movie

Universal Pictures will now keep its new films in theaters for at least five weekends, a reversal from the studio’s previous policy of at least 17 days that was set during the pandemic.

The change takes place immediately, the studio said Thursday. That means it will apply to its newest film, the Colleen Hoover romance “Reminders of Him,” which is out in theaters this weekend. Other upcoming films include Christopher Nolan’s “The Odyssey,” which will be released in July.

“Our windowing strategy has always been designed to evolve with the marketplace, but we firmly believe in the primacy of theatrical exclusivity and working closely with our exhibition partners to support a healthy, sustainable theatrical ecosystem,” Donna Langley, chair of NBCUniversal Entertainment, said in an email to the New York Times, which first reported the news.

Focus Features, Universal Pictures’ specialty film arm, will keep its existing theatrical exclusivity policies, which vary on a case-by-case basis. Chloé Zhao’s “Hamnet,” for instance, was in theaters for 99 days, while 2024’s “Nosferatu” played for 58 days. The minimum is 17 days.

The amount of time films are available exclusively in theaters — known as “windowing” in industry jargon — has become a contentious topic of conversation in Hollywood.

That debate ramped up during the pandemic, when some studios shortened theatrical exclusivity periods in order to move films to release for video on demand or streaming.

Prior to the pandemic, those windows could be as long as 90 days. Now, the average is around 30 days.

Theater owners have argued that shorter windows cut into box office profits and train audiences to wait to watch a movie at home. Distributors have countered that a one-size-fits-all approach doesn’t necessarily work for smaller or mid-budget films, which may find a bigger audience via at-home viewing.

At last year’s CinemaCon trade conference, top theater lobbyist Michael O’Leary called on distributors to establish a minimum 45-day window, arguing there needed to be a “clear, consistent starting point” to set moviegoers’ expectations and affirm commitment to theatrical exclusivity.

The debate has become even more fierce as box office profits still have not recovered from the pandemic. Last year, theatrical revenue in the U.S. and Canada totaled about $8.87 billion, just 1.5% above 2024’s disappointing $8.74-billion tally.

Everyone’s getting into podcasts — even demons.

“undertone,” a muted, personal and static microbudget horror debut by Ian Tuason, takes place in the writer-director’s actual childhood home where he tended to both of his parents before they died. Both hospice and inspiration, it’s a stifling place decorated with floral wallpaper and crucifixes. The pain and exhaustion and grief are so real and oppressive, the camera never dares set a foot outside.

Upstairs, Evy (Nina Kiri), watches over her own terminally ill mother (Michèle Duquet). Tuason funneled his emotional gloom into this movie; Evy co-hosts a horror podcast with her overseas best friend Justin (voiced by Adam DiMarco). “This is the only thing keeping me sane right now,” she says. They’re words she’ll regret within the week.

Kiri and DiMarco have the comfortable, convincing chemistry of two old pals who have done a show for a while. One snippet seems to be an episode on Elisa Lam, the real-life tourist found dead in the rooftop water tank of Los Angeles’ Cecil Hotel. There’s also a reference to a website with a red-faced ghoul who hypnotizes victims into cutting off their ears. The latter may be Tuason seeding his idea for a sequel.

Here the central story is that Justin, who lives in London, has received an email with 10 audio files recorded by a couple named Mike and Jessa (Jeff Yung and Keana Lyn Bastidas) who are trying to understand what she’s saying in her sleep. The sender is unknown. (Possibly an evil spirit hoping for the exposure of a mattress ad?) Justin, the believer, is instantly alarmed by how these eerie tapes escalate from cute banter to ghostly crying babies and backward incantations. Evy is the skeptic who dismisses the noises as either an online hoax or bad plumbing.

Due to the time zone differential, Evy and Justin record their show just before he heads out to work in the morning, which for her is 3 a.m. Most of the movie takes place in that witching-hour window, an airlessly silent time where an at-home podcaster doesn’t worry about being interrupted by a leaf blower, an ice cream truck or a dog. Sound-designed by David Gertsman, “undertone” is so quiet that a tea kettle sounds like a fire alarm. Story-wise, it’s equally inert. One of the biggest action shots in the first hour comes when — eek! — a sink turns on.

I’d love to understand why horror films that I find excruciatingly dull give others the heebie-jeebies. My working theory is that they tap into audiences with a preexisting suspicion that the world is wicked — they prove paranoia to be well-founded. My mental default is that the world is neutral-good, and that may be why I prefer movies with active villains scaring me out of my complacency. I spent “Paranormal Activity” and “Skinamarink” restlessly admiring the production design; here, my main thrill came from the soundscape, like when a vibrating cellphone made my chair rattle like it was a tractor, or a noise that can only be described as death-rattle ASMR.

When Evy slips her on headphones, she’s so focused making sense of the latest scary tape, playing it forward, reversed and slowed-down, that she’s oblivious to the bumps in the night in her own house, upstairs near her comatose mother’s bedroom. I suspect Tuason deeply relates to Evy, to the disassociation of living with death every day, and uses her resistance to explore denial. She refuses to admit that the supernatural is real, even as she repeatedly takes a break to steady herself and, as she puts it, “get back into character.” Her stifled panic makes it obvious that fear is taking over.

The screenplay also has a passing reference to Evy’s useless, off-screen boyfriend Darren (voiced by Ryan Turner). Their miserable dynamic is compelling but overall comes off like a plot point Tuason stuffed in his pocket and never got around to using. Our one peek into it comes when Darren phones Evy to pressure her to ditch her mom and come to a party. He claims he’s throwing a kegger to cheer her up. (A frozen lasagna on the doorstep would be better, dude.)

Evy does reluctantly leave the house — we don’t follow her there — and that one moment says as much about crossed-signals communication as anything else in the movie. It’s bullseye-accurate about how isolating it is to lose a parent earlier than your peers.

The film is so committed to its rigors — the two-person cast, the glacial camera pivots, the moody lighting — that it teeters on the line of becoming monotonous. When Tuason eases up a bit, say in a scene in which Evy pops on a sleep podcast that begins by describing a babbling brook and rapidly becomes a nightmare tale of bobbing corpses, he finally shows you that he has the potential for range.

But “undertone” is rooted in that slow-and-still horror discipline that holds its breath waiting for something to happen. It requires the audience to bring their own bad vibes to shots of religious icons on the wall and long takes of Evy clacking on her laptop, unaware of a flickering light behind her. (Rumor is Tuason has already signed on to shoot the next “Paranormal Activity” sequel.)

Mostly it puts the audience in the position of watching a protagonist so passive that chunks of the running time are watching her sit at a table waiting for Justin to look up things for her on Wikipedia. Like amateur detectives, we learn alongside them as they click around pages about Sumerian devils, Catholic saints and the origin of the nursery rhymes “London Bridge” and “Baa, Baa, Black Sheep.”

As visuals go, “undertone” is so far removed from anything resembling the cinematic experience that I left with a fresh appreciation for campfire storytelling. At least then the listener gets to use their own imagination. But production designer Mercedes Coyle does dig up two satisfyingly creepy props: one, an antique speaking doll, the other, a small white statue that appears to be the Virgin Mary until we get a better look at her mouth, deformed by a hungry scream.

Despite my quibbles with how her character reacts when things really go awry, Kiri’s Evy has a clarity of purpose that holds our attention despite not having that much to do. In her strongest sequence, she and Justin take a few live callers on their podcast, some of whom bear bad news about Mike and Jessa, and another who phones up in the middle of a crisis that’s too big for these self-positioned experts to handle. Real violence is coming and these armchair ghosthunters are totally out of their depth. Yes, everyone is into podcasts. Maybe they shouldn’t be.

When Brazilian journalist Tatiana Merlino watched “The Secret Agent” — one of this year’s Oscar nominees for best picture — it felt like seeing scattered scenes from her own life.

As the movie follows Marcelo (played by Wagner Moura) — a professor fleeing from a vindictive businessman during Brazil’s military dictatorship (1964-1985), the story skims through old audio tapes and newspapers, reviewed by a researcher looking into how he died. Like her, Merlino also dug into the past to piece together how her uncle, Luiz Eduardo Merlino, a communist activist, was killed by the right-wing regime in 1971. Though it was initially reported as a suicide, the family soon found his corpse with torture marks in a morgue.

“It became necessary to fight for memory, truth, and justice, because these crimes committed by dictatorship agents weren’t punished at that time, and have not been to this day,” says the 49-year-old journalist, who first saw “The Secret Agent” in São Paulo, and made a career from investigating human rights abuses.

“When a country does not come to terms with its past,” she adds, “its ghosts resurface.”

Recent dictatorship-themed movies like “The Secret Agent” and “I’m Still Here,” which won the Oscar for best international film in 2025, were instant blockbusters back home in Brazil. While both films honor those who, like Merlino, still seek justice for the regime victims, their popularity also got boosted by the country’s zeitgeist.

To many Brazilians, these movies served as reminders of what could have been had former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, himself a retired Army captain and a dictatorship nostalgic, succeeded in his 2022 attempt at a coup d’etat.

On Jan. 8, 2023, encouraged by Bolsonaro, hundreds of vandals stormed into the Three Powers Plaza, a square in the country’s capital, Brasília, that gathers the congress, the supreme court and the presidential palace. Neither he nor the vandals accepted the 2022 election — won by the veteran leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as “Lula.”

The uprising followed the same blueprint as the pro-Trump rioters behind the Jan. 6 insurrection in the United States. Although President Trump himself was federally prosecuted for election obstruction, the case was dismissed after his reelection in 2024.

Unlike the U.S., however, Brazil has charged, judged and arrested the conspirators — including Bolsonaro and members of his staff who participated in the coup plot.

“Bolsonaro doesn’t come from Mars,” said “The Secret Agent” star Wagner Moura to the L.A. Times in February. “He’s deeply grounded in the history of the country.”

In 1964, a U.S.-backed coup enacted a violent, 21-year autocracy run by the military, whose effects still resonate today, says Alessandra Gasparotto, a professor at the Federal University of Pelotas (UFPEL).

“It was a dictatorship that worked from a perspective of building certain legitimacy, keeping the congress functioning, but of course, after purging dissent,” explains the Brazilian historian.

“I’m Still Here,” for example, dramatizes the real-life quest of Eunice Paiva, a housewife whose husband Rubens Paiva, a former leftist congressman who had his tenure revoked after the coup, then disappeared in the hands of the military in 1971. To this day, his body still hasn’t been recovered.

In 2014, Bolsonaro, then just a congressman, spit on a bust of Paiva erected to honor his memory during the coup’s 50th anniversary in Congress.

“The cinema of all countries has the role of preserving memory, so if you take a look at the Holocaust, the American Civil War, or World War II movies, it has this role of almost an ally of history,” says writer Marcelo Rubens Paiva, son of Rubens Paiva and author of the book from which “I’m Still Here” is based. “There’s an old saying: History is the narrative of winners, while art is of the defeated.”

In the case of Brazil, the militaries who led the repressive apparatus of the dictatorship got away with torture and murder through a 1979 amnesty law. It was initially enacted to pardon alleged “political crimes” committed by the regime opposition and allow a transition to democracy — but it was also used to pardon the dictatorship’s human rights violations. Then, in the late 1980s, the military oversaw a slow, gradual shift to democracy, stepping down from power only in 1985.

“This new republic had more continuity than novelty, since many politicians who were central to the dictatorship moved to central roles in the democratic government,” explains Gasparotto. “That’s why they built this pact [to forgive the regime’s crimes].”

For that reason, these movies still feel contemporary. “The Secret Agent,” for example, blends past and future through the records analyzed by a researcher, while “I’m Still Here” highlights Eunice Paiva’s post-regime fight for the recognition of Rubens Paiva’s death; without any corpse to officialize his death, he was just deemed disappeared.

When Merlino watched the movie, for example, Eunice reminded her of her grandmother, Iracema Merlino.

“I’m the third generation of my family fighting for memory, truth and justice,” says Merlino. “It started with my grandmother, who passed away, then it was handed to my mother, who’s now very ill, then to me.”

Nowadays, she awaits trial for the third lawsuit attempt of the family to hold her uncle’s torturer, Col. Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra, accountable — the two other cases against the accused were dismissed over the years.

Since Ustra’s death in 2015, the Merlino family is now suing his estate for reparations. Yet he still remains a hero to some; in 2016, while Bolsonaro was still a congressman, he shouted a dedication to the memory of the torturer during the voting of the impeachment of Brazil’s former President Dilma Rousseff — herself one of the victims of Ustra in the 1970s, but among the few who survived.

“These films make connections with the present because understanding the past is important for understanding today’s contradictions,” says Marcelo Rubens Paiva. “What happened before interferes in the conflicts a country lives in today.”

So if authoritarians like Bolsonaro don’t come out of the blue, the same goes for other autocratic leaders, like President Trump.

Although founded on democratic principles, the U.S. itself has a long, muddled history with the concept. The authoritarian turn the country is reckoning with is part of a long legacy of inequality that stemmed from the 246-year institution of slavery. Following its abolishment in 1865 came a near-centurylong period of tension marked by racial segregation that we now refer to as “Jim Crow.”

“With some exceptions, the South was governed by a then-segregationist Democrat party — with [rampant] electoral fraud, authoritarianism, use of local police for political repression, and no chance for opposition, even [by] moderates,” says Arthur Avila, a history professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) in Brazil.

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ended segregation and granted voting rights to people of all races — signed by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Southern Democrat who broke away from the party’s history to spearhead progressive domestic policy — the decades that followed were ridden with manipulations of the electoral system. For example gerrymandering, or the practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one political party, is an ongoing, albeit controversial tactic among both Democrats and Republicans.

President Trump himself was federally prosecuted for election obstruction. The indictment alleged that, upon losing the 2020 election, Trump conspired to overturn the results and manipulate the public by spreading false claims of election fraud on social media. It argued that this, in turn, stoked a mob of his supporters into leading the deadly Jan. 6 attacks on the Capitol; but the case was dismissed upon his reelection in 2024.

In the lead-up to the midterm elections in November, Trump has pushed for federal control over elections, restrictions on mail-in voting and the addition of citizenship documents to vote, despite an existing federal law that already prohibits noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections. (He tried implementing the latter through an executive order in 2025, but it was permanently blocked by a federal court; a voter ID bill called the “SAVE America Act” is currently stalling in the Senate.)

“There’s a strong local authoritarian tradition in the U.S. that Trump himself feeds from,” says Avila.

Besides that, according to Avila, the country faces a growing “de-democratization” process from within. This shows in the rising control and dismantling of institutions by reactionary sectors — including efforts to block professional, educational and athletic programs promoting DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion — from what many critics and scholars have cited as lingering resentment from desegregation, he says.

“We may see it as a slow authoritarian turn in North American politics that didn’t overturn the democratic regime yet,” Arthur considers. “But if this process goes on, and that’s a conjecture, in the next decade the U.S. may become a state of exception that keeps democratic appearances but has been stripped of any democracy’s substance whatsoever.”

As movies such as “The Secret Agent and “I’m Still Here” remind us, a great deal of maintaining a democracy has to do with keeping a good memory.

Walt Disney Co. and Pixar’s “Hoppers” took the box office crown this weekend in an encouraging sign for the company’s original animated films.

The film generated $46 million in ticket sales in the U.S. and Canada, marking the highest domestic opening for an original animated movie since 2017’s “Coco,” according to studio estimates. The global box office total for “Hoppers” was $88 million.

The zany movie features a young environmental advocate who “hops” her consciousness into a robotic beaver and bands together with other woodland creatures to stop a planned freeway expansion through a glade.

The film is directed by Daniel Chong, who created the Cartoon Network animated series “We Bare Bears.”

The muscular debut for “Hoppers,” as well as the strong performance from Sony Pictures Animation’s “Goat” last month, has been a positive sign for audience interest in original animated films.

Since the pandemic, theatrical returns for animated sequels have far surpassed that of original films. Disney’s “Zootopia 2,” for instance, has now grossed more than $1.8 billion in global box office revenue, with more than $426 million domestically. Disney and Pixar’s 2024 hit “Inside Out 2” also crossed more than $1.6 billion globally.

By contrast, Disney and Pixar’s 2025 original film “Elio” brought in about $154 million in worldwide box office revenue.

Original films are vital to Pixar’s future, as the Emeryville-based studio built its reputation on its string of nearly uninterrupted original blockbuster hits, including 1995’s “Toy Story” and 2004’s “The Incredibles.”

Paramount Pictures and Spyglass Media Group’s “Scream 7” came in second at the box office with $17.3 million in its second weekend in theaters. Warner Bros. Pictures’ “The Bride!,” Sony’s “Goat” and Warner Bros.’ “Wuthering Heights” rounded out the top five at the box office, according to data from Comscore.

With several strong releases, as well as popular holdover films from 2025 that continue to bring in revenue, the first few months at the box office have been a notable improvement over last year’s dismal first quarter.

Domestic box office revenue so far is up more than 12% compared to the same time period in 2025, according to Comscore.

FANS have been left shocked to discover that a stunning influencer is actually the daughter of a Hollywood star.

The online personality regularly posts lifestyle videos with her dedicated fan base, but would you guess who her A-list dad is?

Shayla Gibson boasts over 7 million likes on her TikTok page and over 130k followers.

From ‘Day In The Life’ videos to health and nutrition clips, the star appears to be carving out a career for herself on social media.

But a deeper delve into 18-year-old Shayla’s account revealed that she’s also the daughter of Fast and Furious actor Tyrese Gibson.

Alongside appearing in the famous film franchise, Tyrese is also famed for his R&B singing career.

Read more influencer news

big biz

TikTok star reveals how much money her biggest ever video made after 22m views

baby bumps

Influencer Mya Mills sparks split rumours amid cryptic pregnancy announcement

And Shayla is even the inspiration behind one of TikTok’s most famous sound.

A clip of Tyrese exclaiming, “Oh, my Shayla”, in reference to his daughter became one of social media’s most used sounds when it surfaced in 2017 during Tyrese’s custody battle with ex-wife Norma Mitchell.

The clip – initially an emotional video by Tyrese – continues to be one of TikTok’s most popular sound bites.

Poking fun at the viral sensation, Shayla’s TikTok bio reads: “Yes I’m Shayla”.

Tyrese often appears in Shayla’s videos, with the pair clearly boasting a close father-daughter relationship.

He is most famous for appearing in the Fast and Furious franchise as Roman Pearce.

According to IMBD, Tyrese is working on a number of new projects to be released in the coming years.

Following his split from ex-wife Norma, Tyrese married Samantha Lee in 2017, but split just three years later.

The couple, who are parents to daughter Soraya, announced their split via Instagram in a joint statement.

They said at the time that they were to remain “best of friends” and were “deeply grateful” to be married for the last few years.

The actor has continued to appear in action films over recent years, and is currently working on several projects.

The birthday surprise was not subtle.

Eva Mendes and Ryan Gosling showed up together in public Thursday evening for the first time in more than a decade, with Gosling enlisting “The Tonight Show Starring Jimmy Fallon” host for help in surprising his longtime partner for her 52nd birthday.

Gosling was on the show to promote his upcoming film, “Project Hail Mary,” in which he plays a high school teacher tasked with saving the world. So he asked Fallon to arrange for an audience full of — you guessed it — high school teachers. Because Mendes absolutely loves teachers, he said.

And then there was the request that they surprise Mendes by singing “Happy Birthday” when she came out on stage. It was unclear whether Gosling also ordered up the marching band that played backup, but Fallon wound up crediting him for the whole deal, which we assume included the, um, confetti cannon.

So back to Gosling, who along with Mendes is very private about their relationship and hasn’t been seen at a public event with her (His partner? His wife? Who knows, who cares) since they promoted their 2013 movie “The Place Beyond the Pines.”

He talked about the movie, of course, sharing some funny video from a promotional spot he recorded.

“This was crazy,” the “Crazy, Stupid, Love” actor told Fallon and the “Tonight Show” audience. “I swear, this is not a paid ad. I swear this happened. This was not planned. I had to do a little thing with Alexa, where I just was supposed to ask her facts about the movie. … And this is what happened. This is what she said, I swear.”

In the video, Gosling quizzed Alexa about why people should see the movie in theaters instead of waiting for it to stream at home.

“Because the Imax visuals are absolutely stunning,” Alexa said. But it was what she said next that warmed Gosling’s heart.

“Plus, Eva Mendes herself called it a masterpiece that brings back the magic of the big screen experience that you just can’t get the full impact of on your couch at home,” Alexa said.

“That Eva Mendes is great, isn’t she?” Gosling said in his trademark slight-smirk delivery.

“Absolutely. She’s got this incredible range that people don’t always give her credit for” — at this point Gosling blurted an enthusiastic “Thank you!” — “from her breakthrough in ‘Training Day’ to that beautiful performance in ‘The Place Beyond the Pines’ with Ryan Gosling, she brings this authentic vulnerability to every role.”

At this point, Gosling kissed Alexa, who was made out of red plastic and had a “Project Hail Mary” image emblazoned on her speaker.

“Plus, she’s been smart about stepping back from acting to focus on family,” Alexa continued, “which shows she’s got her priorities straight.”

“I couldn’t agree more,” said Gosling, who’s been with Mendes since 2011 and welcomed two daughters with her. Whether they are officially married is, of course, a mystery. And he did kiss Alexa, which could complicate things. That Alexa, she’s a hustler.

But married or not, Gosling was 100% committed to surprising Mendes on her 52nd trip around the sun. Turns out she was backstage at the show, thinking she was going to get the opportunity to tell the audience full of teachers how much she appreciated what they do every day. So someone brought her to the set, where Gosling greeted her with a “Hi, sweetheart” and held her hand as he pulled her to center stage.

Mendes, apparently thinking her appearance wouldn’t be part of the show, immediately burst into a paean to teaching, telling the educators who were assembled, “I love teachers so much, you guys. We owe so much to you guys. You’re so underpaid and you’re so — I just — thank you so much. I had so many amazing teachers.”

Then she turned to Fallon and said, “You’ll cut all this, right?” Seems she hadn’t put two and two together when Gosling pointed her toward the mark on the floor where she was supposed to stand for the cameras.

Nope, the host said. We love this.

So Mendes went on. “I had so many amazing teachers mentor me,” she said, speaking rapidly and enthusiastically, “and I just want to say thank you to you guys.”

But Fallon reminded her that this was her day — her birthday. And Gosling pointed out that among the educators there were some band directors.

“Yes, we have band directors from North Bergen High School,” Fallon announced. “Ladies and gentlemen, here to play ‘Happy Birthday’ to Eva Mendes, we have the North Bergen High School marching band.”

And there they were, a dozen or two members of that marching band, in full regalia, with two people holding a “Happy Birthday Eva!” banner and the rest blasting out the familiar tune. The entire audience joined in serenading the woman of the hour as they clapped along. Mendes clapped along as well.

As a finale, yup, confetti blasted out over those onstage. And Fallon gave credit where it was due.

“That’s all him,” he said, indicating Gosling, which prompted Mendes to grab her beau’s face and start whispering into his ear. And that’s the most fans are likely to see the twosome behaving like a twosome in public, at least until maybe 2039 or so. Maybe for her 65th birthday. Or her 70th. Or perhaps their AI holograms will one day reveal whether they said “I do.”

By the way, all those teachers were the ones who got the birthday gift last night. Fallon announced they would be going to a special screening of “Project Hail Mary” after the taping, and the teachers’ delight was palpable.

Very nice, “Tonight Show.” You and Ryan Gosling made some people very happy Thursday. Including one Eva Mendes.

“Project Hail Mary” hits theaters March 20.

Hello! I’m Mark Olsen. Welcome to another edition of your regular field guide to a world of Only Good Movies.

If you are anything like me, you felt pretty out of sorts this week, not sure how to process the news that we are suddenly, apparently, a nation again at war. It can make the movies seem frivolous — a glorious, privileged sandbox to stick your head in — but it is also times like these that make them seem most vital and necessary: a place to focus energy and anxiety and maybe figure things out.

I was particularly struck by something New York Times critic Wesley Morris said in an appearance on the podcast “The Big Picture.” He was ostensibly talking about the downside of the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger news (“These people are f— with our dreams here” is how he began) but he landed on why movies matter in their moment, crucial to “how we develop as a culture, how we come to understand ourselves as a people, what this country ought to or should look like 40 years from now.”

The week’s big new release is Maggie Gyllenhaal’s “The Bride!” a sort-of adaptation of 1935’s “Bride of Frankenstein” starring Jessie Buckley and Christian Bale that is also very much its own thing, purpose-built to drive some people up a tree and already sharply dividing critics.

Christian Bale and Jessie Buckley in the movie “The Bride!”

(Niko Tavernise / Warner Bros. Pictures)

In her largely positive review, Amy Nicholson calls the movie “an unhinged scream,” adding, “‘Every wacky second, you’re well aware how perilously close it is to falling apart at the seams. This spiritual sequel to ‘Frankenstein’ is a romantic tale of obsession, possession and fantasy — adjectives that also apply to its filmmaker, Maggie Gyllenhaal, who expends massive quantities of energy jolting it to life. She succeeds by the skin of her teeth.”

I interviewed Gyllenhaal about “The Bride!” — including the significance of that exclamation point in the title. There have been numerous reports about a back-and-forth between the filmmaker and execs at Warner Bros. and Gyllenhaal didn’t shy away from talking about it. She had specific praise for Pam Abdy, co-chair and co-chief executive of Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group.

“Something really alive was born, and I think the movie is better for the work that she and I did together,” Gyllenhaal told me. “I know that’s an unusual thing to say. I know that you have lots of people saying like, ‘Ah, the studio f— my movie up.’ That is not my experience. It’s really not.”

Louis Malle’s ‘…and the Pursuit of Happiness’

A scene from Louis Malle’s documentary “…and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

(Janus Films)

On Saturday, in a co-presentation of 7th House at the Philosophical Research Society and El Cine, the will be a 16mm screening of director Louis Malle’s 1986 “…and the Pursuit of Happiness,” a documentary made for television that explores the immigrant experience in America. The French-born filmmaker traveled across the U.S. interviewing recent arrivals from all walks of life.

Writing about the film in 1988, The Times’ Kevin Thomas called it “an often amusing and always insightful survey of the contemporary emigre experience. … an irresistible array of vignettes depicting cultural accommodation and assimilation in all its variety.”

I got on a video call this week with 7th House programmer Alex McDonald and El Cine founder Mariana Da Silva to talk about why this movie matters now.

The movie is streaming on the Criterion Channel right now. Why was it important to also put this movie in front of audiences right now?

Alex McDonald: I think Mariana and I are on the same page with this. I never let streaming or home video availability deter programming. Growing up, the theater was a holy place, a cathedral of congregation. I feel like these films are meant to be seen with an audience. And thankfully, I feel like our audience recognizes that as well, even if the film is out there. Particularly in our current moment, it’s a very prescient film and it’s one that will be all the more powerful within community.

Mariana Da Silva: I agree fully. One of the biggest things within our program is the communal aspects — just seeing the same people come back, that trust that develops with the audience. The best part I love about going to movie theaters is standing outside with people I maybe would never speak to and having a conversation about a film.

A scene from Louis Malle’s documentary “…and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

(Janus Films)

Do you respond to a movie like this as a sort of time capsule of how things were, or is it important to you that it is saying something about what’s happening right now?

McDonald: That’s something I’m very conscious of when I program repertory titles. When I program social, politically minded films, a lot of what I’m trying to do is to show that the issues within these things have not really changed — the ways in which things have progressed, the way in which we have regressed. Malle has such a humane view on all of these people in the film. He narrates but he doesn’t really editorialize. He just sort of observes, and in doing so, he’s making the most compelling argument for the richness of diversity and everything that these people contribute to this country, what they lose in assimilation, what they have to give up and what they bring. There’s a complexity to it. There are certainly dissenting voices in it and those resonate differently now.

It wasn’t perfect then. Obviously, there’s always been conflict, but I think there was an open-heartedness that has really shifted. And this is kind of a poignant reminder of what we need to try to get back to and recognize.

Da Silva: If we were able to have these conversations more openly, it would put us all on an even playing field. Humans are flawed. There’s been a lot of miseducation. In this moment, especially for me as somebody who is an immigrant, I feel like there’s so many people who I know who are so liberal and so aware, but then they don’t really understand the experience of the immigrant. And it’s not their fault in any capacity. They just haven’t been exposed to somebody like me before.

I think we can all come together on the things we celebrate, but we also need to be very open and come together on the things that we differ on too.

Points of interest

‘Good Night, and Good Luck’ in 35mm

George Clooney, left, and David Strathairn in the 2005 movie “Good Night, and Good Luck.”

(Melinda Sue Gordon / Warner Independent Pictures)

On Sunday afternoon at the Los Feliz Theater, as part of the American Cinematheque’s ongoing “Sunday Print Edition” series, there will be a 35mm screening of George Clooney’s “Good Night, and Good Luck,” introduced by The Times’ own Rosanna Xia.

Starring David Strathairn as pioneering television journalist Edward R. Murrow at the height of the McCarthy era, the film was nominated for six Oscars, including picture, director, actor and original screenplay.

As Kenneth Turan wrote in his original review, “‘Good Night, and Good Luck’ couldn’t be more unlikely, more unfashionable — or more compelling. Everything about it — its look, its style, even its sound — stands in stark opposition to the trends of the moment. Yet by sticking to events that are half a century old, it tells a story whose implications for today are inescapable. … The son of a TV anchorman, Clooney had the nerve to believe that a drama of ideas could be as entertaining as ‘Desperate Housewives.’ He insisted that a fight for America’s soul, a clash of values over critical intellectual issues like freedom of the press and the excesses of government, had an inherent intensity that would carry everything before it. And it does.”

‘Days and Nights in the Forest’ 4K restoration

An image from Satyajit Ray’s 1970 drama “Days and Nights in the Forest.”

(Janus Films)

Now playing at the Laemmle Royal in a new 4K restoration undertaken by the Film Foundation is Satyajit Ray’s 1970 “Days and Nights in the Forest.” In this examination of masculinity and class, four male friends drive from the bustling city of Kolkata to a rural village, mixing with the locals with volatile results.

In a special video introduction, Wes Anderson, a longtime admirer of Ray, admits he lifted a scene from “Days and Nights” for one of his own films — 2023’s “Asteroid City” — and says, “Anything by Satyajit Ray must be cherished and preserved, but ‘Days and Nights in the Forest,’ I think you will agree, is one of the special gems among his many treasures.”

‘Grease 2’ returns

Michelle Pfeiffer on the set of “Grease 2” in 1981.

(Vinnie Zuffante / Getty Images)

The Cinematic Void series at the American Cinematheque will show 1982’s pastiche musical “Grease 2” on Monday. Directed by choreographer-turned-filmmaker Patricia Birch, the film is, of course, a sequel to 1978’s megahit “Grease” but it is also very much its own thing. Largely dismissed on initial release, it has found a growing following over the years thanks in large part to its extremely engaging young cast, including an on-the-rise Michelle Pfeiffer.

In his initial review (more complementary than one might expect), Kevin Thomas wrote, “There’s so much youthful talent and vitality in ‘Grease 2’ that it’s depressing to discover it is so unblushing and relentless and paean to ignorance. … This is a pity, because Birch displays an organic sense of how to make dance evolve out of the kids’ everyday activities — converging en mass at Rydell High on the first day of school or having fun at the bowling alley. But Birch has scant opportunity beyond letting us know she cares for these ignoramuses, most of who seem likable enough beneath aggressively crude exteriors.”

Anti-fascist films at UCLA

Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer in the 1948 drama “Arch of Triumph.”

(Enterprise-UA / Photofest)

The ongoing series at the UCLA Film and Television Archive titled “From John Doe to Lonesome Rhodes: Anti-fascism from the Archive” hits a real stride this weekend for two nights of restored rarities. On Friday comes a restored 35mm print of 1948’s “Arch of Triumph,” directed by Lewis Milestone and starring Ingrid Bergman, Charles Boyer and Charles Laughton in a romantic drama of refugees in 1938 Paris. Also playing is Arthur Ripley’s rare 1944 emigree drama “Voice in the Wind.”

Much of the press around the film at the time of its release had to do with the challenge of bringing the racier aspects of the novel by Erich Maria Remarque (“All Quiet on the Western Front”) to the screen. As producer David Lewis told The Times’ Philip K. Scheuer, “I promise you that as Joan, Ingrid Bergman will set the town on its ear. They’ll never think of her as anything but sexy again.”

Saturday brings the world premiere of the 35mm restoration of Walter Comes’ 1947 “The Burning Cross,” in which a returning veteran is recruited into the KKK. John Reinhardt’s 1948 “Open Secret,” about antisemitism, will also play in a 35mm restoration.

The series concludes next week with a 35mm screening of Elia Kazan’s 1957 “A Face in the Crowd,” starring Andy Griffith in an examination of the dark side of populist politics and media manipulation.

POP star Taylor Swift’s ex Joe Alwyn has been getting up close and personal with a co-star during a break while filming a new movie.

The Kent-born actor, 35, was spotted with an arm around Austrian Julia Franz Richter, also 35.

The pair were shooting supernatural thriller Seance On A Wet Afternoon — based on the 1961 novel.

They were filming on Hampstead Heath, North West London.

The movie also stars Succession TV actor Matthew Macfadyen.

Joe affectionately put an arm around Julia’s neck and she reached up to touch him.

JOE’S GOTTA GO

Inside Taylor Swift and Joe Alwyn break up and the real reason for the split

NEW LOVER?

Taylor Swift fans convinced Joe Alwyn dating Kendall Jenner after ‘telling’ clue

An onlooker said: “He and Julia seemed to be more than just colleagues.”

Joe dated Taylor for six years.

The couple split in 2023.

In the film Weisz plays a self-proclaimed psychic who convinces her husband to help kidnap the son of a wealthy family.

The movie is called “Heel” and its frenetic opening — a flash-cut glimpse of young, handsome, swaggeringly cruel Tommy (Anson Boon) in drug-fueled party mode — seems enough to explain the title. The next time we see him, though, he’s neck-shackled in the basement of a remote English estate. What follows in Polish filmmaker Jan Komasa’s blackly comic, unnerving thriller is clearly meant to evoke “Heel’s” more obedience-minded reading.

And who would be harshing this hooligan’s buzz with a case of reform-minded abduction? An eerily isolated, rules-driven nuclear family: mild-mannered, soft-spoken Chris (Stephen Graham), haunted Catherine (Andrea Riseborough) and polite son Jonathan (Kit Rakusen). They all may as well have sprung from the combined neo-gothic conjurings of Edward Gorey and Harold Pinter. Under Komasa’s direction, the mix of fractured fable and terroristic morality play in Bartek Bartosik’s screenplay is absurd but potent, giving “Heel” enough psychologically twisted juju to nearly always feel like more than the sum of its parts.

Our first glimpse of Tommy chained up, pleading to be let go, is through the eyes of a young Macedonian refugee, Katrina (Monika Frajczyk), being given a tour of the large countryside manor where she’s just been hired by Chris for twice-a-week housework. Katrina, like us, is rightly horrified but she’s in her own bind: undocumented, saved by Chris from the streets, with her signature on a confidentiality agreement and a deportation threat hanging over her. She’s hardly in a position to do much more than accept what’s going on as a grimmer version of her own dead-end predicament.

And yet what’s readily apparent is that this weird, fragile, insular family is genuinely keen on folding Tommy into their lives. They’re also convinced of their unorthodox methods, which hinge on reinforcement and reward. Tommy seems receptive, too, with each invitation to participate in his abductors’ togetherness (meals, movie nights, a picnic). This is when “Heel” is at its most alluringly queasy, a dark commentary on all families as institutions inherently built on confinement and emotional blackmail. (It’s no coincidence one of the movie’s executive producers is Jerzy Skolimowski, who made his own pointed kidnapping allegory with “Moonlighting.”)

Everyone’s broken, so the collective strength of the cast in keeping us on our toes about where this is all headed is a huge plus. The wiry Boon doles out his brash character’s reserves of vulnerability to stunning effect — Tommy is a difficult part and Boon knows how to make it revealing and suspenseful. Graham’s tweaked, sensitive patriarch is tantalizingly far from the heartbreaking dad of “Adolescence” and the gloriously oddball Riseborough makes the most of her faint-voiced mom’s severity. Frajczyk and Rakusen are also pitch-perfect.

Last year Komasa had another family-centered thriller with “Anniversary,” a movie about politics corrupting a happy home. But we know that equation already. “Heel” is Tolstoy’s happy-family maxim cooked in a mad scientist’s lab. While it sometimes shows its seams as an idea movie, its elegant disturbia has a boldness, recalling that great mind-game ’60s era that gave us “TheServant,” “The Collector,” and the early psychological freak-outs of Komasa’s countryman, Roman Polanski.

“Pond rules” dictate that if an animal is hungry, the creature that’s about to become a meal should accept its fate. That’s the first lesson that Mabel (voiced by Piper Curda), an idealistic university student whose mind is transferred into the body of a robotic beaver, learns while interacting with wildlife as one of their own in Pixar’s inventive “Hoppers.” In typical human fashion (we love to meddle with nature), Mabel ends up breaking that directive by saving a “fellow” beaver, the slumberous Loaf (Eduardo Franco), attracting unwanted attention that leads her to a wacky group of characters who will transform her rigid young worldview.

For his second feature, Daniel Chong, best known for creating the popular “We Bare Bears” series for Cartoon Network, has unleashed a hilariously unexpected and outrageous crowd-pleaser with “Hoppers.” Recently, I bemoaned that a movie like Sony’s “Goat” stood as further proof that talking-animal animated films had mostly run their course. Chong and screenwriter Jesse Andrews swiftly push back on that read with this environmentalist tale in defense of people who stand up for something, even when it seems no one is willing to stand beside them.

“Hoppers” is Pixar by way of a creator, Chong, whose career isn’t exclusively tied to the studio. That’s likely why his movie is more daring in its humor and tone, bringing a refreshing infusion of mischief to Pixar while maintaining the genuine emotional gravitas that has endeared the company to audiences for over 30 years.

Why is Mabel’s psyche roaming around inside a fake beaver à la “Avatar”? After discovering that this technology has been developed by one of her professors, Mabel thinks it could be the answer to saving the local forest glade where self-aggrandizing mayor Jerry (Jon Hamm) wants to build a highway. Mabel’s grandmother instilled in her an appreciation for nature as a reminder that she’s part of something greater than herself. Collecting signatures isn’t yielding results to stop construction, so, to the dismay of the scientists in charge, Mabel hops into the human-made mammal to learn from the creatures themselves why they’ve left the glade, giving Jerry carte blanche to destroy their home.

The poignancy-to-comedy ratio is precisely calibrated. Sharp gags, whether visual or in superbly timed lines of dialogue often laced with irony, work on multiple levels. A few moments like an accidental death or the wild introduction of an aquatic character are so wonderfully out of left field they make one’s head spin. That also goes for instances late in Mabel’s adventure in which “Hoppers” steps into amusingly creepy terrain, paying homage to the horror genre. These impish touches involve a wicked caterpillar (Dave Franco) whose mother, the Insect Queen, is voiced by acting royalty Meryl Streep. Each group of animals has its own ruler.

Since most scenes occur in the forest glade, the artists at Pixar have created strikingly rendered settings which, while aiming for photorealism, also have a fantastical glow to them, highlighting the inherent magic of nature. That such a seemingly commonplace location is elevated to feel mesmerizing speaks to how animation can make the mundane anew. That’s on top of how the rotund beavers in “Hoppers” have been conceived for maximum cuteness. One of them, Mabel’s guide through this ecosystem, is the disarmingly adorable King George (Bobby Moynihan), who wears a tiny crown (Where did he get it? No one knows) and rules over all mammals with a gentle hand.

Mabel’s friendship with King George, who doesn’t know she is human, becomes the movie’s heartstring-pulling core. The jovial royal believes he can persuade Jerry to change course. Mabel, conversely, doesn’t think Jerry will listen. Her cynicism and King George’s sincere faith in others clash. Among Mabel’s non-furry pals, Tom Lizard (Tom Law) becomes a scene-stealer. (The crazy-eyed, eloquent reptile first became an online sensation as part of a post-credits scene in “Elio.”)

Chong and his team include a minuscule but brilliant detail that illustrates how character design can have major narrative impact: When the animals are speaking among themselves, their eyes are large and expressive, full of life. But when the film takes the perspective of a human looking at the forest dwellers, their eyes appear small and dark, almost nondescript. It’s a subtly visual symbol for how we often fail to gaze at others with understanding.

There are many heavy hitters still to come, but “Hoppers” feels like the first great animated movie of the year. At a time when our right to protest is under siege, this sci-fi yarn exalts the way an individual’s conviction can plant seeds of change, leading to a stronger sense of community. Neither simplistically optimistic nor preachy, “Hoppers” smuggles timely ideas inside a rodent body. Pond rules would probably call that a beaver victory.

“The Bride!” is a maniacal assemblage of ’30s musicals, ’40s noirs, 19th century literature and 21st century ideology. Every wacky second, you’re well aware how perilously close it is to falling apart at the seams. This spiritual sequel to “Frankenstein” is a romantic tale of obsession, possession and fantasy — adjectives that also apply to its filmmaker, Maggie Gyllenhaal, who expends massive quantities of energy jolting it to life. She succeeds by the skin of her teeth.

The monster’s missus comes with as much narrative anticipation as Godot. Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel has Dr. Frankenstein bicker with his creature about her potential existence before deciding against it in fear that “she might become ten thousand times more malignant than her mate.” Over a hundred years later, the debate continued, raging through nearly all of 1935’s “Bride of Frankenstein” which finally introduces Elsa Lanchester and her sky-high bouffant five minutes before the end credits, just enough time for her to make an iconic impression before her arranged husband blows them both to smithereens. Boris Karloff laments, “She hate me.” Lanchester’s Bride never speaks and quite possibly never knows what is happening to her at all.

Gyllenhaal’s empowerment story, meanwhile, feels like an unhinged scream. Jessie Buckley (who starred in Gyllenhaal’s debut, “The Lost Daughter”) tackles the dual roles of the Bride and Shelley, a hat tip to Lanchester, who did the same thing. The action starts in Shelley’s grave where she’s spent centuries seething about the sequel she never dared to write, then cuts to an American nightclub, where her spirit suddenly possesses a drunken strumpet named Ida (Buckley) — not smoothly but herky-jerky, with the angry author causing this gangster’s moll to go on the fritz. Her accent alternates mid-sentence from city gal to snidely British, Ida loudly accusing a mob boss of murdering women. She’s right and she’s next.

Our setting is 1936 Chicago, but this is an exaggerated, fictional world, not ours or even Karloff’s. Elsewhere in town, the original creature, played by Christian Bale, has lurched here from Austria still on his lonely quest for companionship. (For simplicity’s sake, he goes by Frank.) He begs the ethically gray Dr. Euphronius (Annette Bening) to help him finally experience what he chivalrously calls, “a garden of pleasure.” The blunter and crasser Euphronius asks if Frank has a specific shape of mammaries in mind. (Her maid, played by Jeannie Berlin, is a riot.)

This Bride comes alive roughly and rudely not having given her consent either. Regardless, now that she’s here, she still has to figure out her next move, with or without Frank, and often without key pieces of information. Frank has convinced her she’s an amnesiac. Also, somehow, she doesn’t even know that she’s dead.

The theme is, of course, a woman’s right to choose. But what’s interesting about Gyllenhaal’s approach is that she expands Ida’s options beyond an enthusiastic yes and a priggish no into a dim sum menu that includes a dubious yes, an asterisked yes and a no that rejects even having to answer the question. She also overuses Bartleby the Scrivener’s line, “I would prefer not to.” I would prefer not to hear that quote a dozen times in two hours, but neither I nor the Bride get exactly what we want.

A perversity in the script is that Frank is a manipulator and a gaslighter but overall a pretty good dude. Their bond is messy and thrilling, with one of the most delightful romantic montages in ages. There’s a great scene where Frank exposes his unbeating heart to her and gets rejected, yet he laughs with delight because the Bride’s stubborn spirit is exactly what he likes about her.

The Bride also looks dynamite in her bias-cut coral dress and peekaboo black lace bra. Her zapping turns her entire head of hair — not just a streak — shocking white à la Jean Harlow, and leaves an oddly-appealing black blotch on her cheek. It’s a fabulous look, at once sexy and frightful, with an element of cartoonishness as the movie sends her speeding around the country pursued by gangsters and the police, changing stolen cars but never her clothes.

The movie makes no secret of its phony mechanics. In one scene, the Bride is the most famous outlaw in America; in the next, a cop doesn’t recognize her at all. There are several moments that force you to accept that the characters can become psychic at will, including one where Frank somehow mind-controls a party to dance the jitterbug — heck, we almost believe that he invented it — and the smart move is just to give in and enjoy the number.

Whatever Gyllenhaal wants to do, she does, which becomes its own act of captivation and reckless empowerment. It helps that Buckley and Bale are terrific, as is the ensemble at large. The full force of Lawrence Sher’s cinematography, Karen Murphy’s production design and Hildur Guðnadóttir’s orchestral score is fabulous, combining to make something seedy, moody and extravagant.

Gyllenhaal’s love for other variations of this story is right up there onscreen with brash callbacks to Mel Brooks’ 1974 “Young Frankenstein” and the underrated “Frankenhooker.” Yet “The Bride!” isn’t just assembled from her passion for those movies. It seems to be made of every movie: a wild and playful and overbearing ambulation of references.

Almost every role is a Frankencharacter of the director’s cinematic obsessions, like Penelope Cruz’s lady detective who is named for “The Thin Man’s” Myrna Loy, acts like “His Girl Friday’s” Rosalind Russell, and dresses like Barbara Stanwyck in “Double Indemnity.” I suspect that Gyllenhaal’s favorite movie might be the same as my own, the bitterly nostalgic ’80s-does-’30s Steve Martin musical “Pennies From Heaven.” Watch it and tell me if you agree and even if you don’t, at least you’ll have seen one of the greatest films of all time.

There’s a scene in which Frank meets his own idol, an alt-world version of Fred Astaire (played by Gyllenhaal’s brother Jake, who is good at mugging and singing), and vomits his fandom at him until the actor recoils. The intensity of devotion can feel a bit like that. It also exposes that our culture is ready for its own shock of invention. Shelley spawned the entire genre of modern science fiction; today’s talents often feel like remix artists.

Like the mad scientists she’s sending up, Gyllenhaal goes too far. She triply underlines her feminist themes and nearly sabotages her own clever creation. Ironically, she doesn’t trust the audience to think for itself either. The overkill hits its nadir when the Bride repeatedly wails the survivors’ hashtag, “Me too!” But grab a scalpel and cut 10 minutes out of it and “The Bride!” would be a rip-roaring dazzler. This monster is more than alive, it’s allliiiiiive.

The iPic dine-in movie theater chain has filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection and intends to pursue a sale of its assets, citing the difficult post-pandemic theatrical market.

The Boca Raton, Fla.-based company has 13 locations across the U.S., including in Pasadena and Westwood, according to a Feb. 25 filing in U.S. Bankruptcy Court in the Southern District of Florida, West Palm Beach division.

As part of the bankruptcy process, the Pasadena and Westwood theaters will be permanently closed, according to WARN Act notices filed with the state of California’s Employment Development Department.

The company came to its conclusion after “exploring a range of possible alternatives,” iPic Chief Executive Patrick Quinn said in a statement.

“We are committed to continuing our business operations with minimal impact throughout the process and will endeavor to serve our customers with the high standard of care they have come to expect from us,” he said.

The company will keep its current management to maintain day-to-day operations while it goes through the bankruptcy process, iPic said in the statement. The last day of employment for workers in its Pasadena and Westwood locations is April 28, according to a state WARN Act notice. The chain has 1,300 full- and part-time employees, with 193 workers in California.

The theatrical business, including the exhibition industry, still has not recovered from the pandemic’s effect on consumer behavior. Last year, overall box office revenue in the U.S. and Canada totaled about $8.8 billion, up just 1.6% compared with 2024. Even more troubling is that industry revenue in 2025 was down 22.1% compared with pre-pandemic 2019’s totals.

IPic noted those trends in its bankruptcy filing, describing the changes in consumer behavior as “lasting” and blaming the rise of streaming for “fundamentally” altering the movie theater business.

“These industry shifts have directly reduced box office revenues and related ancillary revenues, including food and beverage sales,” the company stated in its bankruptcy filing.

IPic also attributed its decision to rising rents and labor costs.

The company estimated it owed about $141,000 in taxes and about $2.7 million in total unsecured claims. The company’s assets were valued at about $155.3 million, the majority of which coming from theater equipment and furniture. Its liabilities totaled $113.9 million.

The chain had previously filed for bankruptcy protection in 2019.

New animated sequences of songs from “Encanto,” “Frozen 2” and “Moana 2” are headed to Disney+.

Disney Animation announced Wednesday that “Songs in Sign Language,” comprised of three musical numbers from recent Disney movies newly reimagined in American Sign Language, will debut April 27 in honor of National Deaf History Month.

Directed by veteran Disney animator Hyrum Osmond, “Songs in Sign Language” will feature fresh animation for “Encanto’s” chart-topper “We Don’t Talk About Bruno,” “Frozen 2’s” poignant ballad “The Next Right Thing” and “Moana 2’s” anthem “Beyond.” Produced by Heather Blodget and Christina Chen, the new versions of these songs were created in collaboration with L.A.-based theater company Deaf West Theatre.

“In the majority of cases, we created entirely new animation,” Osmond said in a press statement. “There were a lot of adjustments that we had to do within the animation to be true to the original intention.”

Deaf West Theatre artistic director DJ Kurs, sign language reference choreographer Catalene Sacchetti and a group of eight performers from Deaf West worked together to craft and choreograph the ASL version of the musical numbers for “Songs in Sign Language.” The creatives focused on being true to the concepts and emotion of the songs rather than direct translations of the lyrics.

Kurs said his team jumped at the chance to collaborate and integrate ASL into “the fabric of Disney storytelling.”

“Disney stories are the universal language of childhood,” Kurs said in a statement. “The chance to bring our language into that world was a historic opportunity to reach a global audience. Working on this project was very emotional. For so long, we have known and loved the artistic medium of Disney Animation. Here, the art form was adapting to us. I hope this unlocks possibilities in the minds and hearts of Deaf children, and that this all leads to more down the road.”

Osmond, who led a team of more than 20 animators on this project, said animation was the perfect medium to showcase sign language, which he described as “one of the most beautiful ways of communication on Earth.” The director, whose father is deaf, also saw this project as an opportunity to connect with the Deaf community.

“Growing up, I never learned sign language, and that barrier prevented me from really connecting with my dad,” Osmond said. “This reimagining of Disney Animation musical numbers helps bring down barriers and allows us to connect in a special way with our audiences in the Deaf community. I’m grateful that the Studio got behind making something so impactful.”

In 2020, “We Bare Bears” creator Daniel Chong came to Pixar leaders with an idea.

He had seen documentaries in which robotic animals with eyeball cameras captured footage of natural habitats. But what if that technology was so good that no one could tell the difference? And to make it even more zany — what if someone went undercover in that animal body?

That idea became the basis of Walt Disney Co. and Pixar’s new animated movie, “Hoppers,” which debuts this week. The film is Pixar’s latest attempt to break through at the box office with an original story, something that has been a struggle for the storied animation studio since the pandemic.

The pressure of Pixar’s legacy can be a little overwhelming and coming up with an original idea is difficult, said Chong, who directed “Hoppers” and also serves as a writer on the film.

“For a Pixar movie, it’s very high stakes,” he said. “But I just felt like I had a really funny idea, and I thought as long as we made it really funny and had characters you loved, to me that’s the key to every Pixar movie — really awesome characters that really connect emotionally with people.”

Recent theatrical success for Pixar as well as other animation studios has come from sequels, such as 2024’s “Inside Out 2,” which grossed $1.7 billion globally. But the reputation of Emeryville-based Pixar is built on its string of blockbuster originals, including 1995’s “Toy Story,” 2001’s “Monsters, Inc.” and 2004’s “The Incredibles,” making new stories crucial to the studio’s future.

People like coming back to familiar characters like Woody and Buzz from “Toy Story,” but the studio can do only so many sequels, said Pete Docter, Pixar’s chief creative officer. And some films don’t lend themselves to new chapters, he said, noting the studio’s efforts to look at “Monsters, Inc.”

“We’ve been trying, struggling for a long time to get somewhere with that, and we’ll see in the future how things go, but it’s been an uphill battle,” he said. “For whatever reason, that movie seems to be self contained and doesn’t want to go forward without repeating some of the same themes, which I think would be disappointing.”

Opening weekend expectations for “Hoppers” are wide-ranging, from $25 million to $40 million, on a production budget of $150 million. So far, the reviews have been strong, with a 96% approval rating on aggregator Rotten Tomatoes.

“If we don’t continue to do originals, we’re going to run out of stuff,” Docter said. “If ‘Hoppers’ can really catch on, it could show that audiences still want original movies. They’re still excited to see things that surprise them, that are not just following through on characters and worlds that they’ve seen before.”

It’s been a tough time for original animated movies — and new films in general. As the theatrical market continues to find its footing after the pandemic, audiences still largely have gravitated toward familiar fare, including sequels and reboots, even as they profess to want new stories.

Pixar’s previous original film, 2025’s “Elio” cratered at the box office, partially beset by the tough climate for new animated stories as well as strong competition from other kids’ movies such as live-action adaptations of Universal Pictures’ “How to Train Your Dragon” and Disney’s “Lilo and Stitch.”

The pandemic played a major role in Pixar’s recent track record with originals. When COVID-19 hit, original films like 2020’s “Soul,” 2021’s “Luca” and 2022’s “Turning Red” all were sent straight to the Disney+ streaming service to give families something to watch during the stay-at-home orders. But that also got audiences accustomed to waiting to watch Pixar films at home, and as theaters started opening up again, families were some of the last groups to return because of concerns about health and safety.

“There had been a conditioning process,” said Heather Holian, a professor of art history at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. “It was challenging to turn the ship around a little bit, or getting people to rethink how they engage with Pixar films and getting them back to theaters.”

To connect with audiences, Pixar films need to feel familiar in some way, but with a surprising twist — something that is incredibly difficult to do, Docter said. “Hoppers” also involved extensive, early stage collaboration with the studio’s story artists. Chong would give them a rough idea of his thoughts, which the artists would then use to develop dialogue and other details that expanded on his vision. That’s a bit of a departure from Pixar’s typical process, which involves writing pages and giving them to the artists, who then go to work..

Chong worked as a story artist at Pixar before he went on to create Cartoon Network’s “We Bare Bears” and then returned to the studio in 2019.

“Hoppers” could get strong tailwinds from the success of Sony Pictures Animation’s “Goat,” which was produced by Golden State Warriors star Stephen Curry and tells an original story set in an all-animal world about an undersized “roarball” player who pushes to make it in the big leagues.
That film has netted nearly $75 million in the U.S. and Canada, with a global total of more than $131 million..

The two movies are the beginning of a potentially big year for animated films. After “Hoppers,” Nintendo and Universal Pictures’ sequel “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie” is out in April, followed by Pixar’s “Toy Story 5” in June and Universal Pictures and Illumination Entertainment’s “Minions & Monsters” in July. In the fall, Warner Bros. Pictures Animation plans to release “The Cat in the Hat.”

High-performing years at the box office traditionally are anchored by strong family movies, said Shawn Robbins, director of movie analytics at Fandango and founder of the site Box Office Theory.

“A lot of us are so optimistic about what the box office can do overall this year because of the animated releases,” he said. “When there is appealing content out there, families are a big driver for this industry.”

The blood of the dragon is headed to the big screen.

A “Game of Thrones” movie is in development at Warner Bros. written by “House of Cards” showrunner Beau Willimon, The Times has confirmed. According to Page Six, which first reported Willimon’s involvement, the “Andor” alum has already submitted a first draft.

While details of the plot have yet to be confirmed, the film will reportedly center Aegon the Conqueror, who was the first Targaryen monarch to sit atop the Iron Throne in the world of George R.R. Martin’s “A Song of Ice and Fire” series. According to the Hollywood Reporter, HBO is also developing the story of Aegon’s conquest of Westeros as a potential drama series.

King Aegon I is the Targaryen who started it all. Around 300 years before the events of “Game of Thrones,” the dragonlord led a campaign, with his sister-wives Visenya and Rhaenys, to conquer six of the seven kingdoms of Westeros. He was the first ruler of the unified realm and launched the Targaryen dynasty.

His descendants revere Aegon the Conqueror so highly that he has numerous prominent namesakes. King Aegon II, whose controversial coronation is what sparked the Targaryen civil war known as the Dance of Dragons, is a key character in the “Game of Thrones” prequel series “House of the Dragon” (portrayed by Tom Glynn-Carney). In “A Knight of the Seven Kingdoms,” adapted from Martin’s “Tales of Dunk and Egg” novellas, young Egg (Dexter Sol Ansell) is revealed to be the missing prince Aegon Targaryen. Even “Game of Thrones” eventually revealed that the show’s beloved Jon Snow (Kit Harrington) was a Targaryen named Aegon.

Other previously reported “Game of Thrones” spinoffs in the works include an animated project about “House of the Dragons” character Corlys Velaryon, also known as the Sea Snake.

The third season of “House of the Dragon” will premiere in June.

Gina Gershon considers herself a storyteller, first and foremost. When we connect via video call, Gershon admits this is the first interview she’s done since submitting the manuscript for her latest book, “AlphaPussy: How I Survived the Valley and Learned to Love My Boobs.”

“I don’t have my spiel yet!” she warns, inquiring for the first of a few times what I thought of it and whether I enjoyed it. Despite the many decades Gershon has been treading the boards, starring in indie films and Hollywood star vehicles, and stalking the stage as a singer-guitarist, she still really cares about what you think, even if it won’t change her own mind. Perhaps that’s the key to her professional longevity.

“AlphaPussy” is neither a memoir nor a guide to self-betterment, but elements of both feed into Gershon’s stories. Each wittily titled chapter plunges readers into Gershon’s freewheeling 1970s childhood, defiant adolescence, burgeoning performance career and collaborations with some of the biggest names in film (including Sharon Stone, Paul Verhoeven and Tom Cruise). Most of the stories take place in the San Fernando Valley, where young Gershon was discovering weed, mushrooms and rock ‘n’ roll. This is not a titillating tell-all, and all the better for it.

“AlphaPussy” by Gina Gershon

(Akashic Books)

“This book realistically started during COVID,” Gershon explains from her New York home. “I’d told my book agent, a friend, some stories one day when we were drunk, and he kept prodding me to write a book. I was hesitant, though. I’m not a tell-all gal, that’s not my MO.”

She adds, “It was during lockdowns, and I think his mother was sick and he was having a hard time, so when he said, ‘Just write me stories to keep me cheered up,’ I started to write stories in no particular order, whatever bubbled up, because otherwise I figured I’d forget them one day.”

At the same time, Gershon had observed that young women weren’t feeling empowered to advocate for themselves in their personal relationships and workplaces.

“I noticed that especially with younger women friends of mine, they’d tell me about things they were going through on set or with their bosses, and I don’t know if it’s a millennial thing, but I said, ‘Why don’t you just look him in the eye and tell him to stop?’ and there was this sense [for me] of ‘Why can’t you do that? Because if you don’t, you’ll always be prey to these guys.’ ”

She clarifies that she means “annoying” men rather than abusive men.

“I’m not that tough,” admits Gershon. “But I’d learned how to maneuver a lot just from growing up in the Valley, and it was a crazy time to be living there. So I thought about the stories that led me to be able to steer myself through toxicity.”

In her new book, Gina Gershon recalls the industry vitriol toward her 1995 erotic film “Showgirls.”

(Evelyn Freja / For The Times)

And also to steer herself through well-intended advice, both personal and professional, to follow her instincts.

“Listen, it’s not like I’ve had the most normal career. I’ve done most of my projects despite warnings from other people and from my agents saying, ‘You can’t do this, you’ll ruin your career.’ I’m like, ‘Why? I like this project!’ ”

One of those projects, most infamously, was “Showgirls,” which gets plenty of mentions in the book.

As Gershon recalled, it was 1994, and an astrologer had predicted her major breakout role would arrive in October that year, testing the young actor and her ability to cope with notoriety. Great, thought Gershon, bring it on.

Months later, Gershon was hanging from the ceiling, dressed in bondage gear, reflecting upon her early acting goals to perform Chekhov, portray Medea and stun audiences into silence.

She was on the set of “Showgirls” (or “Survival of the Titties,” as she nicknames it), dressed in one of the many glittering, spangled, flimsy outfits that her character Cristal Connors parades about wearing as a veteran of Vegas striptease. That role, and the vitriol from within the industry toward the movie (a flop turned cult favorite), still stings.

“I was super excited going into ‘Showgirls.’ As I talk about in one of the chapters, it was just very different when I got there. It was a completely different show than I thought I was going to be doing. … I thought it was gonna be one of [director Paul Verhoeven’s] dark Dutch films.”

Realizing that it was something else, to say the least, Gershon pivoted.

“I learned how to deal with an insane environment while keeping focused on what it is that I was trying to achieve with the part, without getting swallowed up by the insanity, which is a valuable lesson, you know? I mean, it’s a good lesson to learn no matter what you’re doing.”

Last year, Gershon watched the movie for the first time in decades.

“I hadn’t seen it in a zillion years, and when I saw it, I understood it a little bit more. It made me feel tense, but I also thought, ‘Oh, interesting.’ Some scenes that I thought shouldn’t have been there and others that absolutely have to be there. I saw it with a different lens.”

She says, “Weirdly, I feel like I’m not supposed to be talking about ‘Showgirls,’ although I think I have five chapters about ‘Showgirls’ [in the book]. I did the ones that I thought were kind of funny and fun and had some sort of growth in it for me.”

Having recently wrapped filming on “an independent film, a trans love story” in Palm Springs, penned a script and midway through writing another, Gershon doesn’t intend on writing another book anytime soon. Still, “there’s so many stories I left out,” she concedes.

“I could write three more books with things, but I really wanted to stay on point with the themes of manipulation, survival, and moving around and being able to stand on your own two feet and know who you are and to have agency over your life, especially as a woman, especially as an actress, especially in this world.”

“I’m not that tough,” says Gina Gershon. “But I’d learned how to maneuver a lot just from growing up in the Valley, and it was a crazy time to be living there. So I thought about the stories that led me to be able to steer myself through toxicity.”

(Evelyn Freja / For The Times)

Wait, Zendaya and Tom Holland got married and we missed it? That’s what the “Euphoria” star’s longtime stylist said on the red carpet Sunday.

“The wedding’s already happened, you missed it,” Law Roach told “Access Hollywood” in a singsong voice at the Actor Awards, adding, “It’s very true,” after the shocked reporter asked if he was being truthful.

He said the same thing almost word for word to an “Entertainment Tonight” correspondent who took the news completely — almost dismissively? — in stride.

The news came from the same “Project Runway” judge who told E! News last July that Zendaya was so busy that there was simply no time for wedding planning, saying at the time that the “process hasn’t even started yet.” That’s the same self-proclaimed “world’s only image architect,” who for years has also styled Holland.

Holland and Zendaya, who co-starred as Peter Parker and MJ in three “Spider-Man” movies, have known each other since 2016 and confirmed in 2021 that they were romantically involved as well.

Eagle-eyed fans may have suspected the two had tied the knot a few weeks back after Zendaya stepped out Feb. 18 with a plain gold band on her left ring finger in place of her engagement diamond. That big ol’ sparkler had been on the scene since early last year, debuting publicly at the 2025 Golden Globe Awards a year ago January.

At that awards show, when former Times columnist Amy Kaufman — then recently engaged herself — asked the “Dune” actor flat-out if she was engaged, Zendaya flashed her ring, smiled coyly and shrugged her shoulders. That was way more of a “yes” than in 2023 when she shut down engagement rumors after posting a selfie wearing a pearl ring on her left hand and a black Golden State Warriors hat on her head.

“I posted it for my hat. Not for the ring on my right finger, you guys,” she said and laughed in the video that circulated on X and Instagram. “Seriously, you think that’s how I would drop the news? What?”

We didn’t think any wedding news would come via her stylist either, no matter how long the two friends have been working together. Though Zendaya might have been chuckling a bit when she posted a “Save the Date” message on social media three weeks ago to promote her upcoming movie “The Drama.”

Zendaya explained her approach to privacy in a 2023 Elle interview, saying she “can’t not be a person and live my life and love the person I love.”

“But also, I do have control over what I choose to share. It’s about protecting the peace and letting things be your own but also not being afraid to exist. You can’t hide. That’s not fun, either. I am navigating it more than ever now.”

Yes, we reached out to the notoriously private couple’s representatives. No, they did not get back to us immediately to confirm the news or offer any details. Are you surprised? We are not.

There were tears (and cheers) for Catherine O’Hara. Rhea Seehorn explained “Pluribus,” or at least tried to. Harrison Ford was celebrated at the “half-point of his career.” And, because the show’s on Netflix, there were a few well-placed F-bombs, not including the swears muttered by the actors who didn’t win.

The 32nd Actor Awards — or the very first Actor Awards, since for the previous 31 years this ceremony has been known as the Screen Actors Guild Awards — went off without a hitch Sunday, and ended with a bang, scrambling a best picture race that felt settled after “One Battle After Another” won the top prize at the Producers Guild Awards on Saturday.

There were TV awards presented too. But we pay attention to the Actor Awards because the show takes place while Oscar ballots are out and are, for the most part, a reliable precursor to the Academy Awards. How trustworthy will they be for the acting winners this year? Let’s take a look.

Cast in a motion picture

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Winner: “Sinners”

The past: The winner of this award has gone on to take the best picture Oscar in 15 of 30 years, making it basically a coin flip and easily the Actor Awards’ least trustworthy Oscar precursor. (The ensemble prize wasn’t awarded in 1994, the ceremony’s first year.) Oscar also-ran “Conclave” won last year, ending a three-year streak — “CODA,” “Everything Everywhere All at Once” and “Oppenheimer” — where the winner of the cast prize went on to take best picture.

Will history repeat itself? If “Sinners” had simply taken this award and nothing else, I would say “One Battle After Another” would still be the overwhelming favorite to win the best picture Oscar. But snagging this prize and Michael B. Jordan winning lead actor gives one pause, doesn’t it? Again, the cast award is not a reliable best picture precursor. A Ryan Coogler movie (“Black Panther”) won in 2019, but lost the Oscar to “Green Book.” And while “Sinners” did haul in a record-breaking 16 Oscar nominations, “One Battle” wasn’t far behind with 13, just one shy of the previous record. It’s easy to get carried away with the way the room exploded when Samuel L. Jackson announced the winner, but “One Battle’s” Producers Guild win carries more weight. I’ll need a couple of days to sit with this.

Female actor in a leading role

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Winner: Jessie Buckley, “Hamnet”

The past: SAG and the academy have matched 21 of 31 years. The last two years have seen the groups split, with Emma Stone (“Poor Things”) winning her second Oscar over SAG winner Lily Gladstone (“Killers of the Flower Moon”) in 2024 and Mikey Madison prevailing for “Anora” over Demi Moore, who won over SAG-AFTRA voters and earned a huge standing ovation when she took the stage for her gonzo comeback turn in the body horror movie “The Substance.”

Will history repeat itself? Buckley has been a lock for the lead actress Oscar since “Hamnet” premiered in September at the Telluride Film Festival, her searching, searing turn as the film’s grieving mother producing the kind of visceral reaction that guts audiences and wins awards. And, boy, has she won awards these last few months, taking pretty much everything save for the major critics groups. The naysayers decried the acting as overripe, sniffing instead of sniffling. Monsters. There’s no denying Buckley goes big with her emotions here, but the magic in her work also can be seen in a much-used still photo from “Hamnet,” the one where she’s resting her elbows on the Old Globe stage, hands clasped, face transfixed, heart opened. You know the shot. And you’re probably getting a little verklempt just thinking about it.

Male actor in a leading role

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Winner: Michael B. Jordan, “Sinners”

The past: This category has been the most reliable indicator of Oscar victory, with SAG and the academy matching 24 of 31 times. There are exceptions, though, such as just last year when Adrien Brody won the Oscar for “The Brutalist,” prevailing over SAG winner Chalamet (“A Complete Unknown”).

Will history repeat itself? Entering the month of February, it looked like Timothée Chalamet was a shoo-in for playing a talented, self-promoting ping-pong player in “Marty Supreme.” In fact, some know-it-all called this race more or less over just a week ago. (That was me.) Chalamet could still win. Maybe SAG-AFTRA voters didn’t want to give him the award again, just a year after they honored him for his lead turn in “A Complete Unknown.” Maybe SAG-AFTRA voters felt he was a bit, shall we say … “brash” in the way he marketed the movie and needed to be taken down a peg.

So now, entering March, it’s looking like “Marty Supreme” could be this year’s version of “The Irishman,” a film that earns a lot of nominations (in this case, nine) and comes away with nothing.

Meanwhile, Jordan’s big swing movie star turn in “Sinners,” playing twin brothers Smoke and Stack, was the best work of his career. That scream that Viola Davis let out when she opened the envelope spoke to the enthusiasm in the room both for the actor and the film. Momentum definitely seems to be on Jordan’s side right now.

Female actor in a supporting role

(Kayla Bartkowski / Los Angeles Times)

Winner: Amy Madigan, “Weapons”

The past: The Actor Award winner has gone on to take an Oscar 23 of 31 times, including last year, when Zoe Saldaña won for “Emilia Pérez,” one of countless prizes she won that season. (Note: One of those 23 winners, “The Reader’s” Kate Winslet, was nominated for — and won — the 2009 Oscar for lead actress for that performance.)

Will history repeat itself? Who knows? This category has been all over the place, but as Madigan said in her speech, she’s been doing this a “long ass time” and there’s a lot of love for this 75-year-old acting great. Teyana Taylor (“One Battle After Another”) took the Golden Globe, and Wunmi Mosaku (“Sinners”) won at the British Academy Film Awards. And the “they’re due” narrative doesn’t always play at the Oscars. (Just ask Demi Moore or Glenn Close.) Will a “One Battle” sweep carry both Taylor and Sean Penn? Or is there room for an outlier? It’s tempting to lean toward Madigan.

Male actor in a supporting role

Winner: Sean Penn, “One Battle After Another”

The past: The SAG winner has gone on to win the Oscar 22 times in 31 years, including the last dozen, the longest streak of any category.

Will history repeat itself? Penn did not attend the Actor Awards, the only thing less surprising than this win. Coming on the heels of taking the supporting actor prize from BAFTA last weekend (Penn didn’t go to that ceremony either), it’s looking likely now that Penn will win his third Oscar. He’s barely campaigned and remains a divisive figure. But his menacing turn as the outrageous Col. Steven J. Lockjaw, a man given to zealotry and tight T-shirts, is the best work he has done in years. Will he go to the Oscars, if only to collect the trophy so he can give another statue to Ukranian President Volodymyr Zelensky? We’ll soon see.

It starts with the exclamation point, right there in the title. “The Bride!” is a wild, willfully over-the-top double-barreled reinvigoration of 1935’s “Bride of Frankenstein” that is always doing something a little extra in telling its unpredictable story of identity and the reclamation of the self.

“I probably can’t definitively explain it,” says writer-director Maggie Gyllenhaal about that punctuation. “I think I first just put it there and wondered when someone was going to tell me to take it away. And nobody ever did.”

Set in a dreamscape 1930s — imagine a steampunk-meets-art-deco version of “Bonnie and Clyde” — the film features a title performance by Jessie Buckley in three roles, sometimes in conversation with each other. First, there’s Ida, a Chicago party girl who is killed when she becomes an inconvenience to powerful men. Then there’s “Frankenstein” author Mary Shelley, taking possession of another person’s body and voice.

Finally, there’s the Bride herself, the rebellious, reanimated corpse of Ida brought back to life as a companion to a creature here known as Frank (Christian Bale). The duo sets off on a lovers-on-the-run-style crime spree that captures national attention.

On a February Los Angeles morning, Gyllenhaal moves briskly across the lobby of a low-key-chic hotel, barely breaking stride to ask that, instead of a discreet celeb-friendly indoor corner table, perhaps our interview could take place on an outdoor patio. She would like to take in a bit more California sunshine before returning home to wintry Brooklyn.

Dressed in a baggy suit that is both sharp and casual, Gyllenhaal doesn’t come across as particularly fussy but, rather, as someone certain of what she wants, even if what she wants is to explore the messiness of uncertainty, pushing the edges for herself and her collaborators.

Jessie Buckley in the movie “The Bride!”

(Warner Bros. Pictures)

Take, for example, that exclamation point. What might at first seem a bit of preciousness, and which even Gyllenhaal initially makes seem a bit of a throwaway, reveals itself to have a much deeper meaning.

“It wasn’t that it was careless,” Gyllenhaal says with a calm focus. “If you are Ida or Mary Shelley or many women in the world and you’ve been sort of tamped down and silenced and not able to express everything it is that you wanted or needed to express, it’s like if you’ve had your hand on a geyser. When the geyser finally breaks, it’s going to break with a whole lot of extra energy. And maybe that’s where the exclamation point comes from.”

“The Bride!” is the second feature film as writer and director for Gyllenhaal, 48, following 2021’s “The Lost Daughter.” That movie, a bracing examination of the psychological toll of motherhood, would go on to wide acclaim and awards recognition, including Oscar nominations for actors Buckley and Olivia Colman, as well as for Gyllenhaal’s screenplay (an adaptation of the 2006 novel by Elena Ferrante). Prior to that, Gyllenhaal had been known for emotionally fearless performances in films such as “Secretary,” “The Dark Knight” and “Crazy Heart,” for which she received a supporting actress Oscar nomination.

Deciding how to follow up “The Lost Daughter” wasn’t easy. Gyllenhaal says she went to a party and saw someone with a tattoo on their forearm of Elsa Lancaster‘s intense gaze from “Bride of Frankenstein.” Taken with the image, Gyllenhaal checked out the movie and was surprised to discover Lancaster’s iconic character was only in it for a few minutes. After reading the original novel of “Frankenstein,” she started to wonder whether Mary Shelley had other things on her mind at the time of her debut novel.

“I just had this fantasy,” she says with a slightly conspiratorial air. “I’m not speaking for Mary Shelley, but there must have been some other, naughtier, wilder, more dangerous things that Mary Shelley wanted to say that weren’t said in ‘Frankenstein.’ What else might she have wanted to express?”

Christian Bale and Jessie Buckley in the movie “The Bride!”

(Warner Bros. Pictures)

And so Gyllenhaal set about writing, with her “Lost Daughter” star in mind for the lead, though she initially didn’t tell Buckley. One of Gyllenhaal’s biggest learning curves in directing “The Lost Daughter” was figuring out how to speak to each actor individually to get the most out of them.

“With Jessie, I just spoke to her like I speak to myself,” Gyllenhaal said. “No translation needed.”

Reached via email, the “Hamnet” star evokes a Frida Kahlo painting to convey their closeness.

“We share two beating hearts,” Buckley says. “Maggie has absolutely been instrumental to waking me up to a part of myself I needed to know — and I think vice versa. We share a similar language and curiosity.”

Moving from the intimate scale of “The Lost Daughter” to the expanded scope of “The Bride!” was exciting for them both.

“I loved seeing her in a bigger sandpit,” Buckley says. “From ‘The Lost Daughter’ it was clear that Maggie had something to say as an artist. But where do we grow? What’s the scarier place? What are the questions we might whisper to ourselves? And what happens if we put those whispers into the ether?”

Gyllenhaal’s new film is unafraid to risk being too much. One extravagant party turns into a musical sequence that finds Bale’s creature singing and dancing to “Puttin’ on the Ritz” — a wink to a whole other self-aware frame of reference and Mel Brooks’ satirical 1974 “Young Frankenstein.”

“Sometimes it was too much too much — that’s the line I was trying to walk,” Gyllenhaal says. “I think so many women are told that we’re too much, over and over again, from the moment we get here. And so I’m used to that.

“But I think that scene is sort of about that. It’s about a kind of explosion of life and humanity. So much of the movie is about these people who cannot fit into their box. This is where they celebrate their bigness, their too-muchness, their monstrousness. That’s the monster mash: ‘I am who I am.’”

“Sometimes it was too much too much — that’s the line I was trying to walk,” Gyllenhaal says. “I think so many women are told that we’re too much, over and over again, from the moment we get here. And so I’m used to that.”

(David Urbanke / For The Times)

Making a purposefully idiosyncratic retelling of a classic tale came with its own challenges. “The Bride!” was originally scheduled to be released by Warner Bros. last fall, on the date that would eventually go to “One Battle After Another.” When a rescheduled March 2026 opening was announced, there were reports — “Beware ‘reports,’ ” Gyllenhaal tells me, wryly — of behind-the-scenes clashes between the director and the studio.

Gyllenhaal doesn’t deny that, to find the final version of the movie, she worked closely with Pam Abdy, who, along with Mike De Luca, is co-chair and co-chief executive of Warner Bros. Motion Picture Group. This time the stakes were higher, the filmmaker says, and being left to her own devices, as she had been on “The Lost Daughter,” wasn’t always the best solution.

“If I make a big, hot roller coaster of a movie and remain totally honest in what I’m trying to explore and think about inside it, will people respond? That was my question,” she says. “And then I cut it in a way that was entirely my expression. And I have to say in particular, Pam, who was my point person on this and also has become a friend, she really took me to task on that and said, ‘You want many people to respond and understand this. You have to clarify here and here.’ ”

Though Gyllenhaal admits there were moments of “friction” and that Abdy “has a slightly different agenda than I do,” she now sees the merit in the process. “Something really alive was born, and I think the movie is better for the work that she and I did together,” Gyllenhaal says. “I know that’s an unusual thing to say. I know that you have lots of people saying like, ‘Ah, the studio f— my movie up.’ That is not my experience. It’s really not.”

In a phone interview, Abdy says, “Listen, she tasks me with challenging her, and I task her with challenging us. We’re all in the service of making the best movie we can possibly make for the audience. And we, privately, all of us — studios, directors, filmmakers — we go through a process. It’s unfortunate that certain people choose to assume they know what’s happening in those rooms. But they don’t.”

Abdy describes their collaboration as a healthy and normal one. “You test the movie, you get information, you make adjustments,” she says. “And we needed the time and space to do that.”

Maggie Gyllenhaal, right, on set with Jessie Buckley and Christian Bale while making “The Bride!”

(Warner Bros. Pictures)

The courage Gyllenhaal once exhibited as a performer now seems to be serving her as a filmmaker. The last feature Gyllenhaal appeared in as an actor was 2018’s “The Kindergarten Teacher,” playing an overzealous mentor to a young poetry prodigy. She also appeared in three seasons of the HBO series “The Deuce” from 2017 to 2019, in which she played an adult film performer struggling to move behind the camera into directing.

As to whether she will return to acting, Gyllenhaal says, “I don’t know. I really prefer directing. This is a better job for me.”

Better how? “I felt as an actress, to be honest, like I always would hit up against a wall of how much I was able to participate or express,” she says. “And I thought for a long time, OK, this is the gig, and what I have to do is learn how to protect self-expression, even if that means I just need a tiny bit of space around me where I have the real estate to do what I need to do as an actress.

“And then when I moved into writing and directing, I didn’t have to play that game anymore,” she says. “And also I could create an environment where nobody had to play that game. Anyone could explore and express the things that were interesting to them. It was ultimately up to me to decide if I wanted to use them or not. So why not let people explore and surprise me?”

Gyllenhaal’s “The Bride!” may catch the same current wave of pop-inflected Gothic-style romances as Emerald Fennell’s “Wuthering Heights” and Guillermo del Toro’s “Frankenstein.” A catchphrase that emerges in the film is “brain attack,” the Bride becoming a folk hero to women around the country who emulate her distinctive look: Jean Harlow by way of Courtney Love with an inky smear of makeup across the face.

There is something intuitively catchy about brain attack, even if it’s also a little bewildering.

Gyllenhaal remembers an “aspect of terror” about stepping into a bigger studio release. “So do most things that require that you really grow and learn in order to do them. But I’m interested in terror and so I guess I was playing around with the idea of heart attack, panic attack. And I think in order to really do that, some brain attacks are required.”

Gyllenhaal tells me how a few days earlier she had been wearing a hat with the phrase on it while reading by the hotel pool and three 20-something women, maybe a little day drunk, began asking her about it. Two of them seemed puzzled by the phrase, struggling to parse out its meaning, while the third instinctively got it. She just knew. So Gyllenhaal gave her the hat.

“I guess ‘brain attack’ is a phrase you might have to feel,” Gyllenhaal offers, her mouth widening into a smile.

So too, perhaps, with Gyllenhaal’s telling of “The Bride!” with its visions of reckless abandon and personal reclamation — exclamation point and all. It will become a movie waiting for those who need it.

Final Oscar voting began yesterday. How many of the nominated movies have you seen? Are you doing your due diligence in all the categories before the March 15 ceremony or, given the summer weather outside your window, might the mountains be calling?

I’m Glenn Whipp, columnist for the Los Angeles Times and host of The Envelope newsletter. It’s never too early for flip-flops, is it?

Testing out a new mandate

To vote for the Oscars, you have to watch all the nominated movies.

This may seem obvious. But until this year, the motion picture academy operated entirely on the honor system, strongly encouraging members to see everything before voting.

Now voters have to show their work — up to a point.

This year, academy members are required to certify through the group’s screening room portal that they have viewed all nominated films in each category to be eligible to vote in that category. Since nominations were announced in January, the academy has been emailing voters with updates on their progress, indicating where they’re cleared to vote and where they still have work to do.

One wrinkle, and it’s not a small one: Members can simply check a box indicating that they’ve watched a movie outside the academy’s platform. Perhaps they saw it at a festival, on a streaming platform other than the portal or the place God intended films to be seen — a movie theater.

Whether they actually did watch the movies is left to the honesty of the voter. It’s still an honor system, and members do not need to show movie stubs, tickets or receipts.

Talking with academy members, there seems to be a little wiggle room when it comes to having a clear conscience.

Take the voter who loved Ethan Hawke‘s lead turn as legendary lyricist Lorenz Hart in “Blue Moon,” but hated “Marty Supreme,” turning it off 20 minutes after starting it. Since the academy’s screening room counts a movie as watched only if it’s viewed in its entirety, this voter told me they planned on restarting “Marty Supreme” one night and running it on mute so he could vote in the lead actor category.

“I’d seen enough,” he said. “Watching [Timothée] Chalamet play another pingpong tournament wouldn’t make me change my mind.”

Other academy members told me they were OK marking the “watched” box next to a movie they hadn’t seen, provided they had viewed four of the category’s other nominees. By and large though, they were the outliers. Most voters said they were happy to abstain from voting in a category in which they hadn’t watched all the nominated work. (As academy members may not publicly state voting decisions or preferences, voters spoke on the condition of anonymity.)

“I don’t need to see another ‘Avatar’ movie,” a producers branch member said. “So I’m fine not voting for visual effects or costume design this year. Life is short.”

“I like the idea that I can abstain from categories without any guilt,” an Oscar-nominated writer noted, adding that she thought the new system has been “helpful, reminding me to watch things.”

To that effect, academy members have been receiving a flurry of emails and texts that would give off Big Brother vibes if it didn’t simply boil down to an admonition to watch “Frankenstein” so they could vote in the nine categories where Guillermo del Toro’s monster movie is nominated.

It really isn’t that big an ask, as in recent years the Oscars have become increasingly dominated by a smaller number of movies vacuuming up a greater share of the nominations. This year, the five movies earning the most recognition — “Sinners,” “One Battle After Another,” “Marty Supreme,” “Frankenstein” and “Hamnet” — hauled in 56 nominations.

If an Oscar voter viewed the 10 best picture nominees, they’d be eligible to mark their ballots in best picture and eight other categories — supporting actor, adapted screenplay, casting, cinematography, film editing, production design and original score. Add Hawke’s “Blue Moon” and that opens up lead actor. Make it a double feature with “It Was Just an Accident” and original screenplay becomes available.

“You don’t really need to be much more than a casual moviegoer to knock out most of your ballot,” an actors branch member told me, “except for things like animation and documentaries and the shorts. I don’t know how many people watch all of those.”

Nobody does, save for the PricewaterhouseCoopers accountants counting the ballots. The question vexing both voters and the awards consultants paid to persuade them is how this new, formalized voting will affect the results. As Oscar winners are sometimes the movies that are the most-watched, might requiring voters to see all the nominated work boost less-publicized efforts?

“If ‘Sirât’ wins sound over ‘F1,’ then I think it’s a new ballgame,” one veteran campaigner said. “Right now, though, nobody knows.”

We will soon. In the meantime, with Oscar voting running through Thursday, some academy members tell me their weekend is booked.

“Three nights, three movies,” one voter said. “And then I’m watching ‘Bridgerton.’”

That the “The Napa Boys” won’t be everyone’s cup of tea — or in this case, goblet of wine — almost feels like this meta comedy’s raison d’être. And to say its fusillade of jokes is hit-and-miss would also be a charitable take. They’re mostly miss, even if that, too, can seem like kind of the point.

Co-writers and co-stars Nick Corirossi and Armen Weitzman (Corirossi also directed) have assembled a series of scenes in search of a story, sending up pivotal moments from a hodgepodge of movies, some real (“Sideways,” “American Pie,” “The Lord of the Rings”), some invented. I’ll admit, it took a minute to understand what the filmmakers were doing (their grandiose statement in the movie’s press kit is purposely unenlightening) and, thus, for this grab bag of nonsense to sink in.

Still, once you realize what the heck it is you’re watching, you might just settle in for a more diverting — or less terrible — time than first expected. But the lower your entertainment bar, the better.

The barely-there plot finds a group of pals and wine aficionados, a.k.a. the Napa Boys, gathering in the California valley (Malibu subbed) for a screwball adventure that, among much else, will involve a coveted wine competition at something called the Great Grape Festival.

The hapless group includes its leader, the crassly horny Jack Jr. (Corirossi), sad-sack widower Miles Jr. (Weitzman), conflicted family man Kevin (Nelson Franklin), underdog vintner Mitch (Mike Mitchell) and a kinder, newer member known only — in an all-caps nod to “American Pie” — as Stifler’s Brother (Jamar Neighbors). Meanwhile, a devotee and “investigative podcaster,” Puck (Sarah Ramos), also joins the guys on their wayward journey.

The film’s goofy conceit is that this is the fourth installment of a Napa Boys movie series (based on nonexistent graphic novels), with the official on-screen title of “The Napa Boys 4: The Sommelier’s Amulet” (Dig that “Indiana Jones”-style font.) As a result, it unfolds as if the viewer is already intimate with a franchise’s culture and lore, dropping us smack into the thick of things with little, if any, context. Confused yet?

This ploy hands Corirossi (a former head creative at Funny or Die) and Weitzman a license to be as slapdash and surface as possible, which, it would seem, is also part of the picture’s wobbly in-joke. Because this alt comedy makes no bones about its characters or situations being even remotely logical or realistic, anything goes — and does. You sometimes wish it didn’t.

Case in point: After a meds mix-up, unruly Jack Jr. (he and Miles Jr. are always addressed with the suffix) unleashes his explosive diarrhea into a barrel of contest-qualifying wine, after which he “spontaneously” ejaculates into it. And then, natch, the judges must sample the concoction. It’s an awful, protracted sequence that begs the question, satire or not, is this truly the funniest bit they could hatch? (To be fair, it’s likely some viewers will, uh, eat it up.)

That aside, the film’s barrage of scenes, sketches, shout-outs and absurdist scenarios leading up to the climactic wine-making championship are largely harmless flights of farce. These involve sex, love, death, near-death, maybe incest, lots of wine tasting (why is the vino here iced-tea brown?) and a moose on the loose.

There are also rides in Jack Jr.’s showy “Wine Wagon” SUV (license plate: IH8MERLOT), beatific montages backed by swelling strings celebrating the “joys” of Napa Boys life (“To be a Napa Boy is to be free!”) and a surprise — and rather pointless — cameo by those other movie “brainiacs,” Jay (Jason Mewes) and Silent Bob (Kevin Smith). There’s also an anxious visit to Jack Jr.’s onetime hookup, the now-elderly sexpert called the Milfonator (Eve Sigall). Oh, and is that really iconic filmmaker and vintner Francis Ford Coppola as the wine competition’s “super-secret celebrity guest judge”? (Two guesses.)

All this inanity takes place over the course of a handful of days, during which no one ever seems to change clothes. Couldn’t Jack Jr. have packed at least two Hawaiian shirts?

And what of the title’s elusive sommelier (DJ Qualls of “Road Trip” fame) and his mystical green amulet? He makes an almost tacked-on, Yoda-like appearance, but it’s too little, too late.

The game if uneven cast includes Paul Rust (channeling Paul Reubens, with whom he co-wrote 2016’s “Pee-wee’s Big Holiday”) as Squirm, Mitch’s insufferably cruel wine-making rival; David Wain (who directed and co-wrote “Wet Hot American Summer,” another spoofy touchstone here) as the wine contest’s even-handed host; and playing the guys’ various love interests: Chloe Cherry, Vanessa Chester, Riki Lindhome and Beth Dover.

Reportedly shot in under 10 days, the film features such fun needle drops as the Supremes’ “You Can’t Hurry Love,” Gerry Rafferty’s “Family Tree” and, of all things to accompany a seduction scene, “The Girls of Rock ‘n’ Roll” sung by Alvin and the Chipmunks and the Chipettes. How this proudly low-budget effort managed to license those tunes is as curious as so much else in this ragtag oddity.

Jonathan Majors is ready to stage his comeback — by teaming up with the Daily Wire.

The actor is reportedly filming his first movie since being found guilty of assaulting and harassing a former girlfriend in 2023. According to Deadline, production on the untitled action movie from the Daily Wire and Bonfire Legend begins this week in South Carolina.

Written and directed by “Run Hide Fight” filmmaker Kyle Rankin, the movie is described as “in the vein of ’80s and ’90s action movies ‘Red Dawn’ and ‘Toy Soldiers,’ ” per the outlet. In addition to starring in the film, Majors will also serve as an executive producer, the entertainment outlet reported.

“You’re not going to BELIEVE what we’re doing,” right-wing pundit and Daily Wire co-founder Ben Shaprio said in a Thursday post on X sharing the news. On Facebook he claimed, “This movie is going to be WILD.”

Majors was a Hollywood star on the rise when he was arrested on charges of assault, strangulation and harassment in March 2023. The “Creed III” and “Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania” actor was swiftly dropped from projects, his management company and his public relations team. Once poised to be the next central villain in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, he was also dropped by Marvel Studios following his conviction.

Majors avoided jail time and has since married fellow actor Meagan Good after a brief engagement.

In addition to Shapiro, who will be producing for the Daily Wire, Dallas Sonnier will be producing for Bonfire Legend. Neither company has shied away from courting disgraced Hollywood talent trying to revive their careers.

Among the Daily Wire and Bonfire Legends’ previous joint projects is “Terror on the Prairie,” the 2022 western starring Gina Carano. The “Mandalorian” actor was fired by Disney in 2021 for “her social media posts denigrating people based on their cultural and religious identities” that the company called “abhorrent and unacceptable.” (Carano filed a lawsuit against Disney alleging wrongful termination in 2024. The lawsuit was settled in August.)