The Lost King March 21, 2023 By: Button Hunter Friesen 2013's Philomena was the stealth contender of that year's Oscar race as it slowly built up a head of steam from its Venice and Toronto International Film Festival screenings. Judi Dench seemed to be the only initial likely contender from the creative team who was ready to get out of her "slump" after receiving six acting nominations between 1997 and 2006. Lo and behold, the film overperformed with additional nods for Best Original Score (coming at a time when Alexandre Desplat couldn't be kept out of the Oscar mix), Best Adapted Screenplay, and Best Picture. The nominations were the victory, with the film expectedly going home empty-handed after that. Now ten years later (or nine if you saw the film at the Toronto International Film Festival, as I did, or live in the United Kingdom, where it was released back in October), the entire creative team of director Stephen Frears, co-writers Steve Coogan and Jeff Pope, and composer Desplat, has reunited for another history lesson centering around forgotten figures. But while Philomena shone a light on the recent past with a mother in search of her lost son, The Lost King aptly follows a woman on her quest to unearth the nearly 700-year-old remains of Richard III. Substituting for Judi Dench is Sally Hawkins, with Coogan continuing as the supportive co-star along the journey. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXxRfhQFuV4 Little known to much of the non-literary world, including Philippa Langley (Hawkins), is that Shakespeare's titular play about King Richard III is one of the biggest hit pieces ever set on the stage. Unlike the bloodlust and madness that The Bard infused within his tragic tale, Richard's reign was filled with more modestly good occurrences, such as implementing the "innocent until proven guilty" legal system and the more widespread adoption of the printing press. These accomplishments don't merit his status as one of the best in the history of the monarchy, but it also makes his shameful legacy look extremely unfair compared to other rulers. As she digs deeper down the rabbit hole of conflicting theories about Richard's life, Philippa stumbles upon a fan club whose main goal is the uplifting of his name, which would be accomplished by the finding of his lost remains and a royal burial with a coat of arms. Frears has never had a distinct style as a director, which may be why the presenter at TIFF confused his filmography with that of fellow countryman Tom Hooper. But while Hooper's quirks may have won him Best Director and Best Picture for The King's Speech , they've also landed him in director's jail for Cats , where he still resides to this day. His lack of gimmicks has allowed him to be steady-as-she-goes for over thirty years now, never being constrained to a single genre or delivering a dud so monstrous that the ship runs off course. The Lost King , however, may have needed a little more personality from the person in the director's chair, as the "excitement" it tries to produce barely registers. Only out-and-proud history nuts (like me) will find much to walk away with, even if Desplat's overdone thriller-esque score is trying its best to lift the pace. Still, the quiet nature of Frears' work matches Hawkins, who does well to exude a confident nature in the face of many obstacles, which include chronic fatigue syndrome and the dismissal of her search by several people. The "villains" of this story come off a bit cartoonish, but they seem a bit more believable when compared to the moments when Philippa is greeted by the ghost of Richard III. The Lost King is a by-the-numbers semi-pleasant British piece, directed and acted with a slight amount of class and wit. It's by no means a must-see, but it's just charming enough to meet the standards of all those involved. This review was originally published from the world premiere at the 2022 Toronto International Film Festival. IFC Films will release The Lost King in select theaters on March 24th. More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen

You Hurt My Feelings May 24, 2023 By: Button Hunter Friesen After brief stops in television (directing episodes for Mrs. Fletcher , Extrapolations , and Lucky Hank ) and the Middle Ages (penning the “The Truth according to Marguerite de Carrouges” portion of The Last Duel ), writer/director Nicole Holofcener returns to her New York roots for You Hurt My Feelings , now bowing in theaters after premiering at this past January’s Sundance Film Festival. The older we get, the more we come to realize that the childhood saying “honesty is the best policy” is not the unbreakable rule that we were led to believe. Sure, you should strive to be honest with people, especially those you care about the most. But the real world never invites simplicity, so we have to bend the truth a little to get by with as little damage as possible. What’s the worst that could happen anyway? The obviously clichéd answer to that question is that a lot of catastrophic events would happen, either physically or emotionally (see Dancer in the Dark or The Hunt ). But in all her deftness, Holofcener doesn’t reach for fire and brimstone. Instead, she puts a magnifying glass on a couple that has built a strong foundation, mining relevant truths out of their small-scale situation. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=20GWk5cWPBs The specimens are Beth (Julia Louis-Dreyfus) and Don (Tobias Menzies). Beth is a semi-successful writer who is putting the finishing touches on her new mystery fiction novel, which acts as a slight departure from her usual non-fiction work. Don is a therapist who seems to have lost his edge. He looks and sounds so tired that even the endlessly squabbling couple that he regularly sees (real-life partners David Cross and Amber Tamblyn) takes pity on him. Beth has been using Don as a writing resource these past few months, and he’s had nothing but praise for her work. That is, until the nuclear bomb goes off (metaphorically, of course). Beth and her sister Sarah (Michaela Watkins) stumble upon Don and Sarah’s husband Mark at a specialized sock store (this is New York after all). They decide to sneak up on the men, but they end up getting more than they bargained for as they overhear Don telling Mark that he doesn’t think Beth’s new novel is good. He doesn’t have the heart to tell her, but he also feels the strain of letting her on with constant false encouragement. Don’s admittance puts in doubt everything else he’s said over the years, as well as Beth’s belief in her skills as an author. But it’s not like Beth is a total victim here, as the shoe is often on the other foot. She’s always saying how her son’s upcoming work will be great, and that cosmetic surgery is a good idea for Don. Holofcener could have taken the Green Book approach to her story, filling it with well-worn and clearly structured beats and ideas. But she’s smarter than that, as both she and we know this isn’t some problem that can ever really be solved. Most of us have to come to realize that a lot of our lives are comprised of filler words and feelings, with only a few times where we share our honest selves with others. And if that truth hurts, then sometimes it’s best to just keep the peace. Louis-Dreyfus and Menzies have great chemistry together. Their calmness with each other sells their long-standing marriage, as well as pushing past some of the overly simplified final few scenes. While clearly not alike in terms of style, You Hurt My Feelings reminded me of Yorgos Lanthimos’ The Lobster from 2016. Both movies take a stab at the long-standing battle between love and honesty without getting bogged down by solutions we’ve been fed all our lives. They also provide excellent counter-programming during the summer, acting as a refreshing cool down from the noise and explosions in the other rooms. A24 will release You Hurt My Feelings in select theaters on May 26th. More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen

'Bonnie & Clyde' and New Sentimentality February 1, 2023 By: Hunter Friesen Immediately upon its release, film critic Roger Ebert claimed Bonnie and Clyde to be alandmark in American cinema. The film attracted a love/hate relationship with critics, with the love side eventually winning out in the long run. Ebert was right in that Bonnie and Clyde was a milestone for American cinema, as this was one of the earliest and most successful films that embraced the idea of “counterculture." Through the use of their idea of new sentimentality, screenwriters David Newman and Robert Benton took Hollywood by storm by defying the oldways in favor of charging down a new path. The idea of “new sentimentality” laid out by Newman and Benton tried to explain the cultural and generational differences that were taking place in America during the 1960s. The ways of Old Sentimentality, which preached about the good ol' days of American patriotism and love for others, were now fading away in favor of a more tough and self-empowering way of thinking. Bonnie and Clyde illustrated this new way of thinking in multiple ways. The main factor that created controversy around Bonnie and Clyde , and for why it is apiece of new sentimentality, is the unrivaled amount of violence inflicted by and onto the characters. Obviously, with a movie about bank robbers, there has to be a few shootouts thatwould get butts in seats. Bonnie and Clyde does deliver the shootouts that one would expect and pay to see at the time, but it does it in such a way that it sucks out all the guilty joy we get out of watching it. Instead of dropping dead instantly after one shot, characters bleed and writhe around in extreme agony. The old way of gun violence was quick and didn’t allow for us to think aboutthe ramifications. This new way forces us to see the effects violence has on every day people, the physical damage it does to the person hit and the emotional damage it does to the people watching it, for which we the audience must participate. This idea somewhat borrows from the French and Italian new-wave of thinking that placed importance on telling stories that reflected our reality that is filled with real people. The violence comes to an incredible climax at the very end when our titular characters are gunned down in a hail of never-ending bullets. All you can do during the scene is sit there incomplete shock as their bodies are riddled to shreds. It’s not fun to watch or heroic in any nature. The old sentimentality had gun-toting heroes like Humphrey Bogart and John Wayne who killed quick and clean. They symbolized a time when America was in a righteous war to protect theworld from the Nazis. Bonnie and Clyde is the new idea that violence is something that lingers inthe moment and for many moments after. America was in Vietnam at the time, a war that waspropelled by American self-interest. Apart from violence, another element that must be delivered to sell a movie is sex. Like violence, sex was shown in only its tamest forms in film. Hitchcock famously had to dance around the subject in Notorious by having his characters kiss and peck at each other over time. Bonnie and Clyde engages with sex on a much more open scale. Bonnie and Clyde have sex multiple times throughout the film and even discuss it with each other. It’s a part of their relationship as opposed to being kept under the rug like before. We even get a tiny storyline about Clyde being impotent and then finally overcoming this. The idea of impotence before that time wasn’t one to be discussed as it clashed with the idea of what a real man was. John Wayne would never be impotent! The idea of new sentimentality changed what it meant to be a man, filled with imperfections and perversions. Bonnie and Clyde marked the mainstream beginning of new sentimentality within cinema. Through its unflinching approach to violence and sex, the film sparked a debate that isstill being felt today. As Ebert said, the film was made in 1965 about people in 1934, but it will always be made for us here and now. More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen

Ricky Stanicky March 6, 2024 By: Button Hunter Friesen After climbing the top of the mountain with the Best Picture-winning Green Book and disastrously trying to recapture that lightning in a bottle with The Greatest Beer Run Ever (while not good, also not as bad as the reviews would lead you to believe), writer/director Peter Farrelly has returned to what he knows best: the lowest of lowbrow comedy. Hey, the world has and will always need garbage collectors. It’s a respectable profession in the real world and can be one within cinema as long as you bring a certain kind of panache to it. Farrelly used to have that in his earlier days with his brother Bobby, an indescribable reverence for his characters through insanely grotesque and politically incorrect humor. You couldn’t pass through a junior high lunchroom without hearing someone quote Dumb and Dumber or There’s Something About Mary . But nowadays, the stenchy punchlines and childlike antics feel worn out. You’ve (hopefully) grown up, but these guys haven’t, and I’m not sure what new audience they think is out there to pick up the pieces. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WXpBN_31-Cw Ricky Stanicky feels like that last grasp for the fans of yesteryear, the ones that Farrelly thinks he left behind with his last two features. It’s the kind of movie whose first joke is a kid dressed as a dog with a boner for Halloween who is holding a giant bag of poop that’s about to be set on fire. Those first fifteen seconds are a good enough sample for you to decide just how far you’re going to crawl down this garbage chute. The good news is that the first act is by far the roughest stretch, with the rest becoming smooth sailing in comparison. That flaming poop prank ends up burning down half of a house instead of just a front step, leaving Dean (Zac Efron), JT (Andrew Santino), and Wes (Jermaine Fowler) in a world of trouble once someone finds out who did it. Some tampering with the evidence by Dean makes their friend Ricky Stanicky the main suspect. However, Ricky isn’t a real person; he’s just someone they made up to use as a get-out-of-jail-free card. And even twenty years later, they’re still cashing those checks. A coworker’s wedding, they don’t want to attend? Ricky is getting out of rehab, and they need to pick him up. JT’s baby shower? Ricky is about to have surgery, and they need to be by his side. And while everyone thinks they’re being good friends, the trio fulfills their childhood fantasies while avoiding any of the boring chores of adult life. Wait, skipping out on your own son’s baby shower? These guys must really be scumbags, right? Well, yes and no. Farrelly wants you to know that he thinks these guys are degenerates in principle. Of course, lying to your spouses repeatedly for years is bad. But what if, in some twisted way that really only worked in the '90s (and it was a bit of a stretch then, too), these guys learned some overly simplistic lesson about growing up and accepting responsibility? Still not good enough? Yeah, I didn’t think so either. Any platitudes that Farrelly and his five other credited screenwriters try to churn out of this are extremely underdeveloped, making the efforts to excuse this behavior almost laughable to the point of parody. But no one is going into this material for life lessons. It’s the “Warning: An R-rated Comedy” tagline that’s pulling in the tickets, or in this case, clicks, since this is a Prime Video exclusive. That’s where John Cena comes in, doing most of the heavy lifting as a “man who’s been addicted to steroids since the age of two.” He’s a scummy actor the trio hires to become Ricky for a day after their families start doubting his existence. But he takes it too far, going full method and becoming Ricky forever. Cena is a skilled comedic actor, and he takes full advantage of the less-than-savory tasks he’s required to do, one of which requires him to sing X-rated covers of famous ‘80s songs. Seeing how far he’s willing to go makes up for a lot of other rougher stretches. Amazon MGM Studios will release Ricky Stanicky on its streaming service on March 07th. More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen

The Pale Blue Eye December 22, 2022 By: Button Hunter Friesen There's no good way to say it, so I'd better avoid dancing around the subject and just come out with it: Christian Bale has not had a good year. Between the financial and critical disaster that was Amsterdam and the so-so quality of Thor: Love and Thunder , the payoffs have not matched the effort put in. To be fair, it’s not precisely Bale’s fault that those two movies did not meet expectations, as one actor can only do so much to affect the films they appear in. But I also can’t fully absolve him, or any other cast member within Amsterdam , of choosing to work with David O. Russell, considering all that’s been revealed about him. So, in comes The Pale Blue Eye during the waning days of 2022, hoping to salvage what remains of the year through its murder mystery story. But unlike the other Netflix murder mystery of Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery , this case doesn’t contain a single smile, least of all a laugh. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddbL9jvg77w That is, unless you’re the kind of sadistic person who thinks that people being murdered and having their hearts carved out is some kind of sick joke. The commanders at the United States Military Academy certainly don’t believe it to be a laughing matter that their cadets are being picked off one by one. The country is still in its infancy at this moment in 1830, and appearances are vital to becoming a legitimate world power, so having your finest soldiers in perpetual fear of being horribly mutilated isn’t such a good scenario. Hired to solve this problem is Detective Augustus Landor (Bale), who’s been around the block more times than he can count. But the clues to this case don’t line up too well for an outsider like Landor, so he recruits a young cadet and future world-famous poet, Edgar Allan Poe (Harry Melling), to be his inside man. Writer/director Scott Cooper doesn’t waste any time plunging us into this cold and desolate environment. The opening shot of a hanged victim, with the thick fog shrouding him in mystery, is a primer for the savagery found within this time period and specific location. The sun never seems to shine during the winter months, with the only light being from the candles inside dingy taverns and cottages. The gothic exteriors of the military academy don’t present a very cozy feeling for its recruits, who are much more in line with posh gentlemen than stereotypical hardened marines. Poe seems to be the brightest of all his brothers, displaying genius-level intellect through his frequent writing and readings of poetry. Melling overindulges on the character’s eccentricities, speaking in an accent similar to Benoit Blanc’s and with such rapid pace. Landor is the John Watson to Poe’s Sherlock Holmes, only this time the power dynamic has been reversed. Bale, who might as well be reprising his character from Cooper’s Hostiles based on his appearance and demeanor, displays a weariness within his character brought by his haunted past. It is a bit of a shame that some of the other members of this all-star cast, specifically Robert Duvall and Charlotte Gainsbourg, are wasted in nothing roles. Ranging from music dramas to mob biopics to westerns, Cooper has always been a chameleon director, molding his style to whatever the story requires. While he’s never done exemplary work, he does bring adequate professionalism, with some flashes of brilliance. The Pale Blue Eye, unfortunately, doesn’t contain any out-of-this-world moments as Cooper keeps the thread that ties all the clues together close to his chest, not revealing much until the final moments. But by that point, the answers come across a bit like cheating, as everything seems to be connected because of convenience rather than reality. But even with the central mystery within The Pale Blue Eye not entirely living up to the pedigree of its cast or the quality of its gothic production qualities, there are still enough intriguing elements within this world of the macabre. Chances are you’ll be surrounded by snow and frigid temperatures when this drops on Netflix, so you might as well settle in for a slow-burn mystery because I doubt the rest of the cinematic offerings in January will be much better. Netflix will release The Pale Blue Eye in select theaters on December 23rd, followed by its streaming premiere on January 06th. More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen

TIFF24 Dispatch #2 September 15, 2024 By: Button Tyler Banark All of the films were screened at the 2024 Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF). Click here for additional full reviews and dispatches. Select films below will receive separate full-length reviews at a later date, most likely in connection to their public releases. Bird Hot off his polarizing and career-best turn in last year’s Saltburn , Barry Keoghan gives another all-timer performance in Andrea Arnold’s Cannes hit Bird . A coming-of-age tale that takes a turn no viewer will see coming, Bird follows 12-year-old Bailey (newcomer Nykiya Adams), who lives in a rundown high-rise with her deadbeat dad (Keoghan), soon-to-be stepmother, and sister. Things change for her when she meets an awkward man who calls himself Bird (Franz Rogowski). Overall, Bird is a good outing for Arnold that sees her struggle with what the aesthetic of the film should be (i.e., ever-changing aspect ratios, use of Lofi music that feels thrown in at the last minute, etc.). These three strong performances by Keoghan, Adams, and Rogowski counter these missteps and make the movie worthwhile. Bird may fly (no pun intended) under the radar altogether, but it at least justifies its means to an extent. (3.5/5) Harbin A historical Korean spy thriller from acclaimed filmmaker Woo Min-ho, Harbin follows a group of Korean soldiers looking to assassinate Japanese leader Itō Hirobumi. Suspicions rise when one is deemed to be a double agent, resulting in everyone questioning who they can trust. Woo Min-ho makes it clear that he knows how to make a film of this scale as it’s well-planned, but the story does falter in its pacing and predictability. To make up for this, Harbin sprinkles in an intense sequence once every few minutes to rope audiences back in. Ranging from action to suspense, each sequence would get audiences on their toes only to put them back in the dust. When the assassination attempt scene does come around, the movie is full throttle until the end. The cast wasn’t anything too special, but Harbin would’ve been more worthwhile if there was at least one noteworthy performance. (3/5) The Assessment Fleur Fortune’s sci-fi drama is also a thriller about a couple going through a week-long test to see if they can be parents. The leading trio of Elizabeth Olsen, Himesh Patel, and Alicia Vikander stand out as the couple in question and the test assessor, respectively. Olsen and Patel capture the whirlwind their characters go through via Vikander’s assessor. The latter puts them through the wringer as she psychologically torments them through uncomfortable situations. She gives a very physical performance that should be discussed just as much as Emma Stone in last year’s Poor Things . Aside from the actors, nothing else within the film rises above being just average. By commenting on how chaotic parenting can be, The Assessment makes for a numbing display of this topic, even if it ties itself into knots to make it make sense to audiences. (3/5) The Order Gripping and shocking until the very end, Justin Kurzel’s The Order is an intense look at neo-nazism rampant in 1983 Pacific Northwest. Leading the cast is Jude Law, Tye Sheridan, and Nicholas Hoult in his darkest role yet as a leader of a neo-nazi group. He’s scary, manipulative, and flat-out the best aspect of this movie alongside the action sequences. Ranging from shootouts to bank robberies and car chases, Kurzel doesn’t waste a second crafting an action set piece that’ll keep viewers on their feet. It helps that Zach Baylin pens the script to adapt Kevin Flynn and Gary Gerhardt’s book The Silent Brotherhood , and makes everything just as straightforward. The Order is a film with an important message that’s story should be learned by viewers everywhere. (4.5/5) You can follow Tyler and hear more of his thoughts on Twitter , Instagram , and Letterboxd . More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen

Cassavetes & Newman: Hollywood Stars, Art Cinema Auteurs March 11, 2023 By: Hunter Friesen As actors, John Cassavetes and Paul Newman worked within the Hollywood studio system. Cassavetes starred mostly in miliary movies, while Newman was one of the biggest stars in the world with hits such as Cool Hand Luke and Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid . While both of them were prevalent on the multiplex screens, they were much different behind the camera. As directors, they veered into unfamiliar territory, creating films more in line with the auteur theory that wasn't present in the movies they starred in. Through the films Faces and The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds , both Cassavetes and Newman created films one would consider part of the arthouse crowd. In his essay “The Art Cinema as a Mode of Film Practice," David Bordwell writes that arthouse films are “a distinct mode of film practice, possessing a definite historical existence, a set of formal conventions, and implicit viewing procedures.” Hearing the word “convention” when describing arthouse cinema sounds like an oxymoron as everything within this specific industry is meant to be in contrast to the usual conventions within Hollywood. But every movement and genre has to have rules, whether written or unwritten. These rules can be seen in both Cassavettes’ and Newman’s films. Bordwell writes that the narratives within art cinema pride themselves on two things: realism and authorial expressivity. Life is to be shown as realistically as possible, with real locations and problems. In Faces , shot in grainy 16mm, Cassavetes makes it seem as if the viewer is a fly-on-the-wall as we watch a marriage decay. There is no gloss and the music doesn’t swell our emotions, instead, we are bombarded with closeups and technical inconsistencies. It’s the cinéma vérité style commonly found within Europe at the time. Cassavetes’ camera doesn’t glamorize American life, it shines a light on the reality of middle-class suburban life. Richard and Maria fight about their sexual desires and their discontent for one another. Instead of finding solace in each other, they find it in the bottle and strangers. It’s highly unconventional for the time and way ahead of anything that was coming shortly. Like Faces , Marigolds is filled with imperfect characters stuck in a realistically depressing situation. Beatrice has aspirations, but she doesn’t have the means to accomplish them. She’s also an embarrassment to her daughters and is an alcoholic. But the story isn’t about her, it’s actually about Matilda coming to terms with her downtrodden life. She and her mother are determined to push past their social convention offenses. Newman doesn’t treat the situation as misery porn, he simply follows the story. He’s connecting his audience, who most likely share the same circumstances, with the characters. Like Cassavetes, Newman’s visual style is pulled back, never reveling in the situation and the performances are also more reflective of the characters you would see on your street block. With both Faces and The Effect of Gamma Rays on Man-in-the-Moon Marigolds , John Cassavetes and Paul Newman pushed back against the Hollywood system they had inhabited for many years. Through technical and thematic intrusiveness, they were able to tell real stories for real people, something the big machine out in California simply didn’t want to do. More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen

Afire August 2, 2023 By: Button Hunter Friesen With international films receiving more attention than ever, American audiences are becoming increasingly aware of the auteurs of global cinema, many of whom have gone unappreciated for decades. Michael Haneke, Bong Joon-ho, Paweł Pawlikowski, Thomas Vinterberg, and Ryûsuke Hamaguchi are just a few of the names that have become prevalent within the North American cinephile lexicon over the past decade. But one name that has always seemed to elude the bright lights of Western media is German filmmaker Christian Petzold. This streak of unappreciation has become part of his narrative in the United States, with The New York Times running a piece on how he “may be the best German filmmaker you’ve never heard of.” As one of the leading figures in the Berlin School movement within German independent cinema, Petzold’s films often explore themes of identity, displacement, and the impact of German national history on personal lives. He’s been a staple of his native Berlin International Film Festival, winning awards for best director in 2012 for Barbara and the FIPRESCI Prize in 2020 for Undine . His latest feature, Afire , played at the festival, winning the Silver Bear grand jury prize. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KzdO_J10kEg While on the surface it may seem that Afire has less to do with Germany’s past compared to Petzold’s earlier works of Phoenix or Transit , it still finds a way to interweave the ramifications of National Socialism on German culture, specifically its works of literature and poetry. The story begins with Leon (Thomas Schubert) and Felix (Langston Uibel) on their way to Felix’s summer house to work on their artistic endeavors. Leon is an author who’s been published once before and is struggling to put the finishing touches on his follow-up manuscript. Felix is a photographer trying to assemble a portfolio to submit to an art school. However, the promise of solitude is interrupted by the introduction of additional parties: Nadja (Paula Beer) and Devid (Enno Trebs). It turns out Felix’s mom double-booked the house for the weekend, much to Leon’s displeasure as he endlessly lectures about the importance of his writing and process. But there’s also one other thing, which is the raging forest fires going on not too far away. The evening sky is red (hence the German title translating to “Red Sky”), and the warning signs are everywhere, yet these characters deny the danger and press on. Petzold took inspiration from Anton Chekhov for this summer story. Besides Leon and Felix, all of these people are new to each other, prompting discovery and conflict around certain behaviors and actions. But Petzold never finds something unique to say in this story, mostly due to the characters lacking enough interest to make up for their unlikability. Leon continually bemoans his past and present, eventually learning the predictable lesson of self-humility. Still, the performances are quite nice, especially Paula Beer, whose red dress symbolizes her radiance. She’s the sunshine that breaks through Leon’s dark clouds. It’s a slight shame that Petzold rarely lets her blossom out of that subservient role. There’s a great fire going on within the story, but nothing seems to crackle off the screen. Sideshow will release Afire in select theaters on July 14th. More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen

Top 10 Steven Spielberg Films November 23, 2022 By: Hunter Friesen Like The Mad Titan Thanos, Steven Spielberg has seemingly made it his mission to collect the stones of nearly every genre known to cinema. Throughout his nearly fifty-year feature film career, he’s already conquered monster movies ( Jaws ), science-fiction ( E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial ), adventure ( Indiana Jones ), war ( Saving Private Ryan ), musical ( West Side Story ), and biopics ( Schindler’s List & Lincoln ). He’s also been dubbed The King of Entertainment and remains the highest-grossing director of all time with a cumulative global box office gross of $10.62 billion. In honor of the nationwide release of his newest film, The Fabelmans , here’s a look at my ten favorite Spielberg films, all of which hold a special place in my heart and mind. 10. Raiders of the Lost Ark Honestly, I'm pretty sure this movie was just a series of bets between Spielberg and George Lucas to see if they could film a certain set piece, and I don't think they lost a single one. Taking inspiration from the Saturday morning matinees of his youth, Spielberg captures the youthful spirit of adventure and danger through ingenious practical action sequences that still tower over anything crafted today. Ranked #2 behind Atticus Finch in the AFI’s list of Top 100 Heroes, Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones is a modern-day swashbuckling pirate who finds himself in over his head but is just iron-willed enough to live for another adventure. 9. The Fabelmans The Fabelmans is a collection of Spielberg's greatest hits, all delivered to their greatest effect Just as he’s done with nearly every genre, Spielberg conquers the recent trend of directors making autobiographies and how they fell in love with cinema. There’s laughter, tears, and wonder as Spielberg recounts his early days growing up in Arizona with his artistic mother and scientific father. Newcomer Gabriel LaBelle acts as the Spielberg stand-in, with his great performance likely being the first of many. Full Review 8. West Side Story Spielberg emerged as the predictable winner of The Great Musical War of 2021. Perfectly melding the work of Bernstein and Sondheim with the newfound talents of DeBose, Faist, and Zegler, the new West Side Story makes the case for why some remakes should be allowed to happen. Because sometimes, they can meet or surpass the original, such as how this one does by bringing classic cinema into the modern world. Full Review 7. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade A sequel ranked over the original? Blasphemy! There is one clear reason why I am ranking The Last Crusade over Raiders of the Lost Ark (and obviously above Temple of Doom ): Sean Connery. The addition of the original James Bond provides a nice familial fold against the usual ruggedness of the Indiana Jones character. We only hear the voice of the old man in the film’s magnificent opening sequence, just enough to get us excited for his later introduction. The film also gets the slight edge because of its ability to scare the hell out of me as a child, with the “He chose…poorly” scene having a rent-free space in my head for eternity. 6. Catch Me If You Can As the latter in a double-bill with Minority Report in 2002, Spielberg’s caper is an infectiously entertaining time that sneakily lays claim as one of the best Christmas movies. A central theme throughout Spielberg’s filmography is the strained relationship between fathers and sons, and no film has that more in the foreground than Catch Me If You Can . Christopher Walken’s Oscar-nominated performance is one of the finest Spielberg ever directed, with DiCaprio providing the necessary emotional arc of a kid finding his way in the world. It also helps to have a top-notch Tom Hanks, complete with the best knock-knock joke known to man . 5. The Post Effortlessly entertaining and ever-timely, The Post is another showcase on each level of directing, writing, and acting. At the helm of this self-important tale is Spielberg with his endlessly maneuvering handheld camera. Like his nimble work at the beginning of Saving Private Ryan , Spielberg careens around corners and peers into meetings, placing us as a fly on the wall within The Washington Post. It may be the best of the partnership of Spielberg-Hanks-Kaminski-Williams-Kahn. It's perfect as a history lesson and a modern-day allegory, invigorating the message that democracy dies in darkness. 4. Saving Private Ryan The firm ideals of bravery and good ol' American patriotism are not traditionally found within Saving Private Ryan . Instead, Steven Spielberg, along with screenwriter Robert Rodat, offers something not usually found within a war film: humanity. While still an action film at its heart, the mind of the film is centered on philosophy, as opposed to pure entertainment. The titular mission of extracting Pvt. James Ryan isn't an honorable one. It doesn't take a genius to see the flawed math of risking the lives of eight men to save one. Spielberg and Rodat don't dance around that thought, and also find time to analyze the themes of doing your duty and the futility of war. Within the film, there are no individual heroes, only real men fighting to keep themselves alive for just another moment. The opening set piece is one of the greatest ever produced, with chaotic camerawork, editing, and sound design. It's no wonder no film has attempted to portray D-day since, as Spielberg has set the bar at an unassailable height. 3. Schindler's List Like The Father and Requiem for a Dream , Spielberg’s often regarded magnum opus is a film that will only ever want to watch once. Its morally serious story of the Holocaust is one of the most upsetting cinematic experiences ever created. But it is so incredibly well done and engrossing that it demands to be seen. And with the seemingly recent rapid rise of antisemitism, it now demands to be reseen by all. 2. Lincoln Just as Martin Scorsese did with Casino , Lincoln is part biopic, part history lesson on what it takes to pass anything in Congress, especially one of the most important amendments in our nation's history. Screenwriter Tony Kushner pushes past our preconceptions of the nobility that is involved in lawmaking. DP Janusz Kaminski and Production Designer Rick Carter take that rat's nest saying and apply it to their visual style. Instead of grand marble and strong architecture, the White House and House of Representatives are dingy, dimly lit, and a mute brown swamp full of colorful characters. At the top of the pedestal is Daniel Day-Lewis's performance. Day-Lewis doesn't play Abraham Lincoln, he is Abraham Lincoln. Even for one of the most recognizable actors in cinema, it's nearly impossible to see Day-Lewis in the role. There isn't a moment that you're not in complete awe of what you're seeing on the screen. 1. Munich Dare I say that this is Spielberg's best movie? Yes, I shall dare. For 165 minutes, Spielberg has both our hearts and minds engulfed in this story of vengeance. Or is it justice? The thrills come from the multiple assassinations as Spielberg and co. show off their master craftsmanship. Even though it's a thriller at its core, Munich carries much more than just bullets and bombs. The script by Kushner and Roth is filled with moral ambiguity and ethical conundrums that can be savored for the entire runtime, and then some. More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen

Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny June 29, 2023 By: Button Hunter Friesen For each new movie I’m reviewing, I bring along a mini journal that’s used to jot down small observations. Most of these scribblings turn out to be near illegible due to writing in the dark while still looking at the screen. But I can still recall them well enough once I piece a few of the letters together. On average, I fill up about one page front and back, equalling about 15-20 bullet points. But for Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny, I was only able to muster just six bullet points. Nearly half of those observations were made during the film’s opening set piece, which finds Indiana Jones hurtling aboard a Nazi train as World War II is coming to a fiery conclusion. I was perplexed at the moment as to why I couldn’t think of anything to write, and I’m still perplexed right now as I attempt to formulate my thoughts in an informative and entertaining manner. It was the same problem I had with Murder Mystery 2 and The Super Mario Bros. Movie a few months ago. But I always knew those two were airless junk. This is Indiana Jones for god’s sake, a franchise that has set the bar that no one else has come close to passing within the action/adventure genre! How is it possible that I could watch this finale and not have anything to say about it? To be fair, I was never bored, nor did I ever think that I was watching something that wasn’t worth my time. But I also never felt like I was watching something I hadn’t seen before or something that I hadn’t seen done much better. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eQfMbSe7F2g Some of the blame can be put upon director James Mangold, who’s placed himself in the unenviable position of taking over the reins from Steven Spielberg. Mangold has proven himself to be an above-average studio director, most notably in the past few years with Logan and Ford v Ferrari . But being above average doesn’t mean a whole lot when you’re being compared to God himself. Mangold’s use of a semi-convincing (at least when he’s standing still) de-aged Harrison Ford during the opening is deliriously entertaining. The meaty whack of a Nazi being punched and the cracking of a whip is music to my ears, as is hearing John Williams’ famous score as Indy leaps further into danger. But that introduction ends up being the peak, with all the other set pieces - of which there are many across this slightly bloated 154-minute movie - going through the motions. This adventure finds Indy going after Archimedes’ Dial, which is believed to be able to open and locate time fissures (just as the movie does for about ⅔ of its runtime, I will liberally dance around saying what those fissures mean). Also desperately pursuing the artifact is the Nazi doctor Jürger Voller (Mads Mikkelsen). Unfortunately for both him and Indy, they’re going after only one-half of the dial, with the latter portion still lost somewhere in the world. Twenty-five years go by, with the opposing forces facing each other again as they try to unlock the mysteries of the ancient world. Considering the fate of Kingdom of the Crystal Skull , it shouldn’t be viewed as a surprise that The Dial of Destiny does its best to stick to the tried and tested franchise formula. Any combination of a train, car, motorcycle, boat, plane, and horse is used across several chase scenes that take place in identifiable locations. Ford is still as lively as ever during these moments, moving with great freedom for an octogenarian. It’s just that the script can’t keep up with him, as all it wants him to do is don that fedora and whip, even if that means sacrificing the potential for something unique to happen. There’s also the addition of Phoebe Waller-Bridge as Indy’s goddaughter, Helena, and her kid sidekick, both of whom add more weight than they carry. Maybe I was asking for too much from this movie. But I also feel like a brain trust composed of Ford, Mangold, Spielberg, and George Lucas would be able to come up with a compelling reason for this character to return, other than to just go through the motions. It seems like this old dog can’t (or won’t) be taught new tricks. I watched this movie, had a pretty decent time, and will likely forget about it come next week. That’s a destiny I’d like to turn back. Walt Disney Studios Motion Pictures will release Indiana Jones and the Dial of Destiny in theaters nationwide on June 30th. More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen

Lady Chatterley's Lover December 2, 2022 By: Button Hunter Friesen Life is coming together nicely for Connie Reid (Emma Corrin). She’s marrying the man of her dreams (or at least she thinks she is), Baronet Clifford Chatterley, who heads off to the British frontlines for the Great War the next morning. Connie waits in London anxiously, knowing that Clifford will return home to take her to his estate of Wragby, where they will continue his family legacy. Clifford does return home, but not in one piece. He’s become paralyzed from the waist down, becoming a bit of a burden as Connie must tend to him, along with bringing the estate back to its former glory. There’s also now an absence of intimacy between the newlyweds, as Clifford’s paralysis also affects his you-know-what. The prospect of having an heir has all but vanished, sending Connie into a downward spiral of loneliness and feeling like a failure. Longing for companionship (and then some), Connie finds solace in the company of the estate’s gamekeeper, Oliver Mellors (Jack O’Connell). He seems to be the opposite of Clifford, with a rough exterior from the war, but a gentle soul underneath. Of course, things become steamy rather quickly, with the pair meeting in the woods quite often to indulge in their lusts. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOkXE3B0pDA Before Fifty Shades of Gray lit up e-readers and book clubs around the world, D.H. Lawrence’s 1928 novel, Lady Chatterley’s Lover , had been banned and caused massive public uproar for its “sexual promiscuity” and use of a certain four-letter word that begins with F and ends with K. The 1955 French film adaptation was immediately banned for “promoting adultery” (and also because it wasn’t very good). But with the Fifty Shades trilogy grossing over $1 billion, and Netflix becoming the new home for titillating material such as the 365 Days films, it seems appropriate for this classic novel to be told with modern sensibilities. Luckily, director Laure de Clermont-Tonnerre - winner of several breakthrough awards for her debut feature, Mustang - doesn’t revel in the “smuttiness” within the sexually explicit material like the films mentioned in the preceding paragraph. There’s a true sense of character exploration, both physical and emotional, in the several sequences where the actors bare all. Benoît Delhomme’s cinematography is lush and dreamy, capturing these moments with shallow focus, exemplifying the character’s attitude toward living in the moment, not looking at the dangers that the future holds. Corrin and O'Connell are a great pair as the two free spirits in a land of stiff upper lips. It’s just a shame that the two of them are caught in material that can’t rise above conventionalism, nor has enough inertia to sustain interest across its two-hour runtime. Will the pair be caught in the act? How will Clifford react? Will they run away together to start a happier life? It’s all standard stuff, never breaking free from the Masterpiece Theater chains that have a grip on this specific British genre. Clermont-Tonnerre also butchers the film’s initially poignant cut-to-black final scene, ending this story on a mistimed note. Book club moms have a new film to swoon over in Lady Chatterley's Lover . Luckily, they can do it in the privacy of their homes on Netflix, and not out in public, where the prospect of a few gasps and quivers from the NC-17 material may cause embarrassment. People looking for more underneath the carnality might be a little disappointed, but there’s enough on the surface to keep attractions piqued. Netflix will release Lady Chatterley's Lover in select theaters on November 25th, followed by its streaming premiere on December 02nd. More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen

1967: A Dramatic Shift in American Film March 29, 2023 By: Hunter Friesen The year 1967 can be regarded as one of the most pivotal years in cinema history. It was a transitional year where the conventional and unconventional came crashing together for the first time on such a large scale. Using David Newman and Robert Benton’s article “The New Sentimentality” (1964), we can categorize the conventional and unconventional into two distinct categories: Old Sentimentality (conventional) and New Sentimentality (unconventional). These two categories were not just found in film, they were also found in nearly every aspect of American culture. Each version of sentimentality garnered financial and critical success in 1967. No two movies were more opposed that year in style, viewpoint, and audience than Mike Nichols’ The Graduate and Stanley Kramer’s Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner . Also, no two actors better represented their respective sentimentality better than Dustin Hoffman and Sidney Poitier. In this essay, I’ll explain why and how 1967 was such a cinematic turning point that shifted the paradigm of power away from Hollywood conventionalism and towards a new era of auteur cinema. I’ll also look at how both Poitier and Hoffman were shaped by their generation and how their respective careers were forever changed in 1967. To show the difference between Old and New sentimentality, we must define what exactly they are. In simplistic terms, Old Sentimentality represents conventionalism and past values. The values this movement revered were about the good old days of ruggedness, strong moral character, and banding together. These ideas were born out of the nation’s unity and recovery from World War II and were prevalent throughout the next few decades. Figures such as Dwight Eisenhower, John Wayne, and Henry Fonda embodied this type of thinking, and films such as The Ox-Bow Incident, High Noon, and The Best Years of Our Lives were most popular. New Sentimentality began making a presence around the start of the 1960s. It was less about thinking as a group and more about thinking and acting for oneself. New Sentimentality pushed the idea of being self-indulgent, getting carried away, looking inward, and being authentic. John F. Kennedy, Audrey Hepburn, and Elvis Presley were the purveyors of this thinking, which could be found in films such as Bonnie and Clyde (screenplay by Newman and Benton) and Easy Rider . In 1967, producer and director Stanley Kramer released Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner . It was an all-star vehicle for him filled with the biggest stars of the past few decades in Spencer Tracy and Katharine Hepburn. Sidney Poitier was cast as the figure who’s coming to dinner, John Prentice. The plot is fairly straightforward as Prentice and his new fiancé, Christina, intend to get married. John is a respected medical doctor who has accomplished everything under the sun. Their engagement is under a deadline as he must fly to Europe that night. Christina’s parents, played by Tracy and Hepburn, are taken aback at the reality of their daughter marrying a black man, even though they raised her with a liberal mindset. Stanley Kramer was a director known for incorporating social commentary into his films. He previously had great success with The Defiant Ones and Judgement at Nuremberg . Even though his social messaging would make one think that he was a part of the younger outspoken generation, Kramer geared his films toward the older generation of moviegoers, the ones that would better respond to conventionalism and star power. Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner is part of an era in Hollywood where films about race were becoming more popular but weren’t purely benevolent in the way they handled the topic. Instead of utilizing themes like life under Jim Crow, black activism, or black community culture, a lot of films before the Hollywood New Age illustrated that racism was wrong through a white character's conversion from racial prejudice to tolerance. The prototypical movie of this thinking, In the Heat of the Night (also starring Sidney Poitier), won Best Picture that year. In Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner , the racism obstacle is solved by the white parents' eventual acceptance of John marrying their daughter. In his book "Genre and Hollywood," author Steve Neale (1988) breaks this style down even further by explaining that “dramatic conflict [in racism films] was to be structured around two opposing poles clearly representing good and evil, with a readily identifiable hero and villain”. This idea of opposing forces is seen in Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner as the prejudiced maid and the nosy Tillie act as the villains for the heroic Draytons to vanquish. Black characters rarely saw themselves as the heroes of their own story. They were either relegated to being the villain or to serve the heroic white characters. This role came to be known as the “noble negro”, a role that Sidney Poitier would play throughout the majority of his career. In her YouTube video Why The Help ?, Isabel Custodio (2020) describes this role as having “its own predictably recurrent tropes. These characters had impossibly noble traits seemingly honed to mollify white audiences. They were slow to anger, had no sexual impulses, and often sacrificed themselves for white co-stars.” Black audiences at the time often found Poitier's characters disingenuous. In Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner , they thought it was ludicrous that Poitier played a world-renowned doctor who acts more holy than Jesus. Why give the parents a pat on the back for accepting a virtually perfect man? Kramer, on the other hand, believed that was the point. By making Prentice so perfect, only his skin color could be the barrier to marriage. Kramer’s viewpoint worked for his audience and the Oscars, as the film was nominated for ten Academy Awards, winning for Best Actress (Katharine Hepburn) and Best Original Screenplay. 1967 marked the peak of Poitier’s career. His successes in previous films had typecast him as the “noble negro”, a role the younger generation didn’t accept. Now that his career is over, it is ironic to say that Poitier’s appeal was to the generation of people that had been holding him back all those years, and not to the people who were looking to create change within the nation and Hollywood system. As Poitier’s career was about to fall, the career of Dustin Hoffman was about to take off like a rocket. 1967 saw the release of The Graduate , directed by Mike Nichols, who was making his follow up to the critically acclaimed Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf? . That film put Nichols on the map with its groundbreaking vulgarity and sexual innuendos, with the latter carrying forward into his next film. The Graduate centers around Benjamin Braddock, who has just graduated college and doesn’t know what to do with his life. He finds himself in an affair with Mrs. Robinson, the wife of his father’s business partner. This sexually charged relationship goes on for quite some time until Benjamin catches feelings for Mrs. Robinson’s daughter, Elaine. A beacon of New Sentimentality, The Graduate spoke to a generation through its unmatched authenticity. Dustin Hoffman had no screen presence before being cast. He had no major previous roles and did not possess the classic movie star looks such as the blonde hair of Robert Redford and Paul Newman, or the towering charisma of Warren Beatty. Hoffman was of Jewish descent, which could be easily discerned from his looks, making him even more of an outsider to his contemporaries. Nichols saw something in Hoffman, an opportunity to use his “flaws'' to tell a story to a younger audience growing tired of Hollywood perfectionism. Film critic Roger Ebert (1967) described Hoffman’s performance as “painfully awkward and ethical that we are forced to admit we would act pretty much as he does, even in his most extreme moments." Hoffman’s awkward and anxious performance is filled with the traits of New Sentimentality. The idea of people having inward problems, sleeping around with others, and being wounded were ideas becoming more and more part of the national psyche, especially to young adults. Newman and Benton stressed that New Sentimentality had to do with you and you alone. “Personal interest is the abiding motivation and... your primary objective is to make your life fit your style.” The idea of personal interest and selfishness comes to its apex at the end when both Elaine and Ben run off together, though they have no idea what they are going to do now that they’re gone. Unlike Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner , Nichols (and screenwriters Buck Henry and Calder Willingham) doesn't craft the story around the message. It’s the inverse, as the message comes from the story. Ebert noticed this subversive social messaging in his review, saying, “[the film] is inspired by the free spirit which the young British and French New Wave directors have brought into their movies. It is funny, not because of sight gags and punch lines and other tired rubbish, but because it has a point of view. That is to say, it is against something.” With The Graduate , the audience is the one deciding the message for themselves, instead of it being intentionally swayed towards one side like Kramer did (even if he had good intentions). The Graduate’s methods proved highly successful, becoming the highest-grossing film of 1967 (beating out second-place Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner ) and garnering seven Academy Award nominations, winning for Nichol’s direction. The film also inspired a generation of filmmakers to craft stories for a new generation of moviegoers. Films such as American Graffiti, Harold and Maude , and the filmography of Woody Allen took a more liberal policy towards sex and personal relationships. Dustin Hoffman’s career exploded following 1967. He continued with down and dirty roles in films such as Midnight Cowboy, Straw Dogs, and Lenny . His imperfections won him a passionate following of fans that saw themselves through him. He reached his peak in 1979 with his Oscar-winning role in Kramer vs. Kramer and stayed at the top of his game for nearly a quarter-century with acclaim in later roles in Death of a Salesman, Rain Man, and Tootsie . 1967 was the transition point of two eras in American cinema. It was the beginning of the end for Hollywood conventionalism and the beginning of the rise of auteur-driven filmmaking. Looking through the lens of Old and New Sentimentality, one can see why and how this specific period marked that shift and how it enforced lasting consequences on how filmmakers see their audience and how audiences see themselves on the screen. More Reviews Primetime September 22, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Unabomber September 24, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Look Back September 16, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Elsinore September 14, 2026 By: Hunter Friesen Hunter Friesen