarating action. You don’t just watch the car ambush scene (pure camera wizardry)-you live inside it. That’s Cuarón’s magic: He makes you believe.”
Where to watch Children of Men
The film can be streamed on Apple TV’s £8.99 monthly subscription or via Now TV’s £9.99 a month Cinema membership. You can also purchase Children of Men on Amazon Prime for £5.99.
As Mayela got off the bus, she saw Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers raiding the pupusería she worked at in Los Angeles. The undocumented transgender Salvadoran woman watched from behind a car as her co-workers — including another trans Central American woman — were handcuffed and taken away in broad daylight.
“I had so much hope when I arrived to this country,” Mayela, played by Fernanda Celarie, says in her prayers later on. “Now that I’ve begun to feel comfortable living here, this is a nightmare. Why so much pain and suffering?”
“Trans Los Angeles” director Kase Peña wrote that scene into her feature film well before the ongoing ICE raids and subsequent protests in L.A., but the harsh reality of fear for the many undocumented people of the city was something she knew she needed to include.
“When I wrote it in 2021, ICE was a hot subject, and then it died down,” Peña told said ahead of her film’s premiere at the Los Angeles Latino International Film Festival on May 30. “My film was always relevant and needed. The fact that who we have in the White House right now makes my film even more relevant, more needed now that he’s brought the ICE thing back. That part [of the movie] is not going to look old. It’s unfortunate, but that’s going on.”
This is what Peña set out to do with her feature-length movie, which is composed of three non-overlapping vignettes sharing a wide-ranging set of experiences that Angelenos face daily.
Born and raised in New York, the Dominican American director moved to L.A. nearly a decade ago and was inspired to make her film after noticing a lack of representation for trans stories that reflected the realities of her community.
“When I started hanging with my trans community here in Los Angeles, my intentions were not to tell those stories,” Peña said. “It was something that I felt like there’s a void here, and I’m the right person to tell it because I’m both a filmmaker and a trans person.”
While the storylines of “Trans Los Angeles” drew inspiration from Peña’s personal experiences and fellow members of the trans community‘s stories, the film’s format was influenced by global cinema.
The director pulled from the seminal Soviet/Cuban political work “Soy Cuba” to land on the vignette structure of her film. She had originally wanted to mirror the 1964 movie’s four episodes but was unable to secure funding — a common dilemma faced by truly independent filmmakers — for her fourth snippet, which centered on a transmasculine character.
“A lot of people ask you questions like, ‘Why don’t the stories intertwine?’ It’s because it makes my life more difficult as an independent filmmaker,” she noted. “If you give me a million dollars, I can make the stories intertwined, but I was only getting enough money to shoot one segment at a time. I didn’t have money to shoot all three segments.”
These restraints forced “Trans Los Angeles” to be filmed over the course of several years. The first vignette, “Period,” was shot in March 2021; “Feliz Cumpleaños” was filmed soon after in June; “Trans Day of Remembrance” had to be pushed due to finances and was eventually recorded in November 2023 on Peña’s iPhone. That last segment was shot using “stolen locations” for exterior scene — the crew showed up to a spot and recorded without having film permits or insurance.
“That’s one reason why I decided to shoot it with my iPhone,” she said of the guerrilla filmmaking strategy. “If somebody would have came to me and said, ‘Hey, what are you guys doing over there?’ [We’d say] we’re just shooting something for Instagram on my iPhone. They’d be like, ‘Oh, OK.’”
The vignette “Period” centers on Vergara, a formerly incarcerated trans Latinx woman played by actor and model Carmen Carrera. The character lands a job as a nanny to a preteen girl while doing sex work on the side.
Carrera says she was drawn to the project because Peña’s script allowed her to portray a three-dimensional character.
“That is valuable because oftentimes us trans people are told that we’re not valuable, or that we’re wrong for existing, or that we shouldn’t be around kids, or we shouldn’t have responsibility or be people who are a contributing factor to society,” Carrera told said. . “It’s a reflection of my own life too. I am an active girlfriend, I am an active daughter, I’m an active sister. The trans experience is just a small part of my life. It’s not the totality of my human experience. I was just happy I felt more related to Vergara because it’s how I have always felt as well. In my own life, people judge me all the time.”
Another aspect of “Period” that connected Carrera to Vergara was the character’s relationship with her mother.
“I think as a first-generation American, you have that extra layer of [thinking], ‘My parents came to this country and sacrificed so much, and if I don’t make them proud it’s gonna be a waste,’ ” she said.
Central to the plot of “Period” was the community that Vergara was able to tap into thanks to the TransLatin@ Coalition, a real-life advocacy group based out of L.A. that seeks to create safe spaces for transgender, gender expansive and intersex immigrant women in the city.
“The reason the TransLatin@ Coalition is in the film is because that came from me,” Peña said. “I in real life have gone to TransLatin@ to seek the services that they provide for trans people of color. Because I’m a writer and I go there, I see this place and I’m like, ‘I can tell the story and include them.’ ”
The second segment of the feature, “Trans Day of Remembrance,” is named after the annual day of observance on Nov. 20 of those whose lives were lost due to transphobia.
The story follows Phoebe (Austria Wang), a Taiwanese American transgender woman, as she maneuvers her romantic life and processes the death of one of her fellow trans friends. For this vignette, Peña intentionally cast transmasculine actor Jordan Gonzalez to play Phoebe’s cis boyfriend, Sam. .
“We’ve had cisgender people play trans roles, and it’s the first time [Gonzalez has played a cisgender role]. It was something that they’ve been wanting to do for a while, but this industry doesn’t see them as that, because they only see them as trans,” Peña said. “It was something that they yearned for and perhaps now, because they’ve done it, other people would consider casting them that way too.”
The final segment, “Feliz Cumpleaños,” portrays an ICE raid on a Salvadoran business while telling the story of Mayela’s hopes and aspirations for her life as she prepares for her baptism at an LGBTQ+ friendly church.
As an outsider to the Salvadoran experience, Peña leaned on actual members of the Central American country to adjust and approve of her script.
“I want to acknowledge that I’m not from El Salvador. As a person of color, as a Dominican filmmaker, as a transgender filmmaker, I have often seen filmmakers from other communities come and tell my story, and they don’t check in,” Peña explained. “They think they can just write it. They don’t get it right sometimes, and then they go win major awards. I didn’t want to disrespect the community like that.”
Peña emphasizes that the movie tells stories that get to the heart of the struggle and beauty of being human in L.A.
But ultimately her film is only a slice of the overall trans experience, she says, a unique series of stories informed by a writer whose ethos can be encapsulated in her own views on her own trans identity.
“For me, being transgender is not about passing. Being transgender is about having the freedom to be who you are,” Peña said. “I’m not trying to look like a woman. This is me. That’s it, whatever that means.”
Whether soaring through the sky or sharing a playful moment with his human bestie Hiccup, Toothless, the dark-hued dragon with a friendly face and an injured tail, disarms you with his endearing nature.
It’s no surprise that he’s become the emblem of the “How to Train Your Dragon” animated movies, the first of which arrived in 2010. (There have since been two sequels, three separate TV series and five shorts.) A fan favorite among Gen-Z viewers, Toothless now returns to the big screen in a new hyper-realist iteration for the live-action remake, now in theaters.
And in an unprecedented move, Dean DeBlois, who directed all three “Dragon” animated films — as well as 2002’s original “Lilo & Stitch,” along with Chris Sanders — was asked to helm the live-action reimagining. It was his priority to preserve Toothless’ essence.
“He is our most recognizable dragon within the entire assortment,” DeBlois says on the phone. “And he has a lot of sentience and personality that comes through. And so much of it is expressed in this face that’s quite Stitch-like with the big eyes, the ear plates and the broad mouth.”
In fact, the entire live-action endeavor hinged on whether Toothless could be properly translated as a photorealistic dragon among human actors and physical sets, while retaining the charm of the animated movies.
An image from the original 2010 animated “How to Train Your Dragon.”
(DreamWorks Animation LLC)
According to Christian Manz, the new film’s visual effects supervisor, when Peter Cramer, president of Universal Pictures, initially considered the project back in 2022, he wasn’t convinced Toothless would work. His touchstone for a fantastical creature that successfully achieved believability was the Hippogriff, a winged four-legged creature seen in 2004’s “Harry Potter and the Prisoner of Azkaban.”
To test the viability of a new Toothless, DreamWorks enlisted British visual effects and computer animation outfit Framestore to spend three months trying to create a “realistic” version of Toothless. Framestore has had some popular successes to its name: Paddington Bear in the film series, Dobby from the “Harry Potter” universe and Groot and Rocket Raccoon from the Marvel movies.
“We always knew that we weren’t aiming for a real dragon, as in a ‘Game of Thrones’ dragon,” says Manz, via video call from the U.K.
Toothless’ design, particularly his facial features, presented a challenge for Manz and the team at Framestore. If they made his eyes or his mouth too small or if they tried to drastically reshape his head with more naturalism in mind, he quickly lost his personality.
“His big, expressive face with eyes that are larger than any animal in the animal kingdom, including the blue whale, had to remain because, without them, we felt like we were going to be delivering a lesser version of Toothless,” says DeBlois.
A stage show based on the first film called “How to Train Your Dragon: Live Spectacular,” which toured Australia and New Zealand in 2012, radically changed the design — to a mixed response. “Toothless was too creature-like and it just wasn’t as appealing and as charming,” says Simon Otto, head of character animation for all three animated movies, via Zoom.
While they may be too subtle for an untrained viewer to notice, certain design changes have been made that differentiate the live-action Toothless from his animated counterpart.
“He’s now bigger, his head’s smaller, his eyes are actually smaller,” says Manz. The nuanced reshaping of his head and his body was intentional: an effort to make him blend into a photorealistic world.
“The interesting thing is that when people see the live-action movie, they say, ‘Oh, it’s Toothless, like he stepped out of the animated movie,’” says DeBlois. “But in truth, if you put them side by side, you’ll see quite a few differences.”
The texture of Toothless’ body needed to be more intricate for the live-action version, so he would feel more convincingly integrated within the environments.
“In the animation, he’s quite smooth,” says Manz. “We tried very snake-like skin, but it just made him look very unfriendly. You wouldn’t want to put your hand on his forehead.”
Mason Thames in “How to Train Your Dragon.”
(Universal Pictures)
Both on-screen versions of Toothless were crafted using essentially the same digital technique: computer animation. The difference here is that the one meant to share space with a flesh-and-blood world, with distinct aesthetic concerns. Even if seeking realism in creatures that only exist in our imagination might seem counterintuitive, the goal is to make them feel palpable within their made-up realm.
“One of the things I don’t like about live-action remakes is they seem to try to want to replace the animated source, and I find myself very protective of it,” says DeBlois with refreshing candor. “We tried to create a version that lives alongside it. It follows the beats of that original story, but brings new depths and expanded mythology and more immersive action moments and flying. But it’s never trying to replace the animated movie because I’m very proud of that film.”
Toothless as we now know him originated expressly for the screen. The Toothless in Cressida Cowell’s originating book series is tiny and green (a design that can be seen in the first animated movie in the form of a minuscule dragon known as Terrible Terror).
But when DeBlois and Sanders came aboard, 15 months before the 2010 release, replacing the previous directors, their first major change was to make Toothless a dragon that could be ridden.
It was the screensaver of a black panther that first inspired the look of Toothless in the animated films. Otto, one of the designers who knows Toothless best (he drew the original back in 2008), recalls his real-world animal references.
“He is a mix between a bird of prey, like a peregrine falcon, with extremely streamlined shapes — of course a feline but also a Mexican salamander called an axolotl,” Otto says. Sanders’ design for Disney superstar Stitch, namely his large almond-shaped eyes, ears and pronounced mouth, also influenced the design.
“There’s a little bit of a design influence from Stitch in Toothless’ face that makes them feel like they’re distant cousins,” says DeBlois.
He believes that making Toothless more closely resemble a mammal, rather than a reptile, and giving him pet-like qualities were the keys for him becoming so memorable.
“[We] spent a lot of time on YouTube looking at videos of dogs and cats doing funny things,” he says. “And we would try to incorporate a lot of that behavior into Toothless with the hopes that when people watched the movie, they would say, ‘That’s just like my cat’ or ‘My dog does that.’ We wanted him to feel like a big pet. Ferocious and dangerous at first, but then a big cuddly cat after.”
Mason Thames interacts on set with the puppet version of Toothless.
(Helen Sloan)
On the set of the live-action movie, Toothless and the other dragons existed as large puppets with simple functions, operated by a team of master puppeteers led by Tom Wilton, a performer who had worked on the “War Horse” stage play.
Using puppets was meant to provide the actors, especially Mason Thames, who plays Hiccup, a real-world scene partner. The Toothless foam puppet had an articulated jaw and articulated ear plates that allowed for a subtle, interactive performance.
“There’s a performance that Dean can direct and that Mason and the other actors could act against, so that the interaction is utterly believable,” says Manz. “[The puppets] are obviously removed from the frame in the end, but it just means you believe that connection.”
As for the impressive flight sequences, in which Hiccup rides Toothless, the production created an animatronic dragon placed on a giant gimbal that moved on six different axes to simulate the physics of flying.
“If the dragon was diving or ascending or banking and rolling, Mason would be thrown around in the saddle, like a jockey on a racehorse,” says DeBlois. “And it married him to the animal in a way that felt really authentic.”
Mason Thames rides the flying Toothless on an animatronic model.
(Helen Sloan)
For all his success in the animated realm, DeBlois has never directed a live-action film until now.
“I do commend Universal for taking a risk on me knowing that I had not made a live-action film, but also recognizing that I knew where the heart and the wonder was, and I was determined to bring it to the screen,” he says.
Otto, the designer who trained Toothless before anybody else, candidly says he would have “peed his pants” if he knew the drawings he did back in 2008 would spawn a franchise and a theme-park attraction (a re-creation of the films’ Isle of Berk opened at Universal Studios Florida earlier this year).
“The most critical choice they made for the live-action was making sure the audience falls in love with Toothless,” he adds. “And that you understand that if you have a creature like that as your friend, you wouldn’t give up on it.”
Politicians typically don’t mind campaign documentaries, because a race is a road show and the camera is a practice run for the performance part of the gig. Having a lens on what postelection governance looks like, however, is a rarity in nonfiction, which makes “Prime Minister” something of a unicorn: an intimate view inside the consequential, galvanizing five-year administration of New Zealand’s progressive leader Jacinda Ardern, who also became a first-time mother simultaneous to taking her country’s highest seat of power.
Of course, partnering with someone who has behind-closed-doors access is a terrific asset, and co-directors Michelle Walshe and Lindsay Utz have a key one in Ardern’s partner and now husband Clarke Gayford, one of the film’s cinematographers (and sometimes its most humorously hesitant interviewer, especially when your formidable girlfriend has had a tough day). Despite the laughable scrutiny Ardern endured from critics about whether a new mom could govern (or whether a head of state should “mommy”), “Prime Minister” makes clear in its many relatable domestic scenes featuring new daughter Neve (who’s adorable) that such questions are ridiculous.
The point made by the filmmakers is that the job of looking after a country’s people — and the mix of love and steel required to personally care for a child — might just go hand in hand. We certainly know which looming responsibility triggered the most reluctance in Ardern, as early on we watch the special minority coalition circumstances in 2017 that thrust a then-37-year-old Ardern from opposition-party leader to prime minister in only two months.
For Ardern, an articulate spokesperson of heart and mind, it was an unexpected chance to effect change on a platform of issues that mattered to her. That opportunity was greater than any personal doubts she may have had, including a nagging sense of impostor syndrome. As she says, “I could only be myself.”
Which means: compassionate, wry and unbowed. Ardern was quick-witted enough to sparkle on Stephen Colbert and shrewd enough to pass effective climate change legislation and protect a woman’s right to choose. “Prime Minister” is not be that interested in wrangling, dealing and lawmaking, or even the nuts and bolts of her progressive views. (You crave more scenes of her debating — she seems especially strong at it.) But in the fleet, pacey manner of the editing, toggling between private and public moments with highlight-reel efficiency, the film is a stirring glimpse of top-down kindness as a winning leadership style. After the Christchurch tragedies, twin shootings that took 51 lives, she showed the most heartfelt empathy, then knuckled down and got assault weapons off the streets. Tears beget toughness.
Ardern is so appealing, her manner so purposeful despite her admitted anxieties, that her struggle to respond forcefully and humanely to the pandemic — then endure threatening protests fueled by American-grown disinformation — is hard to watch. She became a rageful minority’s easy target, exemplary COVID management statistics be damned. Stepping down in 2023, Ardern sacrificied power for her own sanity. (One wonders if 21st-century leadership is just too chaotic for thoughtful people — and only suited to megalomaniacs.)
“Prime Minister” is an essential political portrait in how it seeds optimism and concern, leaving you with hope that more Jacinda Arderns are in the wings ready to enshrine common sense, despite the risks. There’s no doubt that when it mattered most, her high-wattage sensitivity was a towering strength. As showcased in this film, it’s a precious resource we could use a lot more of.
“Hacks” won the comedy series Emmy last year on the strength of a campaign that proclaimed: Vote for us! We’re actually a comedy (unlike, you know, “The Bear”).
So what happens this year when the show stopped being funny?
I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. There’s not much to laugh about these days, so let’s pick our spots and consider the TV series vying for television’s top award.
Newsletter
Sign up for The Envelope
Get exclusive awards season news, in-depth interviews and columnist Glenn Whipp’s must-read analysis straight to your inbox.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
‘Hacks’ Season 4 leaves room for a new winner
Let me just say at the outset that I enjoy “Hacks.” And like everyone else on the planet, I adore Jean Smart and appreciate that Lucia Aniello, Paul W. Downs and Jen Statsky created a role worthy of her talents. Comparing notes with Smart on the best sad sing-along songs is a memory I’ll always treasure, and even inspired me for a time to dip back into listening to “love songs on the Coast.”
At its essence, “Hacks” is a love story between Smart’s stand-up legend Deborah Vance and Ava Daniels (Hannah Einbinder), the young writer who helped Deborah reinvent her career. They come from different generations and possess distinct comic sensibilities. They fight, hurt each other, separate and ultimately reunite after realizing that they’re better together. They get each other. Or at least, Ava gets Deborah. And that’s enough because Deborah is the star and she doesn’t really need to bother understanding Ava’s Gen Z peculiarities. She can just roll her eyes.
Their mutual dependence is believable enough. They both live for work. So much so that at the end of “Hacks’” third season, Ava has blackmailed Deborah, an act that lands her the head writer job that Deborah had promised to give her on her late-night talk show. Ava was but the learner, now she’s the master. Well played, Dark Lady of the Sith.
It was, as our old friend Jeff Probst would say, an epic blindside, and you can understand why this current season would begin with bitter acrimony between the two women, a situation so toxic that the network brought in a human resources rep to keep them from harming each other.
The animosity wasn’t fun to watch. The tone was shrill and off-putting. Was there a joke that landed in the season’s first half? I don’t remember one, but maybe that’s because I was curled up in a fetal position watching the plot unfold.
At least amid the drama of “The Bear,” I could get some some inspiration for a good set of kitchen knives.
Julianne Nicholson’s “Dance Mom” was a bright spot of “Hacks” Season 4.
(Max)
Of course, Deborah and Ava got back together, which was a relief because that HR lady was annoying. The season’s penultimate episode was ridiculous, but in all the best ways, surprising and emotionally satisfying. Helen Hunt finally scored a big moment. And Julianne Nicholson showed some moves as Dance Mom that I never imagined her possessing. Get that character to rehab and into Season 5.
Yes, “Hacks” can still entertain. Even the anticlimactic final episode gave Smart the opportunity to play boozy and bored, showcasing her depth as a dramatic actor. One would think that after what transpired, Deborah would have more opportunities, even with a noncompete clause, to parlay her ethical stance into something more meaningful than a sad casino gig in Singapore. But the finale set up one final comeback — final because “Hacks” was pitched with a five-season arc. And we’re on the doorstep.
At least they won’t have to contrive to separate Ava and Deborah again.
So, by all means, nominate “Hacks” for comedy series again. I’d rather rewatch it than nod off during the tepid “Four Seasons.” And maybe since the show’s creators have known (since 2015) what the final scene will be, we’ll have a persuasive fifth season possessing the energy of a great Deborah Vance comeback.
In the meantime, keep last year’s mandate going and give the Emmy to a show that was consistently funny.
For more than a quarter century, director Kevin Smith has tried to resurrect “Dogma,” his religious satire about two fallen angels looking to get back into heaven. Recently, his prayers for the 1999 comedy were finally answered.
On Thursday, the movie got a theatrical re-release across 1,500 AMC Theatres screens in honor of its 25th anniversary. Technically, the milestone was last year. But the second coming of a movie that brought us one of Ben Affleck and Matt Damon’s best on-screen collaborations and an A-list comedic ensemble — including George Carlin, Chris Rock, Janeane Garofalo and Alan Rickman — not to mention the meme-worthy, winking “Buddy Christ,” warrants a long-awaited hallelujah.
“It’s got a good legacy to it,” Smith said of the film. “It’s become the ‘umbrella film’ for me. The umbrella film is the movie that no matter what you do, even if you make s— that people don’t like, they won’t crucify you — pun intended — because you made a movie that they like.”
“To me, it plays like a kid really trying to celebrate his faith after having grown up in a church where every Sunday, everyone seemed to be mourning it. … It’s a love letter to spirituality,” Kevin Smith said about “Dogma.”
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
Though the sparkling period of Smith’s career is largely defined by 1994’s “Clerks” and 1997’s “Chasing Amy,” his fourth film, “Dogma,” steeped in irreverence and hilarity centered around his former Catholic faith, is still considered one of his classics. The movie debuted at Cannes in 1999. He returned to the renowned film festival last month, when the comedy played in the Cannes Classics section, just days before sitting down with The Times on camera to discuss “Dogma’s” whirlwind re-release. In the interview, the director, writer and actor recounts how the movie was saved by filmmaker and actor Alessandra Williams, who raised money to buy the film from Miramax earlier this year, decades after it was acquired and shelved by disgraced producer Harvey Weinstein. Weinstein sold Smith’s film, along with a trove of others, to Williams to help pay for his legal defense, Smith said.
In collaboration with Iconic Events, the film has since been remastered in 4K for its screening tour and is being shown in select AMC theaters. Smith is well-seasoned when it comes to touring his old films, pairing the screenings with Q&As and stand-up performances throughout the live presentations. It took little time for him to book a sold-out, 20-city tour aimed at getting fans fired up to come see “Dogma” once again under much different (and safer) circumstances.
“Even with getting people aware of the movie this time around, it’s not as fraught with peril as it was back in the day,” Smith said, referring to the death threats, protests and 400,000 pieces of hate mail he said the movie garnered from Christian extremists who denounced what they believed to be the film’s mockery of their faith.
“You Jews better take that money you stole from us and start investing in flak jackets,” Smith said while closing his eyes and reciting one of the letters from memory. “We’re coming because we’re coming in there with shotguns. Signed, Your Brothers in Christ.”
Though the controversy of the film has definitely waned, the inspiration behind the film remains steadfast, Smith said. “To me, it plays like a kid really trying to celebrate his faith after having grown up in a church where every Sunday, everyone seemed to be mourning it. So I think [people hopefully see it] for what it is. It’s a love letter to spirituality.”
When “Good Night, and Good Luck” arrived on Broadway this spring, it initially provoked a surprising amount of cynicism. There were complaints that the adaptation by George Clooney and Grant Heslov was basically a reproduction of the 2005 film, which chronicled CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow’s heroic crusade against Sen. Joseph McCarthy’s communist witch hunts.
The sky-high cost of tickets was another source of criticism. Was Broadway pricing itself beyond the reach of its core audience? Reports of “Good Night, and Good Luck” shattering box office records served to remind those who couldn’t afford a ticket that they were being left behind by a theater culture that was siding with the haves over the have-nots.
In a Broadway season that featured Denzel Washington and Jake Gyllenhaal in a rudderless “Othello” and Kieran Culkin in a “Glengarry Glen Ross” revival that might have been stronger without him, “Good Night, and Good Luck” was a convenient target for anti-Hollywood sentiment.
When I arrived at the Winter Garden for a Saturday matinee in April, I can’t say my expectations were especially high. I admired the film but hadn’t seen it in nearly 20 years. The broodingly elegant production, sharply directed by David Cromer and starring a quietly committed Clooney in the role of Murrow (played in the film by David Strathairn), was not only one of the most stirring offerings of the Broadway season but also one of the most necessary.
I left the theater wishing I could buy tickets for my friends and family. That won’t be necessary — thankfully for my credit cards — because CNN will be broadcasting a live performance of “Good Night, and Good Luck” from the Winter Garden on Saturday (4 p.m. PDT). It’s apparently the first time a Broadway play will be shown live on television, and the timing could not be better.
As media companies face a campaign of intimidation from the Trump administration, the figure of Murrow, standing tall in the face of demagogic adversity, is the courageous example we need right now.
I don’t know how different the experience will be watching at home, but “Good Night, and Good Luck” made me reflect on what theatergoing might have been like in ancient Greece. Athenian citizens would gather at an open-air theater as a democratic privilege and responsibility. Playwrights addressed the polis not by dramatizing current events but by recasting tales from the mythological and historic past to sharpen critical thinking on contemporary concerns.
Clooney and Heslov aren’t writing dramatic poetry. Their more straightforward approach is closer to documentary drama, but the effect is not so disparate. We are affirmed in the knowledge that we are the body politic.
CNN will broadcast the penultimate performance of “Good Night, and Good Luck” on the eve of the Tony Awards. The production is up for five Tonys, including one for Clooney in the lead performance by an actor in a play category. But however the awards shake out, Clooney is already a winner. Like Murrow, he reminds us that conscience can still be a defining feature of the American character.
Saturday afternoon out west and evening back east, as citizens faced off against ICE agents in the streets of Los Angeles, “Good Night, and Good Luck,” George Clooney’s 2005 dramatic film tribute to CBS newsman Edward R. Murrow, became a Major Television Event, broadcast live from Manhattan’s Winter Garden Theater, by CNN and Max. That it was made available free to anyone with an internet connection, via the CNN website, was a nice gesture to theater fans, Clooney stans and anyone interested to see how a movie about television translates into a play about television.
The broadcast is being ballyhooed as historic, the first time a play has been aired live from Broadway. And while there is no arguing with that fact, performances of plays have been recorded onstage before, and are being so now. It’s a great practice; I wish it were done more often. At the moment, PBS.org is streaming recent productions of Cole Porter’s “Kiss Me, Kate!,” the Bob Dylan-scored “Girl From the North Country,” David Henry Hwang‘s “Yellow Face” and the Pulitzer Prize-winning mental health rock musical “Next to Normal.” Britain’s National Theater at Home subscription service offers a wealth of classical and modern plays, including Andrew Scott’s one-man “Vanya,” as hot a ticket in New York this spring as Clooney’s play. And the archives run deep; that a trip to YouTube can deliver you Richard Burton’s “Hamlet” or “Sunday in the Park With George” with Mandy Patinkin and Bernadette Peters is a gift not to be overlooked.
Clooney, with co-star Anthony Edwards, had earlier been behind a live broadcast of “Ambush,” the fourth season opener of “ER” as a throwback to the particular seat-of-your-pants, walking-on-a-wire energy of 1950s television. (It was performed twice, once for the East and once for the West Coast.) That it earned an audience of 42.71 million, breaking a couple of records in the bargain, suggests that, from a commercial perspective, it was not at all a bad idea. (Reviews were mixed, but critics don’t know everything.)
Like that episode, the “live” element of Saturday’s broadcast was essentially a stunt, though one that ensured, at least, that no post-production editing has been applied, and that if anyone blew a line, or the house was invaded by heckling MAGA hats, or simply disrupted by audience members who regarded the enormous price they paid for a ticket as a license to chatter through the show, it would presumably have been part of the broadcast. None of that happened — but, it could have! (Clooney did stumble over “simple,” but that’s all I caught.) And, it offered the groundlings at home the chance to see a much-discussed, well-reviewed production only a relatively few were able to see in person — which I applaud on principal and enjoyed in practice — and which will very probably not come again, not counting the next day’s final performance.
Glenn Fleshler, left, plays Fred Friendly in the stage production, a role that George Clooney performed in the film version of “Good Night, and Good Luck.”
(Emilio Madrid)
The film, directed by Clooney and co-written with Grant Heslov (who co-wrote the stage version as well), featured the actor as producer and ally Fred W. Friendly to David Strathairn’s memorable Murrow. Here, a more aggressive Clooney takes the Murrow role, while Glenn Fleshler plays Friendly. Released during the second term of the Bush administration, the movie was a meditation on the state of things through the prism of 1954 (and a famous framing speech from 1958 about the possibilities and potential failures of television), the fear-fueled demagoguery of Wisconsin Sen. Joseph McCarthy, and Murrow’s determination to take him on. (The 1954 “See It Now” episode, “A Report on Sen. Joseph McCarthy,” helped bring about his end.) As in the film, McCarthy is represented entirely through projected film clips, echoing the way that Murrow impeached the senator with his own words.
It’s a combination of political and backstage drama — with a soupcon of office romance, represented by the secretly married Wershbas (Ilana Glazer and Carter Hudson) — even more hermetically set within the confines of CBS News than was the film. It felt relevant in 2005, before the influence of network news was dissolved in the acid of the internet and an administration began assaulting the legitimate press with threats and lawsuits; but the play’s discussions of habeas corpus, due process, self-censoring media and the both-sides-ism that seems increasingly to afflict modern media feel queasily contemporary. “I simply cannot accept that there are, on every story two equal and logical sides to an argument,” says Clooney’s Murrow to his boss, William F. Paley (an excellent Paul Gross, from the great “Slings & Arrows”). As was shown here, Murrow offered McCarthy equal time on “See It Now” — which he hosted alongside the celebrity-focused “Person to Person,” represented by an interview with Liberace — but it proved largely a rope for the senator to hang himself.
Though modern stage productions, with their computer-controlled modular parts, can replicate the rhythms and scene changes of a film, there are obvious differences between a movie, where camera angles and editing drive the story. It’s an illusion of life, stitched together from bits and pieces. A stage play proceeds in real time and offers a single view (differing, of course, depending on where one sits), within which you direct your attention as you will. What illusions it offers are, as it were, stage magic. It’s choreographed, like a dance, which actors must repeat night after night, putting feeling into lines they may speak to one another, but send out to the farthest corners of the theater.
Clooney, whose furrowed brow is a good match for Murrow’s, did not attempt to imitate him, or perhaps did within the limits of theatrical delivery; he was serious and effective in the role if not achieving the quiet perfection of Strathairn’s performance. Scott Pask‘s set was an ingenious moving modular arrangement of office spaces, backed by a control room, highlighted or darkened as needs be; a raised platform stage left supported the jazz group and vocalist, which, as in the movie, performed songs whose lyrics at times commented slyly on the action. Though television squashed the production into two dimensions, the broadcast nevertheless felt real and exciting; director David Comer let the camera play on the players, rather than trying for a cinematic effect through an excess of close-ups and cutaways.
While the play generally followed the lines of the film, there was some rearrangement of scenes, reassignment of dialogue — it was a streamlined cast — and interpolations to make a point, or more directly pitch to 2025. New York news anchor Don Hollenbeck (Clark Gregg, very moving in the only role with an emotional arc) described feeling “hijacked … as if all the reasonable people went to Europe and left us behind,” getting a big reaction. One character wondered about opening “the door to news with a dash of commentary — what happens when it isn’t Edward R. Murrow minding the store?” A rapid montage of clips tracking the decay of TV news and politics — including Obama’s tan suit kerfuffle and the barring of AP for not bowing to Trump’s Gulf of America edit and ending with Elon Musk’s notorious straight-arm gesture, looking like nothing so much as a Nazi salute — was flown into Clooney’s final speech.
Last but not least, there is the audience, your stand-ins at the Winter Garden Theatre, which laughed at the jokes and applauded the big speeches, transcribed from Murrow’s own. And then, the curtain call, to remind you that whatever came before, the actors are fine, drinking in your appreciation and sending you out happy and exhilarated and perhaps full of hope.
A CNN roundtable followed to bring you back to Earth.
A Hugh Grant classic from the 1990s is now available
A beloved Hugh Grant rom-com has just become available on BBCiPlayer, offering viewers the chance to fall in love with the classic all over again for free, reports Surrey Live.
Released in 1994, amid the golden era of British romantic comedies, the film was penned by renowned screenwriter Richard Curtis.
Hugh Grant, who was a fresh-faced 32 year old teetering on the edge of quitting his acting career, found the script transformative and took on the leading role that would define his future.
His performance turned him into a household name in Hollywood and opened the door to an eclectic mix of roles ranging from the American horror flick Heretic to the family favourite Paddington.
One particularly impressed cinema-goer shared on Rotten Tomatoes: “This is absolutely the best film of Hugh Grant’s career.”
Another fan commented: “A Classic of 1990’s British cinema [sic].”
Hugh Grant is known for his romantic comedies(Image: HBO)
One viewer reflected: “Simply a charming movie. It gives you a slice of life about love and relationships and makes you realise that it is never too late to go for the person you love amidst all missed opportunities in the past.”
An additional admirer remarked: “This film still holds up. Grant is at his absolute peak of charm before he reinvented smarm, Scott Thomas is divine, as and MacDowell’s performance is surprisingly great on rewatch. And it includes one of the all time great gay moments in film history. No spoilers.
“Richard Curtis is a godsend to modern romantic comedy fans because he is one of the few artists still able to get films produced within this genre and to write pretty funny screenplays too,” praised another cinema-goer.
Four Weddings and a Funeral was an absolute smash when it hit cinemas, starring Hugh Grant as the bashful Charles who falls head over heels for the lively American Carrie, played by Andie MacDowell.
Hugh Grant and Anna Chancellor in Four Weddings and a Funeral(Image: HBO)
The film traced the tumultuous journey to love for Charles and Carrie, set against the backdrop of his friends’ own romantic escapades.
Boasting a stellar ensemble cast, Four Weddings and a Funeral featured the likes of Kristin Scott Thomas, Simon Callow, James Fleet, Rowan Atkinson, David Haig, and Anna Chancellor.
It’s rumoured that writer Richard Curtis drew inspiration for the screenplay from his personal encounters at weddings, including a proposition he declined, only to regret it later.
The partnership between Grant and Curtis on Four Weddings and a Funeral marked the start of a fruitful collaboration, which continued with hits like Notting Hill in 1999, Bridget Jones’s Diary in 2001, and Love Actually in 2003.
Their collective efforts helped catapult British romantic comedies onto the world stage, setting a high bar that many subsequent films have struggled to reach.
Four Weddings and a Funeral propelled Hugh Grant into the spotlight(Image: GETTY)
Just last year, Grant had the honour of presenting Curtis with an honorary Oscar at the Governors Awards, a nod to the writer’s impressive body of work.
Before presenting the award, Grant quipped: “[My agent] sent me this very good script and it had a great part and it was called Four Weddings and a Funeral.”
I went to the audition and, frankly, I was rather good because the director Mike Newell liked me and wanted me and the producer liked me and wanted me and the money people wanted me. “”The only person who didn’t want me and, in fact, took such an instant violent dislike to me, that he did everything in his power to stop me getting the part, was the writer, and it is this a***hole who we are going to honour tonight.”
His joke had the audience, including Curtis, in fits of laughter.
Most recently, Grant reprised his iconic role as Daniel Cleaver for Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy, marking a return to romcoms.
Four Weddings and a Funeral is streaming on the BBC iPlayer now
Kyra Sedgwick, David Paymer and a cast that includes Method Man are put through paces by director Daniel Robbins for a comedy that feels devoid of freshness.
Sean Byrne knows how to show an audience a bad time. Sixteen years ago, the Australian filmmaker launched onto the scene with “The Loved Ones,” his proudly grisly debut about a misfit teenager who gets gruesome revenge on the boy who refused to go to prom with her. Part expert torture porn, part exploration of adolescent romantic anxieties, the film was an instant midnight-madness cult item that took Byrne six years to follow up.
When he did, he went in a different tonal direction with “The Devil’s Candy,” a surprisingly emotional psychological thriller about a heavy-metal-loving painter who moves his family to a beautifully rustic home, only to lose his mind. Working in recognizable horror subgenres, Byrne entices you with a familiar premise and then slowly teases apart the tropes, leaving you unsettled but also invigorated by his inventiveness.
It has now been a decade since that distinctive riff on “The Shining,” and for Byrne’s third feature, he once again pillages from indelible sources. “Dangerous Animals” draws from both the serial-killer thriller and Hollywood’s penchant for survival stories about hungry sharks feasting on human flesh. But unlike in the past, Byrne’s new movie never waylays you with a surprise narrative wrinkle or unexpected thematic depth. He hasn’t lost his knack for generating bad vibes, but this time he hasn’t brought anything else to the party.
The movie stars Hassie Harrison as Zephyr, a solitary surfer who explains in on-the-nose dialogue that she prefers the danger of open water to the unhappiness of life on land. An American in Australia who grew up in foster homes and who lives in a beat-up old van, Zephyr encounters Moses (Josh Heuston), a straitlaced nice guy whom she hooks up with. Not that she wants him developing feelings for her: She takes off in the middle of the night so she can catch some waves. Unfortunately, Zephyr is the one who gets caught — by Tucker (Jai Courtney), a deceptively gregarious boat captain who kidnaps her. Next thing she knows, she’s chained up inside his vessel out at sea, alongside another female victim, Heather (Ella Newton).
Like many a movie serial killer, Tucker isn’t just interested in murdering his prey — he wants to make something artistic out of his butchery. And so he ties Heather to a crane and dangles her in the water like a giant lure, pulling out a camcorder to record her final moments as sharks devour her. Watching his victims struggle to stay alive is cinema to this twisted soul and Zephyr will be his next unwitting protagonist.
Working from a script by visual artist Nick Lepard, Byrne (who wrote his two previous features) digs into the story’s B-movie appeal. Tucker may use old-fashioned technology to record his kills, but “Dangerous Animals” is set in the present, even if its trashy, drive-in essence would have made it better suited to come out 50 years ago as counterprogramming to “Jaws.” With Zephyr’s tough-girl demeanor and Tucker’s creepy vibe, Byrne knowingly plays into genre clichés, setting up the inevitable showdown between the beauty and the beast.
But despite that juicy setup, “Dangerous Animals” is a disappointingly straightforward and ultimately underwhelming horror movie, offering little of the grim poetry of Byrne’s previous work and far too much of the narrative predictability that in the past he astutely sidestepped. There are still subversive ideas — for one thing, this is a shark film with precious few sharks — but Byrne’s sneaky smarts have largely abandoned him. Rather than transcending expectations, “Dangerous Animals” surrenders to them.
One can’t fault Harrison, whose Zephyr spends much of the movie in a battle of wills with her captor. Because “Dangerous Animals” limits the amount of sharks we see, digitally inserting footage of the deadly creatures into scenes, the story’s central tension comes from Zephyr trying to free herself or get help before Tucker prepares his next nautical snuff film. Harrison projects a ferocious determination that’s paired with an intense loathing for this condescending, demented misogynist. It’s bad enough that Tucker wants to murder her — beforehand, he wants to bore her with shark trivia, dully advocating for these misunderstood animals. It’s an underdeveloped joke: “Dangerous Animals” is a nightmare about meeting the mansplainer from hell.
Alas, Courtney’s conception of the film’s true dangerous animal is where the story truly runs aground. The actor’s handsome, vaguely blank countenance is meant to suggest a burly, hunky everyman — the sort of person you’d never suspect or look twice at, which makes Tucker well-positioned to leave a trail of corpses in his path. But neither Byrne nor Courtney entirely gets their arms around this conventionally unhinged horror villain. “Dangerous Animals” overly underlines its point that we shouldn’t be afraid of sharks — it’s the Tuckers who ought to keep us up at night — but Courtney never captures the unfathomable malice beneath the facial scruff. We root for Zephyr to escape Tucker’s clutches not because he’s evil but because he’s a bit of a stiff.
Even with those deficiencies, the film boasts a level of craft that keeps the story fleet, with Byrne relying on the dependable tension of a victim trapped at sea with her pursuer, sharks waiting in the waters surrounding her. Michael Yezerski’s winkingly emphatic score juices every scare as the gore keeps ratcheting up — particularly during a moment when Zephyr finds an unexpected way to break out of handcuffs.
But Byrne can’t redeem the script’s boneheaded plot twists, nor can he elevate the most potentially intriguing idea at its core. As Tucker peers into his viewfinder, getting off on his victims’ screams as sharks sink their jaws into them, “Dangerous Animals” hints at the fixation horror directors such as Byrne have for presenting us with unspeakable terrors, insisting we love the bloodshed as much as they do. Tucker tries to convince Zephyr that they’re not all that different — they’re both sharks, you see — but in truth, Byrne may be suggesting an uncomfortable kinship with his serial killer. But instead of provocatively pursuing that unholy bond, the director only finds chum.
‘Dangerous Animals’
Rated: R, for strong bloody violent content/grisly images, sexuality, language and brief drug use
This powerful hit drama is leaving Netflix later this month
Ketsuda Phoutinane Spare Time Content Editor and Lucas Hill-Paul Content Editor
22:25, 07 Jun 2025
WWII film that ‘blows Dunkirk out of the water’ is leaving Netflix soon
Joe Wright’s cinematic masterpiece Atonement, starring Keira Knightley and James McAvoy, has made an indelible impact with its seven Oscar nominations and a box office return that quadrupled its budget.
Set against the backdrop of World War 2, Atonement is a riveting tale that unfolds over one sultry day in 1935, with consequences rippling through the decades. The film boasts an epic five-minute continuous shot featuring 1,000 extras that captures the Dunkirk evacuation chaos from McAvoy’s perspective.
For those intrigued, time is ticking to watch this war drama on Netflix, as it departs the service on 16th June.
The film enjoys an impressive 83% ‘fresh’ rating on Rotten Tomatoes, where the critical consensus reads: “Atonement features strong performances, brilliant cinematography, and a unique score. Featuring deft performances from James MacAvoy and Keira Knightley, it’s a successful adaptation of Ian McEwan’s novel.”
Atonement clinched the Best Film accolade at the BAFTAs, took home the Best Original Score at the Oscars, and earned Saoirse Ronan an Oscar nod for Best Supporting Actress at just 13 years old, reports the Express.
Atonement achieves ‘perfection’ in its first 45 minutes(Image: No credit)
Launching both the 2007 Venice and Vancouver Film Festivals, the film also marked Wright as the youngest director ever to open the former at only 35.
Critic Andrew Collins gave the film a glowing five-star review in Radio Times, declaring: “Atonement transcends the expectations of its country-house setting, via the privations of war, to deliver a knockout twist that works better on the screen than it did on the page.”
Bruce Newman, another film critic, praised the first part of the movie, stating: “In its first 45 minutes, Atonement achieves a kind of perfection rare even for big Oscar-bait movies,” but he added a note of caution: “Every facet of the filmmaking is the equal of any picture released this year. The rest of the movie isn’t so bad.”
Keira Knightley in Atonement(Image: undefined)
The film has stirred up quite the conversation among fans, with one standout review on Letterboxd proclaiming: “13 years old saoirse ronan was robbed of that oscar for her performance as THE DEVIL.”
On Google, a fervent admirer of the film compared it to Dunkirk (2017), expressing: “I deeply appreciate Atonement for other reasons and while the films are about 10 years apart I am utterly perplexed by how Nolan’s Dunkirk became the critical darling it is, especially since this film exists.
13-year-old Saoirse Ronan was nominated for an Oscar for Atonement(Image: undefined)
Get Netflix free with Sky
This article contains affiliate links, we will receive a commission on any sales we generate from it. Learn more
Sky is giving away a free Netflix subscription with its new Sky Stream TV bundles, including the £15 Essential TV plan.
This lets members watch live and on-demand TV content without a satellite dish or aerial and includes hit shows like The Last of Us and Black Mirror.
“This film isn’t about the evacuation of Dunkirk or WWII (those elements form the background for a fully realized troubled romance and family drama) and YET this film spends about 20 minutes on Dunkirk and it conveys the horror, defeat and dread of it it far sharper and more resonant than Nolan’s film does for its entire run time.”
Another popular opinion on Letterboxd, which attracted over 6,000 likes, succinctly put it: “the five-minute long take on the beach >>>>>>> dunkirk (2017)”.
Atonement is available to stream on Netflix until Monday, 16th June.
If a movie inspires you to get up in the middle of a Koreatown steakhouse and do the robot with your waiter, isn’t that worthy of some kind of award, even if it’s not an Oscar?
I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. Let’s talk about “The Life of Chuck,” the latest Stephen King adaptation, a film possessing the pedigree of an Oscar best picture contender.
Newsletter
Sign up for The Envelope
Get exclusive awards season news, in-depth interviews and columnist Glenn Whipp’s must-read analysis straight to your inbox.
You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.
Can ‘Chuck’ extend Toronto’s Oscar streak?
The last 12 movies to win the Toronto International Film Festival’s People’s Choice Award have gone on to earn an Oscar nomination for best picture. It’s a list that includes eventual Oscar winners like “12 Years a Slave,” “Green Book” and “Nomadland.” Two years ago, Cord Jefferson’s “American Fiction” premiered at Toronto and parlayed the momentum from its People’s Choice prize into an adapted screenplay victory for Jefferson.
Suffice it to say, it’s a prime precursor.
Which makes the arrival of “The Life of Chuck,” last year’s People’s Choice winner, all the more of a curiosity. Neon, the indie studio behind best picture winners “Anora” and “Parasite,” bought the film out of Toronto after it won the award, voted on by festivalgoers. With not enough time to craft a marketing or awards season campaign, the studio slotted the movie for the summer of 2025. It opens in limited release today — you can find it in five theaters in the Los Angeles area — and will expand nationwide next week.
“The Life of Chuck,” adapted from a 50-page Stephen King story published in 2020, is feel-good tale about the end of the world. It is indeed about the life of Chuck, a prototypical King everyman, an ordinary accountant we don’t meet until the the second part of the movie’s backward-moving triptych. But we know about him because in the film’s opening section, the one with the world ending and California tumbling into the sea (Steely Dan was right!), Earth’s inhabitants are inundated with baffling billboards and ads featuring a picture of Chuck, thanking him for 39 great years.
Tom Hiddleston, star of “The Life of Chuck,” at the 2024 Toronto Film Festival.
(Jason Armond / Los Angeles Times)
We eventually learn that Chuck, played as an adult by Tom Hiddleston, is a remarkable dancer and has lived a life filled with loss. In between the tragedies, there were moments of pure, unadulterated joy. The movie, faithfully adapted and competently directed by Mike Flanagan (the man behind Netflix’s “The Haunting of Hill House” and other horror tales), wants to leave you with the message that such moments are enough. And also to remind you that when these occasions come, we should recognize them and store them away as found gold.
It’s an original story arriving in a summer movie landscape dominated by sequels and retreads. Call it counterprogramming. Critics have been split, which isn’t surprising. You either suspend disbelief and settle into this movie’s vibe or you find yourself unmoved and checking the time, thinking that, in the momentary pleasure department, a root beer float would go down easier. I liked it well enough, but given the choice, I’d probably opt for the ice cream.
For “The Life of Chuck” to be an awards season play, moviegoers will need to fall for it as hard as audiences did at Toronto. That feels like a long shot, though maybe the film’s sweetness and optimism will resonate in the current moment. Times film critic Amy Nicholson was mixed on the movie and yet, as I mentioned at the outset, it did make her “make magic out of the mundane” and boogie with a waiter. She sent me the video. Don’t let her tell you otherwise … she’s a dancing machine.
Join us live!
Want to catch the Envelope in person? RSVP for our free live screening and Q&A with the stars of “Landman,” Billy Bob Thornton, Ali Larter, Andy Garcia and Jacob Lofland.
When: Saturday, June 7 at 2 p.m. Where: The Culver Theater
Since I’m being a little wistful here, let me call your attention to a recent column I wrote about the late, great Linda Lavin, a singular talent who never won an Emmy.
That may surprise you, particularly if you were around when Lavin headlined the long-running CBS sitcom “Alice,” in which she played a widowed mom working as a waitress while pursuing her dream of singing. The series ran from 1976 to 1985, piling up more than 200 episodes, a spinoff for Polly Holliday (Flo, the “kiss my grits” sass-flinger) and a lasting reputation for presenting an early, understated feminist role model. Alice wasn’t nearly as brash as Bea Arthur’s Maude or quite as lovable as Jean Stapleton’s Edith Bunker, but like her contemporary Mary Tyler Moore, she could turn the world on with her smile.
Lavin, who died in December at 87, did earn two Golden Globes for the role and, after “Alice” ended, she won a Tony Award in 1987 for lead actress in a play for her turn as a Jewish mother navigating a changing world in Neil Simon’s “Broadway Bound.”
“It was one of the greatest stage performances I have ever seen, and I told her that the first day I met her,” says Nathan Lane, who had the opportunity to share his enthusiasm with Lavin when they worked together on the Hulu sitcom “Mid-Century Modern.” Lane recalls watching the play and choking up when Lavin absent-mindedly wiped off a phone receiver — her character was always cleaning — right after a wrenching phone call.
“She could do anything and make it look effortless,” Lane says. “Working with her was the happiest experience I’ve ever had in television.”
(Photo illustration by Susana Sanchez / Los Angeles Times; Getty Images / CBS Photo Archive)
In Emmy history, 33 actors — 22 men and 11 women — have been posthumously nominated. Most recently, Treat Williams earned a nod last year for his supporting turn in the FX limited series “Feud: Capote vs. the Swans.” Ray Liotta was nominated in 2023 in the same category for “Black Bird.” And in 1978, Will Geer received three posthumous nominations, including his last season on “The Waltons.” (He lost all three.)
Lavin has a legitimate case. She elevates “Mid-Century Modern” every time she’s onscreen with her vitality and comic timing. In April, she picked up a comedy supporting actress nod from the Gotham Television Awards.
You can read the entire column, which includes some terrific stories from “Mid-Century Modern” showrunners Max Mutchnick and David Kohan, here.
Have a great weekend. Hope you find a moment to dance.
Heartwarming tributes have poured in for the late Australian adult film star Koby Falks.
The tragic news was announced on 1 June via the 39-year-old’s Instagram account.
“Koby Falks passed away earlier this week. He was loved by many and will be missed. If this post has affected you, please reach out to Lifeline at 13 11 14,” the post read.
Known as Anthony Cox to his family and friends, the Australian native made his debut in the adult film world in 2022.
Although his time in the industry was brief, he starred in 76 projects and amassed over 400,000 followers across Instagram, X, Facebook and YouTube.
He also led a fruitful career as a content creator on the subscription-based websites OnlyFans and JustForFans.
Since his tragic passing was announced, a handful of Koby’s peers, friends and fans have taken to social media to share heartbreaking tributes.
The late actor’s talent agent, Matthew Leigh, described him as “a light, a creative force, and a genuinely beautiful soul.”
“Though our time working together was brief, the impact Koby had was anything but small. From the moment we connected, I was struck by his warmth, his charisma and his incredible professionalism,” he wrote in a lengthy statement on Instagram.
“He was organised, kind-hearted, and deeply respectful. The kind of person you instantly felt grateful to work with. It was an honour to represent his remarkable body of work and to witness first-hand the power of his presence, both on and off-screen.
“His ability to connect with people, not just here in Australia but across the world, was something truly special. Never did I imagine I would be writing such a post, especially for someone I had the privilege of managing. And I sincerely hope I never have to again.”
OnlyFans star Keller Wolfe echoed similar sentiments, writing: “Rest in peace, mate. My thoughts are with your Partner, your family, your friends and loved ones during this impossible time.”
Lastly, Koby’s partner Sam Brownell celebrated the late talent’s life in a now-deleted Instagram story, writing, “I will love you always.”
As of writing, the official cause of death has not been revealed.
Days before his tragic passing, Koby took to Instagram and shared a photo of his younger self alongside a caption reflecting on his journey.
“Took me years to drop the act. Turns out, the scariest thing wasn’t being rejected—it was being seen. No more masks. No more performance. Just me, as I am. Raw. Real. Free. Yeah, I fucked up along the way. Yeah, I wore the armour a bit too long. But I never stopped searching for the bloke underneath it all,” he wrote.
“This is for the younger me who just wanted to be loved without pretending. And for anyone else out there still hiding— You don’t have to be a symbol. Just be you. Rough edges and all. That’s where the beauty is.”
Our thoughts are with Koby’s family and friends during this unthinkable time.
It turns out Zoe Saldaña was more than just emotionally drained after tearfully accepting her supporting actress Oscar for “Emilia Pérez” at this year’s Academy Awards — she was also worn out physically.
The 46-year-old actor explained Wednesday on the ABC talk show “Live With Kelly and Mark” how she had been fighting a cold and felt fully exhausted immediately following one of her career-defining moments.
“I collapsed right after. I lost my voice within an hour after I won the award,” she said. “I couldn’t stand on those heels that I had. All I wanted to do was crawl in bed and maybe cry. I don’t know why, I just needed to cry.”
The “Avatar” star noted that up until that point her body was running on all cylinders for months on end during awards season.
“Your body is running on pure adrenaline so you know that your immune system is in optimal condition, but once you tell your body that it’s over, then everything sort of collapses,” Saldaña said.
The Oscar victory capped an impressive awards season run for the “Guardians of the Galaxy” actor, having won the Golden Globe, BAFTA, SAG and Critics’ Choice awards for her role as Mexico City attorney Rita Castro in “Emilia Pérez.”
While her performance was almost universally celebrated and well-regarded, the film as a whole was heavily criticized for its incomplete and offensive portrayals of transgender issues and the lack of consideration taken in depicting Mexico.
Although physically and emotionally exhausted, Saldaña managed to make some attention-grabbing statements in the Oscars press room after a Mexican journalist noted that the movie’s presentation of Mexico was “really hurtful for us Mexicans.”
“First of all, I’m very, very sorry that you and so many Mexicans felt offended,” Saldaña said in the defense of the film. “That was never our intention. We spoke and came from a place of love, and I will stand by that.”
She went on to further disagree with the Mexican journalist’s point of view regarding the centrality and importance of Mexico in the 13-time Oscar nominated movie.
“For me, the heart of this movie was not Mexico. We were making a film about friendship. We were making a film about four women,” Saldaña explained. “And these women are still very universal women that are struggling every day, but trying to survive systemic oppression and trying to find the most authentic voices.”
Outside of the issues within the film, much of the main cast and crew of the movie was bogged down by mostly self-inflicted negative press.
Actor Karla Sofía Gascón faced backlash in January after Canadian writer Sarah Hagi resurfaced tweets dating from 2016 to 2023 that spoke negatively of Muslims’ clothing, language and culture in her home country of Spain. Additionally, Gascón caught heat for resurfaced comments about the 2020 killing of George Floyd, the ensuing racial reckoning, the Black Lives Matter movement and the COVID-19-era Academy Awards ceremony in 2021.
Gascón later apologized for her previous online remarks and deactivated her X account.
The film’s director Jacques Audiard spoke openly on record about how little he prepped to portray Mexico and denigrated the Spanish language during his press tour.
When asked by a Mexican journalist at a red carpet event about how much he had to study up on Mexico and Mexican culture to prepare for the movie, Audiard gave a telling answer.
“No, I didn’t study that much. What I needed to know, I already knew a little about,” the filmmaker said. “It was more about capturing the little details and we came a lot to Mexico to see actors, to see locations, to see the decorations and so on.”
Speaking with the French outlet Konbini, Audiard spoke down on the Spanish language, saying, “Spanish is a language of modest countries, of developing countries, of the poor and migrants.”
Audiard later apologized for his comments after the movie received backlash from Mexican audiences.
Selena Gomez, who played a pivotal supporting role in the film, was criticized for her proficiency in Spanish. Mexican actor Eugenio Derbez was among those who called out Gomez’s performance and Spanish language ability.
Gomez has previously said her Spanish fluency waned after she started working in television at age 7. She responded to the criticism on social media, saying, “I did the best I could with the time I was given. Doesn’t take away from how much work and heart I put into this movie.” Derbez later apologized.
When you watch “The Matrix” at Cosm, you’re essentially seeing a film within a film. A shot inside an apartment becomes a glimpse into an entire complex. A fight scene on a rooftop is now one small part of a giant cityscape. Look to the left, and a once off-screen helicopter is suddenly entirely visible.
Cosm has won attention and a fan base for its focus on sports programming. A domed, 87-foot-diameter wraparound screen surrounds audiences at the Inglewood venue, creating an illusion of in-the-flesh presence. Can’t make it to that NBA Finals or World Series game? Cosm wants to be your fallback plan, combining front-row-like seats with unexpected views.
And now, Cosm aims to redefine the moviegoing experience. A revival of “The Matrix” opens Thursday in what the company calls “shared reality,” a marketing term that ultimately means newly created CGI animation towers, over, under and around the original 1999 film. Cosm has in the past shown largely short-form original programming, and “The Matrix” marks its first foray into feature-length films.
Carrie-Anne Moss and Keanu Reeves in “The Matrix,” which is opening at Cosm with newly created CGI that surrounds the original frame.
(Cosm )
The hope is to not only see the film with fresh eyes but to create a sensation of being in the same environment as Keanu Reeves’ Neo, Carrie-Anne Moss’ Trinity and Laurence Fishburne’s Morpheus. “The Matrix” is an ideal film for this experiment, its anti-AI message decidedly topical while its themes grapple with dual visions of reality.
There’s been a host of so-called immersive ambitions to alter the moviegoing experience over the decades, be it the on-and-off flirtation with interactive cinema, a brief trend in the ’90s that recently lived again on Netflix (see “Black Mirror: Bandersnatch”), to more recent 4-DX theaters with movement-enabled seats (see the light, water and wind effects of “Twisters”). Cosm, like the bigger, more live music-focused Sphere in Las Vegas, seems to have a different pitch: an all-encompassing screen that can provide previously unexplored vantage points, even at times creating a theme park ride-like sense of movement.
Cosm’s interpretation of “The Matrix,” a collaboration with experiential creative agency Little Cinema, envelopes audiences from its opening action sequence when a nighttime view of a city skyline seemingly places us on a rooftop. Elsewhere, Neo’s office building becomes a maze of cubicles. The film’s centerpiece red pill versus blue pill moment centers the frame among oversized, glowing capsules. When Neo awakens, we are lost amid mountainous, industrial pods.
The challenge: To not make it feel like a gimmick, yet to also know when to pull back and let the film stand for itself. “The No. 1 core principle was to enhance and don’t overshadow,” says Jay Rinsky, founder of Little Cinema. “Metaphorically for us, the movie itself is the lead singer and we are the backing band. Let the movie be the star. Let it sing. And basically follow the key beats — follow the sound design, the emotional moments and enhance the action.”
The red versus blue pill scene in “The Matrix” is framed with newly created animation.
(Cosm)
The accompanying images get more aggressive as the film races toward its climax. The animations are most effective when they’re expanding the screen rather than echoing the action — showing us the viewpoint of a careening helicopter for instance, rather than repeating or mimicking a beat of the film. Having seen “The Matrix” before, I know the story and its cadence, and was perhaps more willing to turn my attention away from the film, which is placed in the center of the screen and often set within a picture frame.
In turn, I was dazzled by the scenes shot inside Morpheus’ hovercraft the Nebuchadnezzar, in which the vessel’s surroundings — its buzzing, electrical core and its assortment of monitors — are fleshed out around the screen. Film purists, I wonder, may balk at seeing images beyond the director’s vision — Rinsky says he hasn’t been in touch with directors Lana or Lilly Wachowski — but I found it could help build a world, especially for revival cinema on a second or third viewing.
A scene of “The Matrix” starring Carrie-Anne Moss is surrounded with an all-surrounding view of a skyline.
(Cosm)
Expectedly, the film’s final act becomes a bevy of secondary action. Bullets that fly off the frame of the film now find a landing spot, as building walls shatter and crumble around us. Cosm’s screen is crisp and encompassing enough that it can mimic movement or flight, and thankfully this is used sparingly, twisting only when the film’s characters take to the skies.
When Cosm opened last summer Chief Executive Jeb Terry stressed the venue wasn’t in the business of showing films, wanting to focus on sports or original programming. “We’re not a first-run theater,” said Terry. “We’re leaning into the experiential side.” Seemingly, “The Matrix” fits this plan, as the accompanying CGI images have been in the works since about August 2024, says Rinsky, with the bulk of the heavy lifting beginning in January.
Rinsky acknowledges “The Matrix” fits the format particularly well because it “plays in a realm of fantasy that allows you to change environments around,” but is quick to add that Cosm and Little Cinema hope to expand the program of enhancing Hollywood products. “It is a bit of a mission and a philosophy,” he says. “Every film in every genre has its own unique propositions and can be adopted and suited well. We’re excited about horror, and we’re excited about comedy.” Future projects have not yet been announced.
Cosm also has a venue in Dallas, with spots in Atlanta and Detroit on the way. Rinsky’s hope, of course, is that Cosm someday has enough market penetration that filmmakers can create the format from the ground up.
“I’m really bullish about this being the new cinema,” Rinsky says. “I think in five to 10 years, there will be 100 of these around. Once it hits scale, then big studios will have releases created specifically for this format.”
It’s an optimistic view of the future that’s arriving at a time of disruption in Hollywood, from shake-ups due to the streaming market to artificial intelligence. For Cosm, it’s the early days, but it’s a vision that needs neither a red nor blue pill. Its outlook is much more rose-colored.
