film

Watching a film on Netflix can take you a few hours, but this movie is so good – people will happily watch it over and over again in one day. So have you seen it?

Scrolling through your Netflix can take ages to find something that’ll have you glued to your seats until 6am. Landing on a new series to watch is one thing, but what if you only have time for a film?

The streaming platform has a variety of genres to pick from – like comedy and horror. Sometimes people manage to watch one film, then decide to blitz through its sequels. But lately people can’t stop raving on about a movie which is about two hours long, so much so, they’re watching it multiple times in one day. So have you seen it?

Kim shared a snippet of the Tyler Perry film Doing Life which she rated a 10 out of 10. She captioned the clip: “I cried so much from beginning to end.”

Ensure our latest headlines always appear at the top of your Google Search by making us a Preferred Source. Click here to activate or add us as Preferred Source in your Google search settings…

And it seems she’s not the only one to have glowing reviews of the 2026 film as one wrote in the comments: “I wish it was longer, a TV show or something. It was so good, I watched it TWICE today.”

Another admitted: “Try up to 4 times, I loved it. I can recite lines now.”

What is Doing Life about?

Starring Naomi Baker, Jay Reeves and Tamberla Perry, this Tyler Perry movie follows a single mum and prisoner forge an unlikely bond through heartfelt letters.

The romantic drama deals with real-life issues, like the cycle of poverty, absentee fathers, single mothers and incarceration. It was released on Netflix on October 2 and has already proven to be a hit.

Directed and written by Tyler Perry, along with Angi Bones and Tony L. Strickland as producers, this film is Perry’s seventh from his creative partnership with the streaming giant.

Speaking about the film, Perry said: “I was inspired by… the idea that sometimes the people we least expect can understand each other in ways no one else can.

“I wanted to tell a story about two people who, on the surface, seem like complete opposites, but who discover a deep commonality in the struggles they’re facing.”

Since its release at the start of the month, the American drama holds a 6.6 out of 10 score on IMDb, with a 69% approval rating based on general audience and social media reviews.

Meanwhile it pulled 9.3 million views in its first three days on Netflix, debuting at no.3 on the global English-language movie chart and reaching no.1 in the US.

You can watch Doing Life on Netflix UK now with a runtime of 1 hour and 48 minutes. So will you be watching it more than once in day?

In the mindbending documentary “You Can See Everything,” comedian Nathan Fielder and professed inventor Elizabeth Holmes sit in her beach house staring at each other like gunslingers. Fielder is the creator of the TV series “The Rehearsal” and “Nathan for You” who constructs discombobulating sham realities that include bogus businesses such as Dumb Starbucks. Holmes is the former billionaire CEO of Theranos who pretended she’d built a revolutionary blood testing machine to squeeze investors for a few dollars more.

Each is an expert in the con. But Fielder is deadpan and cold where Holmes is earnest and warm — and he’s been nominated for Emmys while, in May of 2023 when the film begins, she’s about to serve an 11-year sentence in federal prison. As the camera cuts between close-ups of his narrowed eyes and her big, blue ones, Fielder tries to suss whether he can trust the famous fibber to be honest with him. The showdown is riveting.

“You’re being real right now?” Fielder asks, dubious.

Holmes beams. “I’m always being real,” she swears with a smile.

Her charm hits Fielder in the gut. His face stays neutral yet you can see his own confidence bleed out across the screen.

Co-directed by Fielder and Lance Oppenheim (“Primetime”), “You Can See Everything” is the closest Fielder has come to making a traditional documentary. A thrillingly cringe-tastic interviewer, he blurts out blunt questions like a bungee jumper leaping off a bridge, including asking Holmes’ romantic and business partner Billy Evans, the heir to a San Diego boutique hotel chain, whether it’s possible a woman convicted of fraud might be with him for his money.

At nearly three hours long, “You Can See Everything” won’t bore you for a minute. The hook is right there in the title, Fielder’s challenge to the audience: Here’s how Holmes held up to his scrutiny — do we think she’s telling the truth? But be alert. Fielder remains a trickster. One shot in particular proves you can see everything while being blind to what you’re actually watching.

In the first half of the movie, Holmes and Evans, the father of her two young children, give the small crew complete access to their lives during her last weeks of freedom, including inviting Fielder to sleep in their guest bedroom. It’s an act of “radical transparency,” Evans says. As evidence, there’s a fully nude shot of Evans in the shower, testifying to the intimacy the subjects claim they’re granting the team and the confidence they have that the documentary will make them look great. (Evans also boasts that he’s “excellent” in the sack.)

Holmes maintains both her innocence and her eerie smile, a rictus of empathy. She constantly nods, subliminally snake-charming the listener into a sense of agreement. That assessment might be fair or it might be her reputation making you over-analyze her tics. Doubling down, she even insists she’s never told a lie in her life — a claim that momentarily leaves Fielder at a loss for words.

Yet at times, Holmes really does appear to be sincere. Once she surrenders herself to the Bryan Federal Prison Camp in Texas (where, in an unmentioned coincidence, Epstein collaborator Ghislane Maxwell is also incarcerated), the tone shifts into film noir as Fielder struggles to reconcile Elizabeth Holmes’ dual identities. Is she the sweet-natured scientist, the only version of her he’s ever met, or a femme fatale who may still be running a scam?

“It’s personal,” Fielder says of his fixation. How frustrating that he of all people — the dark prince of pranks — may be Holmes’ latest patsy. Composer Ari Balouzian borrows bits of Bernard Herrmann’s violin score from “Vertigo” while cinematographer David Bolen makes the audience hold its breath by framing an image of Fielder and Holmes like they might kiss.

When the movie’s style gets weird, that’s when Fielder is most in his wheelhouse. Stop reading now if you want to preserve the surprise. Micro-analyzing his encounters with Holmes, he reenacts them with an actor, Amanda Seyfried, whose emotional intensity blows into the film like a gust of fresh air. Seyfried, of course, won an Emmy and a Golden Globe for playing Holmes in the 2022 miniseries “The Dropout.” The twists to come, however, feel as much like last year’s naughty hit “The Housemaid,” the domestic thriller in which Seyfried played a shady wife with a marriage made of lies.

Evans initially seems to think they’re participating in a project closer to Netflix’s glossy portrait of Meghan Markle and Prince Harry. The couple doesn’t know much about humor, pop culture or Fielder himself. Fumbling to figure out what makes him tick, Evans attempts to neg the provocateur as someone who lacks the passion to think differently. (Evans may also be the person who used Holmes’ social media account to write a flattering post calling JD Vance “Lisan al-Gaib,” revealing he’s entirely missed the point of “Dune.”)

But thinking differently is Fielder’s awkward superpower. Sooner or later, all of his projects circle around to his concern that he’s simply wired to be unpleasant. His interactions with Holmes are pure cringe comedy, like when she starts to cry perhaps a bit on cue and he stiffly sputters, “Do you want, like, a tissue?” For the record, he brings her one.

As a viewer, the biggest strike against Holmes is this documentary’s very existence. Whether or not you think she’s guilty of fraud, she is about to be separated from her infant and toddler until they’re in grade school. Who on Earth would genuinely want Fielder, the human equivalent of a skunk, to crash their last moments with their loved ones as he does his darnedest to stink up the place?

Fielder is most comfortable as the film’s villain, shooting himself lurking in the couple’s house like “Halloween’s” Michael Myers. At times, his presence does feel monstrous. In one scene, he needles Evans about whether he thinks his soulmate has ever lied to him while Holmes is on the phone in the next room, tearing up as she asks how often she’ll be able to bathe in prison.

The film doesn’t drill into the technical details of Theranos beyond one dizzying scene where Fielder tries to pin Holmes down on exactly what she meant when she said her machine can run hundreds of different tests. She means it just as I would if I bragged I can benchpress a beer keg — that is, once I strength-train beyond my piddly 5 lb dumbbells.

Instead, it tilts into becoming a caper flick as Seyfried’s commitment to understanding her character’s motivation inspires the actor to invite herself along. The drama they uncover is psychological, as befits an era where Silicon Valley CEOs are closer to cult leaders than engineers, making their cash from being televangelists for their IPOs. And both are attuned to the moments when Evans lets his aggravation slip. One scene is a doozy.

Ultimately, suspicion reigns. “You Can See Everything” is an absorbing study of public presentation and private doubts, a documentary that asks more questions than it answers. I hope Fielder will smile and nod approvingly at me if I say I left the film distrusting him, too, especially Seyfried’s re-staging of a long monologue Holmes delivered in prison where recording devices aren’t allowed. Can we believe that Holmes really did say, “I’m tired of having other people speak for me,” or was that laugh line written by the master manipulator himself? I’m now as paranoid as he is — and what a pleasure.

Nathan Fielder would rather you not read this article. At least not until you’ve seen his new movie.

He has a point.

Now in theaters, “You Can See Everything,” the nearly three-hour documentary Fielder co-directed with filmmaker Lance Oppenheim about convicted Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes, is full of head-spinning twists and turns best left unspoiled, and the filmmakers have gone to extreme lengths to keep them that way. At its secret premiere at the Telluride Film Festival last month, audience members were required to lock their phones in pouches and warned that security guards with night-vision goggles would be watching for anyone trying to record the screening. Afterward, Fielder pleaded with the crowd to keep the film’s biggest surprises to themselves.

Holmes was convicted in 2022 of defrauding investors in her failed blood-testing company and sentenced to more than 11 years in federal prison. Fielder and Oppenheim began filming her and longtime partner Billy Evans, an MIT graduate and heir to a family-owned San Diego hotel business, shortly before she reported to prison in 2023, gaining extraordinary access to the couple and their two young children.

Holmes and Evans welcomed the cameras, hoping they would help vindicate her. But the closer Fielder and Oppenheim got to the couple, the harder it became to distinguish candor from calculated performance. Fielder, whose series “Nathan for You” and “The Rehearsal” put real people through elaborate, often uncomfortable experiments, began to wonder whether the tables had been turned.

“I really am struggling to this day to understand exactly what I experienced in this,” Fielder admitted during a post-screening Q&A at Telluride. “I don’t quite know what I went through.” He said he hoped audiences might help him make sense of the “glitchy feeling” it left in his head.

Having seen the film twice, we’re not entirely sure we can help him.

In deference to Fielder’s wishes, this is your last chance to turn back: Major spoilers follow. For those still with us, here are 10 of the film’s strangest moments — by no means the only ones — along with a few clues from Fielder himself about how they came to be.

Evans takes ’radical transparency’ too far

Evans has a theory about why the world sees his partner as a monster: Nobody really knows her. “In the absence of knowing somebody, it’s really easy to make them feel other and scary,” he tells the filmmakers. His proposed solution is “radical transparency” — a familiar Silicon Valley mantra with an ironic resonance given Theranos’ notorious culture of secrecy. The filmmakers are allowed virtually unlimited access to the family’s life, with Fielder even invited to move into their rented house in Del Mar, near San Diego. In one scene, Evans stands completely naked in the shower, brushing his teeth with the bathroom door wide open and the cameras rolling, as Fielder stands awkwardly nearby. At Telluride, Fielder, who had initially planned to stay behind the scenes, admitted he was still perplexed by the couple’s openness. “I’m a weird guy — why do they want me there?” he said. “That messed with my head a little bit.”

Fielder observes Holmes and her family in a scene from the documentary “You Can See Everything”

(A24)

Theranos, the sequel

A federal fraud conviction apparently hasn’t ended Holmes’ ambitions to revolutionize medical testing. Before heading to prison, she and Evans begin laying plans for a new venture involving lasers and artificial intelligence that Evans describes as “2.0” — a chance, he says, “to put the band back together and do it all again.” Holmes declares, “From wherever I am, I’m going to continue to work inventing, even if it’s inventing from a cage.”

Holmes claims she’s never told a lie

For someone convicted of defrauding investors, Holmes has a remarkably uncomplicated view of her own honesty. Asked by Fielder whether she’s ever told a lie in her life, she replies, “I don’t think so.” Pressed — surely she’s pretended to be sick to get out of a party? — she concedes she has, explaining that she thought he meant the criminal case against her. In a scene that became the centerpiece of the film’s teaser trailer, Holmes fixes Fielder with an unwavering stare. “Why would I deceive you?” she asks. “There’s no reason for me to do that.” When Fielder asks whether she’s being real with him, she doesn’t miss a beat: “I’m always being real.”

The Theranos device gets a second look

Holmes hauls out of storage the infamous Theranos device, the machine that helped bring down her company. “So this is the famous scam device,” Fielder says. “It is not a scam device,” Holmes replies. When she insists the machine can perform any medical test, Fielder finds himself drawn into an absurd debate over the meaning of the word “can.” Did she mean it could actually perform those tests, or that it theoretically would once the necessary chemistry had been developed? The man who has made a career out of baffling other people seems genuinely baffled himself, reduced to explaining the word “can” to the founder of Theranos.

Holmes and Evans enter federal court in 2022.

(Nic Coury / Associated Press)

Elizabeth Holmes meets Abbott and Costello

Still trying to make his point, Fielder turns to Abbott and Costello. He plays Holmes the classic “Who’s on First?” comedy routine — two people hopelessly talking past each other. Holmes watches politely and says she finds it funny. But she seems to have missed the central joke: The first baseman’s name is actually Who. “I didn’t pick it up,” she admits. Fielder’s attempts to explain the joke and why he showed it to her get him nowhere. Evans, watching the exchange, regards his wife’s difficulty following the joke as further evidence that her mind simply works differently from everyone else’s.

Fielder gives Holmes an escape kit

On the morning Holmes is due to report to prison, Fielder arrives with a parting gag gift: hair dye and glasses, in case she’d prefer to disguise herself and flee the country. Fielder is famous for excruciatingly awkward deadpan comedy, but Holmes’ parents are there, the family is preparing for an emotional goodbye and he seems to realize almost immediately that he has misjudged the situation. “I didn’t know your parents would be here,” he says, assuring everyone that it’s “just kind of like a joke.” The more he tries to explain himself, the more uncomfortable things become. “Maybe not appropriate for the moment,” he concedes.

Amanda Seyfried becomes a surprise co-star

Seyfried won an Emmy for playing Holmes in Hulu’s “The Dropout,” which Holmes had avoided watching for fear it would be too emotionally disturbing. Fielder persuades Holmes to watch it for the first time, on a laptop in the couple’s bed. She soon breaks down in tears and asks him to turn it off. Later, Fielder visits Seyfried at her apartment and shows her footage of Holmes watching her performance. So we watch Seyfried watch Holmes watch Seyfried playing Holmes as Fielder watches her. And things only get weirder from there.

At Telluride, Fielder said the filmmakers initially doubted Seyfried would want to participate. But after a brief phone call, she invited them over and agreed to be filmed. Neither side knew where things would lead. “It just actually evolved in that organic way, which was really exciting,” Fielder said.

Seyfried as Holmes in a scene from Hulu’s “The Dropout.”

( Beth Dubber / Hulu)

Seyfried plays detective

Seyfried soon finds herself reenacting Holmes’ conversations with Fielder as he tries to make sense of their encounters. She becomes so invested that she joins Fielder on a visit to Evans’ home, hoping she might get him to open up in ways Fielder can’t. “I feel like an undercover cop right now,” she says, clearly getting a rush. There, after meeting the couple’s children, she unexpectedly winds up on a prison phone call with Holmes herself. With only two minutes for the family to talk, Seyfried suddenly seems mortified to be intruding. “I’m so sorry — I don’t want to ruin your two minutes with your beautiful family,” she says. Fielder, naturally, has a camera running.

Evans takes control of the narrative

With Holmes behind bars, Evans seems determined to manage her public image himself. Armed with power of attorney, he takes over her verified X account, posting messages in her name, some of which sound nothing like the carefully controlled Holmes, including one telling another user to “f— off.” “There’s just so much trust that most things I don’t really consult her on,” Evans says at one point. “I know what she’d want.”

Evans’ attempts to steer the documentary itself begin even before Holmes reports to prison. In a meeting later reenacted in the film, after Holmes leaves the room, he raises the subject of money with Fielder, Oppenheim and executives from A24, the studio behind the film, demanding a share of the profits. Fielder says A24 reluctantly agreed, leaving him worried that the integrity of the project may have been compromised. When Holmes later insists she has no financial interest in the film, Fielder is taken aback. Either she’s “fully sincere,” he tells Seyfried, or “she honestly might be the most manipulative person that’s ever lived.” (The film notes at the end that Evans later changed his mind and decided not to accept payment.)

On Oct. 5, Holmes’ X account promoted the documentary with a tantalizing warning: “I really don’t think you are ready for this doc.” Whether that was Holmes speaking or Evans speaking for her is anyone’s guess.

Seyfried confronts Evans

Things turn ugly during that same visit to Evans’ home. A conversation about conjugal visits and Evans’ sex life gives way to a heated argument over his use of Holmes’ X account. Evans brings up the social media backlash Seyfried faced for criticizing Charlie Kirk after his shooting death, then attacks her portrayal of his partner in “The Dropout.” Soon he’s threatening vengeance against people he believes have wronged Holmes. “I’m going to ruin their lives,” he declares. Asked whose lives he means, Evans replies, “F—ing everyone. I’ve got vengeance in my heart.”

Later, away from Evans, Seyfried offers her own assessment: “He is bat— crazy.”

Steven Soderbergh is stepping in to help finish shooting “The Batman Part II” while director Matt Reeves continues to deal with a personal matter.

“As Matt Reeves continues to attend to an ongoing family matter, Steven Soderbergh, as an admirer of Matt’s work, approached Matt and will step in, with the full support of DC Studios, to help the writer-director complete the final weeks of principal photography on ‘The Batman Part 2,’” the studio said Thursday in a statement first reported by Deadline. “Matt and Steven will work closely together with the actors and crew to fulfill Matt’s vision of the film.”

DC Studios chief James Gunn confirmed the news on social media Thursday while reiterating that Reeves remains the director of “The Batman Part II.”

“Matt is still the director of The Batman 2 and always will be,” he wrote on Threads. “I can’t express how profoundly grateful and moved we are by Steven’s offer to help him complete his vision.”

The announcement follows news earlier this month that production on the film had been temporarily paused so Reeves could focus on dealing with the family matter.

“Matt has the full support of DC Studios and we look forward to continuing the journey soon,” the studio said in a statement at the time.

The writer-director also took to social media Thursday to express his gratitude and to confirm he would be continuing his work on “The Batman 2.”

“Just to be clear, I am not leaving The Batman Part II,” Reeves wrote in a post on X. “I am profoundly grateful to Steven for coming to my aid during this challenging time to help me finish principal photography. Thank you to all for your concern and well wishes.”

Soderbergh expressed his appreciation for Reeves’ work while addressing his new role Thursday in a widely reported statement.

“I thought Matt Reeves’ work on ‘The Batman’ was stunning; it was intentional, specific, and rigorously coherent,” he said in his statement, first reported by Deadline. “The goal here is to work with Matt and his team to generate footage that will integrate seamlessly with what’s already been shot so Matt can properly finish his film.”

A follow-up to Reeves’ 2022 reboot, “The Batman,” the upcoming film will once again star Robert Pattinson as Gotham’s iconic Caped Crusader. “The Batman Part II” began filming in London in June after a number of previous delays while Reeves and Mattson Tomlin wrote the script. The movie is slated to hit theaters on Feb. 18, 2028.

As Puerto Rico continues to grapple with the long aftermath of Hurricane Maria — from an unreliable electrical grid to ongoing water shortages — the need for stories that see the island as more than a backdrop feels especially urgent.

That’s part of what makes “Hurricane Seasons,” an intimate new independent film about a Puerto Rican family returning home, feel so timely. The film, which screens Sunday at the Newport Beach Film Festival, stars comedian Aida Rodriguez as Glori, a Brooklyn-based artist and community-center worker. She returns to Puerto Rico to help her sister (Justina Machado) care for their terminally ill mother (Priscilla Lopez).

When their matriarch convinces the family to embark on a bucket-list road trip around the island, old family secrets surface as the 2019 protests following Hurricane Maria unfold around them. Directed by Nicole Gomez Fisher and written by Xavier Ortiz — with Rodriguez also serving as a producer — the film is both a story of a multigenerational family and a love letter to Puerto Rico.

For Rodriguez, who is best known as a stand-up comedian, “Hurricane Seasons” also marked a return to a part of her artistic identity that existed long before comedy — her love of acting. But she admits that stepping back into acting, especially as the film’s protagonist, wasn’t an easy transition.

Aida Rodriguez, left, and Priscilla Lopez in a scene from “Hurricane Seasons,” directed by Nicole Gomez-Fisher.

(Laura T Magruder)

“It was terrifying. It was very scary because as a stand-up comedian, I work very hard at trying to obtain my most authentic self so that I can share it with everybody — to be my truest self, my truest Aida,” she says. “And when you loan yourself to a character and the art form of acting, you’re loaning yourself to that character and bringing yourself to that character, of course, because that is why they choose you. But you are telling a story from the perspective of another person.”

Rodriguez had pursued acting before going into stand-up comedy. Upon moving to Los Angeles, she quickly booked acting work, signed with an agency and began taking classes.

But comedy eventually taught her to do almost the opposite of what acting required.

“When I started doing standup, the direction and the notes were always like: ‘Release any character you have in mind and just access yourself,’” she says. “So it was a battle for me. Coming back to becoming an actor and giving the character Glori what Glori deserved — and allowing Glori to live, and Aida to sit in the back — became something important for me to do.”

She adds that it took a lot of work with coaches and classes for her to relax into acting again, allowing Aida the comedian to rest while focusing on what this role required of her.

The film’s protagonist, Glori, is a Brooklyn-born-and-raised Puerto Rican woman whose connection to the island runs deep, despite her living stateside. This is something Rodriguez, who is half Puerto Rican and half Dominican, born and raised in the States, also personally relates to.

That tension — between where you live, where your family comes from, and who gets to decide whether you are “Puerto Rican enough” — is one of the film’s central themes and one reason the script resonated with Rodriguez.

“My testimony through my art has always been finding unity, solidarity, power and connection with other people,” she says. “I think that the story of growing up in the States and connecting to the island is a universal story that most people, regardless of where they come from, experience. [There’s this] idea that you’re never American enough nor whatever you are — in this case Puerto Rican enough — because there’s always a judge and jury on both sides.”

Rodriguez sees those tensions as a consequence of a much larger and complex history. She believes so much of the judgment on both sides is a lingering effect of colonization.

“For me, that was one of the most attractive things about the script — [it] was being able to engage in a conversation about what being Puerto Rican really is,” she says. “Is it based on colonial standards? Or is it based on maintaining our cultural richness and our legacy, that is handed down to us regardless of where we are?”

That question takes on even more weight today as Puerto Rico sits in the aftermath of Hurricane Maria, which Rodriguez believes shifted the relationship between Puerto Ricans on the island and those living stateside.

“There was a shift, because there are wounds from both places,” she says. “There are wounds from the people on the island that stayed and stuck it out. [They want to ask] the ones who left, ‘why do you get to claim this, if you’re not here sticking it out with us?’ Then the people who leave feel like, ‘we had to do this, so that we can not only survive, but send money back to the island.”

Rodriguez explains that, in many ways, the aftermath of the hurricane sparked arguments on both sides that were necessary to begin healing the tension. She believes it highlighted issues that Puerto Ricans, as part of a diaspora, could no longer ignore; it also highlighted an island and a community that Americans outside of the Latine community paid little to no attention to.

“It took a hurricane for people to know what Puerto Ricans were,” she says. “I think there was a cultural shift and there was a conversation that needed to be had, about what happens on the island. And what that means to those of us who are not there.”

That conversation serves as the meat and bones of “Hurricane Seasons,” in which Puerto Rico isn’t simply a location. It’s an integral presence in the story. Rodriguez, Ortiz and Gomez Fisher all agreed that filming most of the movie on the island was essential, not only creatively but also economically and culturally.

“The other thing that was very important about taking the movie back to Puerto Rico was to invest in Puerto Rico and to stimulate some sort of revenues for the island and that the crew was a Puerto Rican crew,” she says. “The DP [director of photography] was a Puerto Rican DP — all people that live on the island.”

It was important to them that if they were going to tell a story about Puerto Rico that was also shot in Puerto Rico, that Puerto Ricans on the island actually benefited from the production.

“It’s not cool to go to Puerto Rico and shoot a movie and bring in your own people from the States, and the people in Puerto Rico have to be inconvenienced with their roads being blocked and things shut down and an influx of Americans that come there to be disrespectful and them not making anything out of it,” Rodriguez says.

This commitment shows in the protest scenes. Rather than using background actors, the film features real Puerto Rican residents, including a local activist and singer.

“It didn’t feel rehearsed. It didn’t feel fake,” she says. “I just think that the feelings and the passion and the rage and the sense of urgency is still there.”

Ortiz’s commitment to specificity extended to the family casting, intentionally matching the actors to the real-life relatives they are based on.

“It wasn’t performative. It was actually real because that’s what all of our families look like,” she says. “Puerto Ricans, Dominicans, we just have that diversity because of all the stuff that’s happened in the past.”

Glori’s character also represents a refreshing departure from the way Latina women are often portrayed onscreen. She is a mother, a daughter, a community center worker, an artist — and a woman with a complicated romantic and family history. She is beautiful and desirable, but her sexuality isn’t the defining characteristic of her existence — something we don’t see enough when it comes to Latina roles.

“For me, I didn’t have to step outside of myself for the role, which was really refreshing because every audition that I ever get, I do have to step out of myself because when people write Latinas in Hollywood, they tend to write them one way,” says Rodriguez. “They look a certain way, they talk a certain way, and that’s not the reality of what being Latino, especially in America, is like.”

Rodriguez could freely inhabit a Latina character without feeling as though she had to perform her Puerto Rican-ness for the audience.

“I didn’t feel like I had to perform my Latinidad. I could just exist in it,” she says.

Rodriguez adds she’s ready for a Hollywood that wants Latina actors to have the same range of characterization that white actors have long been afforded. She’s open to seeing Latinas being everything in TV and film, where can they exist in a world in which they can just be people who just happen to be Latinas.

“I really do look for a day when we can just be people and not just be the funny, spicy friend,” she adds. “Some Latinas are not spicy. Some Latinas are nerds, and some Latinas are quirky, and some of them are goofy and some of them are clumsy. And just like everybody gets to see the spectrum of whiteness with all the different kinds of characters, I would love to see that for our people. For all people of color, actually. I think it’s important to see us all as full human beings, and that means that we can be anything.”

The film’s multigenerational story touches on the cultural inheritance passed between mothers, daughters and grandmothers — whether through old traditions or ordinary rituals. It’s something audiences, regardless of background, can likely relate to.

“The most important message that I’ve kept from my [foremothers] was never to lose my sense of Puerto Rico; that, even if I don’t live in Puerto Rico, Puerto Rico lives in me,” she says. So much of that inheritance lives in the little things she remembers about her Puerto Rican grandmother, she says, from the té de tilo she’d make for an upset stomach; the recao that grew on her grandmother’s balcony because she didn’t have a backyard; or the azabache she still wears to this day for spiritual protection. They are the same small traditions she has passed on to her kids.

“My daughter makes better arroz con gandules than all of us,” Rodriguez says. “And her recipe is true to what my grandmother’s recipe was. That will continue to live on, until we are able to go back to our island and live in peace.”

That freedom is one reason Rodriguez believes independent film is so important for stories like “Hurricane Seasons.” Without a studio machine making decisions based primarily on commercial expectations, filmmakers have more room to tell a story on their own terms.

“Once the studio gets involved, they start thinking about dollars, which they got to make money, but they prioritize the dollars,” Rodriguez says. “And I think that’s why a lot of these big projects that they spend a lot of money on have failed because they don’t honor the storytelling. They don’t honor the authenticity of the world, the authenticity of the stories.”

Her hope is that “Hurricane Seasons” encourages more people to tell their own stories — especially Puerto Ricans.

“Puerto Ricans are not a joke; we’re not a punchline. You don’t get to tell us we don’t speak correct Spanish and make fun of our songs. Then, years later, appropriate our culture and become big time doing what we do, using our terms and our colloquialisms because it brings you capital,” she says. “We are people. We’ve been doing this for a very long time, and our grandmothers and our tias and tios matter, and they’re not [a] costume that you can just put on [to] make money off of it.”

Before we wrapped up the call, Rodriguez paused for a moment when I asked her what Puerto Rico means to her. Then her eyes lit up, and her voice softened as she described why the island means so much to her — and why so many people, even outside of the diaspora, find themselves drawn to it.

“Puerto Rico is a very special place, which is why so many people want to kick us out, so they can move [in],” she says. “But they’ll never have the magic, because the magic is us.”

Fans reported audience members walked out of cinemas when it was first released

Film fans say it is one of the best thrillers ever, so long as you can stomach it.

Ahead of Halloween, a number of horror movies have been added to BBC iPlayer for fans to enjoy at no extra cost. That includes The Substance, which was originally released in cinemas to great acclaim back in 2024.

It later landed on premium subscription services following its theatrical run. This includes the likes of Paramount+, where it can still be found, but the broadcaster’s platform states it can be watched at no extra cost on iPlayer for the next three months.

According to its synopsis, the film’s story follows fading actress Elisabeth Sparkle who becomes distressed when her chauvinistic boss fires her from her aerobics show. She soon injects herself with a new and mysterious serum that promises a younger, better version of herself. As you might expect, it’s not long before things go horribly wrong.

Despite being a relatively low-budget production at under $20 million, the title boasted an impressive cast list. This includes Demi Moore, Dennis Quaid, and Margaret Qualley.

It would go on to earn more than $80 million at the box office globally and even earned plenty of awards buzz both for the film and its stars. The Substance was also one of the highest-rated movie releases of the year it came out, boasting an 89% score on the website Rotten Tomatoes.

When it first arrived in cinemas, some reports claimed that moviegoers struggled to actually sit through the entire thing. There were claims on social media that people walked out, unable to stomach it all, while others stated that audiences applauded at the end.

A number of reviews backed this up, such as one which claimed: “The Substance is an incredibly difficult watch, even for the most hardened horror fan. “This film is exemplary, there’s no doubt about that, but it pushed me to my absolute limit – perhaps even just beyond it. Don’t be fooled by the big names in the cast, this does not operate in the boundaries of mainstream cinema, it shatters them completely and you’ll feel like you’re fighting for your life. Bravo.”

Another critic agreed and added: “It’s the kind of film that requires courage from everybody involved, including the caterers who were presumably tasked with preparing a menu that wouldn’t end up on the shooting floor every day.”

Despite this, many fans still recommend it, as one posted online: “What a spectacular film, out of the ordinary, what an incredible social critique, the ending was just a bit exaggerated, but that’s also part of the criticism, I thought it would be just another generic horror film, no, far from it…”

But some still urge caution: “Warning! This movie is insanely gruesome and bloody. So much so that if you can’t handle excessive gore, you might just find yourself gagging. But if you can stomach it, The Substance is an absolutely wild ride, delivering one of the best horror-thriller experiences in years.”

Someone else called it “bonkers” and added: “The last 45 minutes were one of the greatest cinema experiences of my life, listening to a group of humans howl with laughter and scream and cover their eyes and ears in equal measure.”

The Substance is streaming on BBC iPlayer and Paramount+

The Tom Cruise-led “Digger” is poised for a massive loss after ticket sales for the political satire fell 60% in its second weekend in theaters in the U.S. and Canada.

The Warner Bros. film made just $3.2 million in those theaters over the weekend, according to a studio estimate. Its opening weekend brought in $8 million, Cruise’s lowest opening as a leading man since 2007’s “Lions for Lambs.” Global ticket sales for “Digger” were only $35.3 million.

The tepid box-office returns mean the studio is now expected to lose at least $150 million on the film, including ancillary revenue streams such as premium video-on-demand and streaming, industry sources said. Historically, a film has typically needed to make 2½ to three times its budget to recoup its costs.

A Warner Bros. spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.

It’s a tough result for the film, which stars Cruise as an aging oil tycoon whose company sets off an environmental catastrophe. Analysts have said that the film was challenging to market, given a major twist in the plot, and that Cruise’s nearly unrecognizable appearance could have dissuaded his fan base from coming out to support the film.

The film suffered from polarizing critical reviews, notching a 53% on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes. Opening-night audiences gave it a C+ on CinemaScore, a grade that typically points to weak word of mouth and steep drops in the weeks that follow.

The budget for “Digger” raised the stakes. Warner Bros. has said the film cost $125 million to produce, though some industry experts and trade reports have estimated the cost was at least $160 million, citing production delays.

That figure also doesn’t include marketing costs, which sources said could have increased in the days after the film’s opening since Warner Bros. began using the divided reviews in social media and TV ads to encourage people to see the film for themselves.

The film will have value to Warner Bros. — and Skydance, the newly combined company that now owns it — beyond its theatrical reception. “Digger” probably will make money through downstream revenue sources such as streaming. If Cruise wins his first competitive Oscar, that also would be a plus for the film.

But a film’s domestic reception, and to some extent, its international box office revenue, does play a role in the value of those downstream revenue opportunities, experts said.

“Even with respectable ancillary income based on the film’s pedigree, the movie is going to lose a lot of money,” David A. Gross wrote in his FranchiseRe movie industry newsletter shortly after the film’s opening.

The reception for “Digger” comes during a tough time for Warner Bros.

The film opened Oct. 2, the same day the studio’s film chiefs, Michael De Luca and Pam Abdy, departed. Four days later, Paramount completed its acquisition of Warner Bros. Discovery, and the combined company took the name Skydance.

The studio has had a string of disappointments this year, including Maggie Gyllenhaal’s “The Bride!” and DC Studios’ “Supergirl.” None of its 2026 releases has crossed $100 million at the domestic box office.

But the prospects for Warner Bros. should improve next year, according to the research and brokerage firm Bernstein. Skydance has said it will keep the Warner Bros. and Paramount studios distinct, though Paramount Pictures chiefs Dana Goldberg and Josh Greenstein are expected to oversee both. Bernstein expects the Warner Bros. film and TV studios to amass $11.7 billion in revenue, driven by strong titles that include the sequel to “Minecraft” and a new “Lord of the Rings” movie.

Danny Trejo made his stance on Immigration and Customs Enforcement tactics clear.

The actor spoke out Friday after it was revealed last week he was cast in the film “Pawn Shop,” which is reportedly inspired by the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE officer in Minneapolis.

The feature is co-produced by the Daily Wire — the right-wing media company launched in 2015 by conservative political commentator Ben Shapiro — and Bonfire Legend, a production company formed by prolific producer Dallas Sonnier in 2021.

Frequently featured in movies targeting Latino audiences, Trejo built a devoted following within the demographic over the years as one of the more prominent Mexican American actors in Hollywood.

He was criticized online for his involvement in “Pawn Shop” due to its positive portrayal of ICE agents, who have been antagonizing the Latino community at an accelerated clip over the last two years. Trejo was called a “sellout” and a “traitor” across social media in recent days.

“I want to address some social media comments about me. Make no mistake. I am a proud Mexican who has always been and will always be a supporter of my community,” Trejo wrote in an Instagram post. “I am also obviously pro-immigrant. I am not pro ICE. I know where I come from and I know our struggles. I am an actor. My job is to tell a story.”

Trejo’s casting was first announced by the Montana newspaper Bozeman Daily Chronicle after speaking with one of Trejo’s cast members on the film’s set in Livingston, Mont., as well as Livingston locals who had seen and photographed the actor in the city’s downtown area.

Deadline confirmed that Trejo, along with “Reservoir Dogs” actor Harvey Keitel and “E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial” star Henry Thomas, was scheduled to appear in the film after reviewing the call sheet.

The 82-year-old Trejo has previously voiced support for immigrant communities. During the initial onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in spring 2020, he was part of a coalition of Latino actors who pushed forward the #AyudaEnEspanol campaign, which advocated for providing COVID-19 resources kits in Spanish for Latino migrant farmworkers across the U.S.

In an interview with TMZ in fall 2025, the actor, who has appeared in over 400 films and television programs, was asked to give a message to the families that had been affected by ICE raids.

“To the families, keep up hope,” Trejo said. “Help your neighbor and do whatever you can for people in need.”

His recent statement came after “Pawn Shop” made headlines for hitting snags in its production in Livingston following local protests. Residents claimed the movie’s production interrupted local businesses’ operations — and that the crew did not properly communicate with businesses about its schedule.

Production on the film was temporarily paused on Oct. 3 from an order by the Livingston city commission. Filming resumed on Oct. 6 after Livingston officials reinstated permits for the movie.

“We’re all hiding a little bit of our personality inside,” says director Cristian Mungiu of the characters in “Fjord,” a searing drama inspired by real Norwegian child welfare cases. “The film speaks about a limit of intimacy, after which you will need to make a choice not knowing precisely what happens. This is why I wanted the film to start at the end of a conversation in which you don’t really know what kind of punishments exist in this family.” Lighting and shallow focus deepen the uncertainty of a mother (Renate Reinsve) comforting her daughter (Vanessa Ceban) and a father (Sebastian Stan) waiting to have his say: “You need to admit when you’re wrong.” “You see the role of a mother who tries to play this more empathic part, while the father is the one playing the role of the educator who imposes his rules,” Mungiu says. “This shot speaks about our way of storytelling and designing everything to be ambiguous enough about their relationship. At the same time, this also speaks about a theme in the film: this idea that there isn’t anything like right and wrong and the truth. And we all believe that the truth belongs to us. And this is the problem.”

Tom Cruise’s latest film Digger is expected to lose around $245m (£185m), Hollywood analysts have said, after the film’s continuing poor performance in cinemas.

Ticket sales for the satirical black comedy, which stars Cruise as oil magnate Digger Rockwell, dropped by around 60% in the movie’s second weekend.

It brings Digger’s total box office takings to around $35m (£26m) globally so far. The film is estimated to have cost its studio Warner Bros around $280m (£211m) to make and market.

But Cruise said last week, external that he “never thought of movies when I’m making them [in terms of] opening weekend,” adding he was instead focused on making films that “hopefully will translate, last and evolve”.

The film’s takings relative to its budget mean it could become one of the biggest film flops in Hollywood history.

Digger’s performance is in sharp contrast to the success of IP-driven hits starring Cruise in recent years, such as new instalments of the Top Gun and Mission: Impossible franchises.

Digger is directed by Alejandro G Iñárritu, best known for films such as Birdman, Babel and The Revenant.

Hollywood trade publication Variety said Digger was expected to end its box office run with around $50m (£38m) worldwide.

The film would need around $350m (£264m) to break even, due to its budget, marketing costs, the portion of ticket sales that go to theatres and the likely spend on an awards season campaign.

However, a Warner Bros spokesman pushed back slightly on the figure, telling Variety the film’s break even point was $300m (£227m).

Digger was the last standalone release for the studio before its recent takeover by Paramount.

Documentary draws on 24 anonymous Israeli sources accusing military of killing Palestinians in Gaza using AI systems.

Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has called for an investigation into the anonymous sources featured in a documentary alleging that Israel’s military killed civilians in Gaza using AI-powered targeting systems.

The award-winning film, NAZA, draws on testimony from 24 unnamed Israeli military whistleblowers accusing the army of using the systems to kill numerous civilians in the besieged territory.

“I demand that the chief of general staff, the head of the Shin Bet, and the attorney general launch a comprehensive investigation into the participants in the film ‘Naza’ and prosecute them for serious information security violations, criminal libel, and harm to Israel’s diplomatic and security interests,” Netanyahu said on X on Saturday evening.

“The film presents a false, misleading, and biased narrative that defames the State of Israel and the [Israeli military] internationally, severely damaging Israel’s standing,” he added.

In a statement last month, the Israeli military said it “categorically” rejected the whistleblowers’ allegations, calling some of their assertions “absurd’ and contradictory.

It insisted that the selection and approval of strikes “are made by human personnel only”, in line with the military’s guidelines.

Israeli army Chief of Staff Eyal Zamir has called for legal action against the participants to be considered and ordered an investigation into suspected leaks of classified military information used in the film’s production.

NAZA takes its name from the Israeli military term for civilian casualties expected in air strikes, an abbreviated form of the Hebrew phrase for “collateral damage”.

The film was awarded a special jury prize at the Venice International Film Festival and received a historic 25-minute standing ovation.

It has also triggered a political storm in Israel.

The film’s directors, Yuval Abraham and Rachel Szor, have been accused of “treason”. Netanyahu and Culture Minister Miki Zohar have threatened to revoke their Israeli citizenship.

Last week, the head of Israel’s National Public Diplomacy Directorate, Tzipi Hotovely, awarded the creators of another film, NAZA: The Real Story, certificates of recognition for countering the “blood libels” made in the original NAZA film.

According to a statement from the Prime Minister’s Office, NAZA: The Real Story features testimony from soldiers refuting the original claims.

In contrast, 43 Israeli rights groups defended the filmmakers of NAZA and denounced the threats being directed at them, according to Israel’s Channel 12 news.

Israel’s genocidal war on Gaza began on October 7, 2023, after Hamas’s armed wing, the Qassam Brigades, and other Palestinian groups attacked southern Israel, killing 1,139 people and taking about 240 captive.

Since then, Israel has killed at least 74,000 Palestinians, including at least 21,000 children, according to Gaza’s Ministry of Health.