Many horror movies use floating cameras and first-person POV to tell a story, but Steven Soderbergh has used these familiar techniques to craft something remarkable with Presence. Like many ghost movies, Presence begins with a wealthy family moving into a new home. As days turn into weeks, it becomes clear there’s something weird happening in the house. Objects move by themselves, glasses shatter, and sometimes it’s possible to feel someone watching, although this force can’t be seen with human eyes.

The novelty is how Soderbergh tells the story by using the camera to represent the field of vision of the haunting spirit. Every scene of Presence is framed from the ghost’s point of view, which means we get an unusual insight into what the apparition is experiencing and how it reacts to what happens inside the house.

Let’s be clear. Since Sam Raimi decided to craft a first-person scene to materialize the invisible force in the woods of Evil Dead, this technique has become a staple in horror cinema. Plus, the entire found footage subgenre relies on the concept we are seeing exactly what the person behind the camera saw. However, floating cameras are usually incorporated for no more than a few seconds. Furthermore, the found footage genre has the constraint of needing to make each scene possible to reproduce with in-universe cameras.

Presence doesn’t set any technological boundary for its gimmick, meaning the ghost can watch the family through unusual angles. In addition, Soderbergh’s commitment to shooting everything with floating cameras makes Presence a technical achievement, even when the story fails to impress.

The biggest obstacle to Presence’s success is public expectation. The movie is being distributed by NEON, which last year graced us with horror hits such as Longlegs, Immaculate, and Cuckoo. Given that Presence revolves around a haunted house story, it’s fair for people to expect Soderbergh’s latest to be fully anchored in horror cinema. Nevertheless, Presence is far from scary. Nor is it trying to be. 

By shifting the focus to the ghost itself, the movie is willing to explore what causes the emotional outbursts the living interpret as the actions of an evil entity. The movie’s unique point of view also allows Soderbergh to explore how the apparition is struggling to find its purpose and be released of its material constraints—it’s not only the living who must understand why a haunting happens to find some peace of mind. As a result, Presence is more like A Ghost Story than The Haunting of Hill House or The Conjuring.

To be fair, Presence does have moments of tension. Soderbergh is no stranger to nerve-wracking thrillers, having directed movies such as Unsane and Side Effects. Also, Presence is penned by David Koepp, the writer of David Fincher’s claustrophobic Panic Room. Both men know how to play with the public’s feelings and generate anxiety, and Presence gets there eventually. However, the movie is just not that interested in scares. Once you accept it, you can enjoy the film for what it is: an exploration of suburban drama with a pinch of the supernatural.

Once you take Presence for what it is, it gets easier to realize how brilliantly executed it is. As a being that doesn’t abide by the time and space rules that determine human perception, the apparition jumps from moment to moment, carefully observing the family of four and unraveling their dynamics. Rebecca (Lucy Liu) is a ruthless businesswoman who obviously prefers her firstborn son, Tyler (Eddy Maday). That means it’s up to the father, Chris (Chris Sullivan), to compensate for Rebecca’s absence when the youngest daughter, Chloe (Callina Liang), needs emotional support. For reasons the movie will slowly unveil, Chloe seems to be the primary target of the titular presence, which often puts her at odds with Tyler and Rebecca, who would prefer to live their lives without the girl’s supposed attention-seeking behavior.

While the family complexities are enough to get you emotionally invested in their unexpected journey, the dialogue is occasionally stiff and heavy-handed. Since the spirit can only glimpse specific moments of the family’s life, Koepp’s script wants to ensure everyone follows the plot and makes the connections needed for Presence’s ultimate emotional payoff. The problem with this approach is that the movie is not trying to reinvent the narrative wheel, so the hand-holding is not unnecessary and distracting.

Fortunately Presence works because of its cast. Each family member is played by a talented performer who understands the assignment. The cast ignores the camera and recreates glimpses of everyday life that help us understand what makes each of them tick, fully trusting Soderbergh can put everything together in a satisfying way in the editing room. The result is a mesmerizing slice of life spiced up by the ever-present ghost that haunts the house and that learns together with the audience what’s at the core of the conflicts unfolding on the screen. That comes in handy, as the central mystery of Presence is a little too obvious to sustain the plot by itself.

Even though Presence tries to drop feed information to the public, a piece of the puzzle at the time, the movie’s twists and turns won’t surprise many people. That’s fine, as Soderbergh’s is more an exercise in style than anything else. On that front, Presence is a cinema accomplishment that deserves to be seen by anyone who minimally cares about movie-making. 

The whole movie is structured in long takes shot with handheld cameras, which demands incredible coordination and synergy from the entire cast. Most of the scenes also count only on natural light, which helps to give Presence a homemade texture, highlighting its self-contained story. Finally, since the whole movie takes place in a single environment, it’s impressive that Soderbergh manages to keep things fresh and develop new ways to make the ghost-view gimmick relevant.

The special effects of Presence are equally impressive. The movie prioritizes practical solutions to create images of furniture being moved by the spirit or objects floating in the air. These choices help keep the film grounded, but they also entice the viewer’s curiosity, as you are left questioning how the director manages to do those things without breaking the illusion of the supernatural. 

In short, while Presence could do with a more engaging story, the movie still has plenty of wonderful surprises in store. That’s even more relevant for cinema fans who appreciate filmmakers daring to do something fresh with film language.

Good news! We may now know the exact runtime of incoming MCU movie Captain America: Brave New World. Bad news! Marvel fans probably aren’t going to like it…

With the previous Marvel Studios film coming last summer in the form of $1.3 billion blockbuster Deadpool & Wolverine, we’ve had an atypically long time to wait until another MCU came our way (I mean, Sony offered up Venom 3 and Kraven the Hunter, but, well, they hardly count). The pressure is on Brave New World to deliver, then. Especially as it serves as the follow-up to the universally acclaimed Captain America trilogy, starring Chris Evans as the Star-Spangled Man.

There are certainly enough elements in the mix to blow MCU lovers away. As the film’s marketing has hinged on, Anthony Mackie’s Sam Wilson will be joined by Harrison Ford as President Red Hulk (a corrupt POTUS with an inhuman skin tone? Where do they get their ideas!). Then there’s Tim Blake Nelson’s the Leader back in the mix, for the first time since 2008’s The Incredible Hulk. Not to mention rumors of a certain team of Earth’s Mightiest Heroes re-assembling.

All of that is why the film’s apparent runtime may come as something of a surprise.

Brave New World‘s reported runtime would make it the shortest Captain America movie yet

Now that we’re only one month exactly from Brave New World swooping into cinemas, AMC Theaters has updated its listing for the film. According to the AMC site, Captain America 4 will sport a runtime of exactly 1 hour, 58 minutes.

This will come as a surprise to fans for a few reasons. For starters, because IMDb — which is never a reliable source of intel at the best of times, but still — previously listed Brave New World‘s runtime as 2 hours, 15 minutes. Given AMC’s update, this appears to have been more of a placeholder runtime based on an educated guess. And a 135-minute length would make a lot more sense. If AMC’s listing is to be believed, Cap 4 will be the shortest film in the series to date.

It’s notable any time a Marvel film slips under 2 hours, but it’s particularly surprising when it comes to the traditionally giant-sized Cap franchise. 2011’s The First Avenger may have only been 2 hours, 4 minutes, but things soon expanded when the Russos took the reins. 2014’s The Winter Soldier is 2 hours, 16 minutes with 2016’s Civil War even longer at 2 hours, 27 minutes. Brave New World may end up a full half-hour shorter than its predecessor.

Given what we know of its extremely troubled post-production period, which involved poor test screenings and extensive reshoots, a truncated runtime doesn’t exactly bode well for Brave New World. Then again, many of the most popular MCU movies — including Guardians of the Galaxy (2 hours, 1 minute) and Iron Man (2 hours, 6 minutes) — are on the shorter side, so this isn’t necessarily a reason to despair just yet. We’ll find out if Captain America 4 can prove that size doesn’t matter come Feb. 14.

Director Paul Feig is clearing the air amid rumors and speculations surrounding the follow-up to his 2018 movie A Simple Favor starring Blake Lively and Anna Kendrick.

The black comedy crime film follows Stephanie Smothers (Kendrick), a widowed mom vlogger, as she unravels dark secrets after her enigmatic friend Emily Nelson (Lively) mysteriously disappears, plunging her into a web of deception and betrayal. A Simple Favor 2 was confirmed four years after the first movie’s success, and both Lively and Kendrick were announced to be returning for their roles.

In recent weeks, Lively has been the subject of countless headlines for legal disputes involving her It Ends With Us co-star and director, Justin Baldoni. In Dec. 2024, the 37-year-old actress filed a sexual harassment complaint against Baldoni that was detailed in The New York Times, and the actor fired back, filing a $250 million lawsuit against the publication for libel and defending himself against Lively’s accusations. Baldoni’s high-profile lawyer, Bryan Freedman, warns that more lawsuits are coming, including one involving Lively.

Feig was one of the people who showed Lively support after her complaint was made public. He posted on X, writing that he has worked with the actress twice and found her to be “professional, creative, collaborative, talented, and kind.” The public also largely sided with Lively, but many have since changed their tune after reading Baldoni’s lawsuit.

Now, there are rumors that A Simple Favor 2 has been cancelled amid Lively’s ongoing controversy. Feig was quick to dismiss it, posting on X that the rumor “is total BS” and warning his followers that not everything on social media is a reliable source of truth.

Paul Feig says more details are coming soon

In addition to confirming the movie is still being released, Feig praised the two lead actresses, writing, “Blake and Anna turn in amazing performances. I can’t wait for you all to see it. Stay tuned for more details. Simple Favor 2 is coming soon!”

Fans of the movie were delighted to know that the sequel is still being released, but one user remained skeptical of Feig’s answer, asking why it hasn’t been released when the movie finished filming in April 2024. Feig answered him by saying that post-production takes at least six months, and that includes the technical aspects such as editing and adding a musical score as well as sound mixing and special effects. “Our post schedule always had us finishing everything by mid-January,” the director said. Additionally, Feig shared that film studios decide when the best time is to release a movie.

Many praised Feig for his patience in answering the question, and one user even pointed out that some movies that finished filming in 2023 haven’t even been released, so it’s understandable that A Simple Favor 2 isn’t out yet. What we know, however, is that the sequel follows Stephanie and Emily in Capri, Italy, for the latter’s wedding. “Along with the glamorous guests, expect murder and betrayal to RSVP for a wedding with more twists and turns than the road from the Marina Grande to the Capri town square,” per the synopsis.

Meanwhile, the director’s fans are also excited to get more updates about his new project, the film adaptation of the Freida McFadden novel, The Housemaid. Sydney Sweeney, Amanda Seyfried, Michele Morrone, and Brandon Sklenar are confirmed to star in the movie, which is slated for a Dec. 2025 release date.

Daredevil: Born Again fans, it looks like you’re going to have to hold on just a little longer. While Charlie Cox’s Matt Murdock has swung by the MCU for the occasional cameo here in there over the past few years — in Spider-Man: No Way Home, She-Hulk, and Echo, respectively — we’re still waiting on our first real look at his proper return in his very own Disney Plus revival. In a happier world, though, that wait would’ve been over this week.

Thanks to reports, fans were fully expecting a new trailer for Born Again to drop any day now, but sadly that isn’t to be anymore, and for good reason. The Kingpin of Crime himself Vincent D’Onofrio confirmed to a fan on X this Jan. 13 that the trailer had been “postponed due to LA fires.” That said, he promised that the sneak peek is on its way. “It’s coming,” the Wilson Fisk actor assured.

The trailer’s delay might be a minor annoyance to Daredevil diehards, but needless to say it’s an absolutely acceptable and appropriate response from Marvel Studios amid the awful situation in Los Angeles this month. In truth, the Born Again trailer was already tardy, so this new delay has hardly made a difference. Whatever happened, the Daredevil revival was all set to break a Marvel TV record nobody wanted broken.

Daredevil: Born Again‘s trailer isn’t even out yet, and it’s already broken a Disney Plus record

As of Jan. 13, Daredevil: Born Again is just 50 days away from hitting screens. While that is undoubtedly something to celebrate, the fact that we’re this close to its premiere and have yet to receive a full trailer marks an unwanted MCU record. Whenever the trailer eventually lands, it will be the shortest gap between the release of a trailer for a Marvel Disney Plus show and the release of the show itself.

Again, this can’t be blamed on this new delay as Born Again would’ve earned this unfortunate record in any case. The previous record-holder for the slowest trailer arrival for a Marvel show was that of Loki season 2, which dropped its first teaser 66 days prior to the season’s premiere. So even if Daredevil had managed to release its trailer this week as planned, there still would’ve been no contest in this competition between the trailer-come-latelys.

So why the reason for the long hold-out? Is Marvel nervous to finally unveil how Born Again ultimately shaped out? After all, it went through a gargantuan rehaul behind the scenes, which is why it first started shooting in 2023 and we’re only just seeing it now, two years later. With any luck, though, the studio knows it’s sitting on something great and this is merely a way to build suspense for what is surely the most highly anticipated superhero series of the year. It’s anyone’s guess when the trailer will finally get here, but Daredevil: Born Again is set to emerge from the shadows onto streaming come March 4.

There’s a great debate within creative circles about whether actors count as artists or just entertainers. It’s difficult to determine what truly distinguishes the two disciplines, but in a very limiting shorthand, an artist goes deeper than simply aiming to entertain, and consequently, the best actors often end up delving deeper than just performing lines and hitting marks. For Florence Pugh in Midsommar, what started as a once-in-a-lifetime role apparently ended up taking her to an unfamiliar, dark place that felt like abuse.

Today, Florence Pugh is one of the most recognizable actors of her generation, with iconic scenes in modern-day classics like Little Women and Oppenheimer. It’s clear Pugh prioritizes a good role over a big role, as evidenced by her willingness to play supporting characters despite her fame being enough to sell a movie on its own. Recently, Pugh appeared on the Reign with Josh Smith podcast and discussed various turning points in her career, particularly how she felt there were big roles where she gave too much of herself — Midsommar chief among them.

If you haven’t watched Midsommar yet, you’re missing out. It’s a horror film about Dani, played by Pugh, who is stuck in an emotionally unfulfilling relationship with her boyfriend who only stays with her out of guilt after the tragic death of her sister and parents. Over the course of the film, Dani finds herself gaining confidence through her integration into a Swedish cult that doesn’t hesitate to kill to achieve its goals. When the film was first released, much of the conversation revolved around how it was one of the few notable horrors set exclusively during the day. But as time has passed, it’s remembered more as the role that cemented Pugh’s status as a bonafide Hollywood star.

The most striking aspect of the movie — though it has plenty going for it — is Pugh’s lead performance. She managed to ground the film with genuine emotion, preventing it from being overshadowed by the heightened intensity surrounding her character. Her work in Midsommar ranks alongside Daniel Kaluuya’s performance in Get Out as one of the most captivating in 21st-century horror.

Pugh has since admitted that her performance came at a personal cost. According to Business Insider, Pugh reflected on the role: “There have been some roles where I’ve given too much, and I’ve been broken for a long while afterward. Like when I did Midsommar, I definitely felt like I abused myself in the places I got myself to go.”

However, Pugh emphasized that she doesn’t look back at the role negatively. In fact, she made a point of expressing pride in her performance. Still, she acknowledged that defending Dani’s decisions and internalizing them to the point of being defensive about her character took its toll. And we have to agree — making that role feel natural must have been a Herculean task. Pugh described it as “exhausting,” affirming it’s an experience she never wants to repeat in her career. And while the film is an outstanding portrayal of a breakup, it’s also exhausting for the audience, much like breakups themselves. One X user hilariously quipped that even the viewers were traumatized by Midsommar, so it must be no surprise if Pugh felt the same.

As humans, we may never come to a consensus on what art truly is, but if we define it as entertainment that lingers and leaves a lasting impression, Florence Pugh’s performance in Midsommar was undoubtedly high art. And if she now feels that roles like this take too much from her, we’re more than eager to see where this decision leads one of our generation’s defining artists moving forward.

If this past year has proven anything, it’s that, scoff as the cynics might, the world of film is actually quite happy and healthy, despite certain studios’ best efforts to drag it down. The fruits of many an artists’ labors are still coming to a front as the awards season gets underway, but Letterboxd has a few verdicts of its own to toss into the mix.

Per the social media site’s Year in Review 2024 page, fan sentiment from all over the world was aggregated in hopes of pinpointing the most beloved titles that this past year had to offer, with categories like Women Directors, Highest Rated by Genre, Most Popular By Month, and more shouting out a wide array of features, documentaries and shorts. That is, a wide array of films to bow down to Dune: Part Two.

Indeed, standing atop the throne of Highest Rated Overall is Denis Villeneuve’s bombastic follow-up to his 2021 Oscar nominee. Sporting an average rating of 4.4/5 stars and just edging out a second-place I’m Still Here and a third-place How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies, Dune: Part Two has officially established itself as the most beloved film of the year. Naturally, it also ended 2024 as the highest-rated action/adventure film, the highest-rated sci-fi film, the most popular film (i.e. the film with the most Letterboxd activity), and the highest-rated film to come out of North America.

But it wasn’t just the Dune: Part Two show, of course. In the Women Directors category, Kiran Rao’s Laapataa Ladies — a film about the shenanigans faced by two newlywed women who somehow exchange husbands — ended the year as the highest-rated narrative film of 2024. Meanwhile, Payal Kapadia’s All We Imagine as Light — about two Mumbai-based nurses and roommates who find themselves tangled in emotional predicaments — was the highest-rated directorial debut from a woman.

World cinema got its fair share of shouts, as well. Flight 404 (an Egyptian drama thriller about a woman who must acquire an emergency sum of money to save her mother’s life) ended the year as the highest-rated African film, while the aforementioned How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies (a Thai film about a boy who quits his job to care for his dying grandmother in hopes of getting in her good graces for her lucrative will) emerged as the highest-rated Asian film. Elsewhere, the 2024 adaptation of The Count of Monte Cristo was the highest-rated film out of Europe, the animated heavyweight Memoir of a Snail edged out Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga as the highest-rated Oceanic film, and the highest-overall runner-up I’m Still Here — which earned Fernanda Torres her Best Actress Golden Globe last weekend — stood out as South America’s highest-rated film.

As for the more familiar faces of the round-up, those included Hundreds of Beavers (highest-rated comedy film), Nosferatu (highest-rated horror film), Anora (highest-rated romance film), and Challengers (highest-rated sports film).

Folks, cinema is doing just fine. Studios and box offices may favor a few too many inconsequential nothing-burgers, but the filmgoers of the world have shown us firsthand that great films are still making a wide, meaningful impact on audiences with their artistic depth, razor-sharp wit, and consummate emotion. This one’s for you, Ebert.

Born on Aug. 24, 1958, in New York City, New York, Steven Robert Guttenberg — known simply as Steve Guttenberg — is an actor, author, businessman, producer, screenwriter, and director who’s been active in the film and television worlds since the late 1970s.

Guttenberg hasn’t been as obviously prominent on the big and small screens in recent years (though he is still busy) and was at his most prolific in the 1980s (it’s said only Gene Hackman appeared in more movies between 1980 and 1990), but his filmography is highly impressive. Per IMDb, Guttenberg’s movie credits include The Boys from Brazil (1978), Can’t Stop the Music (1980), Police Academy (1984) and three of its sequels, Cocoon (1985) and its 1988 sequel, Bad Medicine (1985), Short Circuit (1986), Three Men and a Baby (1987), High Spirits (1988), Home for the Holidays (1995), P.S. Your Cat Is Dead! (2002), and Roe v. Wade (2020). His television credits include Billy, No Soap, No Radio, Veronica Mars, Dancing with the Stars (as a contestant), The Other F Word, Ballers, The Goldbergs and its spin-off Schooled, and Paper Empire. He’s also appeared on stage in the plays Prelude to a Kiss, The Boys Next Door, Furthest from the Sun, and Relatively Speaking.

Now, however, Guttenberg has been making headlines for a different reason. Amid the horror of the wildfires sweeping through Los Angeles County, the 66-year-old star proved he’s more than just an on-screen good guy by jumping into action to aid fire crews around his Pacific Palisades neighborhood (as per CNN).

Guttenberg told CNN, “I haven’t seen anything like this in my entire life, and I don’t think many people have. At 9 o’clock in the morning, it was an idyllic Pacific Palisades, and then by 10 o’clock, 10:30, the sky was dark as if it were nighttime.”

He had previously spoken to Los Angeles television station KTLA to explain how he’d tried to clear some of the many vehicles that had been abandoned in an area where he said it was hindering people’s ability to evacuate. Guttenberg told the station, “There are people stuck up there. So we’re trying to clear Palisades Drive and I’m walking up there as far as I can moving cars. There are families up there, there are pets up there. There are people that really need help.”

Guttenberg’s heroics have brought him to the forefront of many people’s thoughts — some of whom, truthfully, had seen very little of him since his ’80s heyday. It’s raised questions about his life, such as what his net worth is these days.

What is Steve Guttenberg’s net worth?

According to Celebrity Net Worth, Steve Guttenberg’s net worth is an enviable $12 million.

According to his IMDb page, Guttenberg has no confirmed upcoming projects, but we’re sure he’s keeping himself occupied. In the meantime, huge props to him for helping out in California’s time of need. It takes courage and decency to put yourself in danger to help others. We wish him well in his future endeavors.

The MCU is always expanding and with each new story told on screen, executives at Disney are on the hunt for talented actors to fill the seemingly endless assortment of roles.

Now, one of 2024’s most sought-after stars, Cynthia Erivo, has tossed her name into the discussion around the next chapter of the MCU. Erivo is an actress who has made plenty of appearances in film and television over the years, however, her star power has grown brightest in recent months after her leading role in the film adaption of the hit Broadway musical, Wicked.

Speaking to the National Board of Review, Ervio shared her ultimate dream role which, if it ever came to fruition, would see her welcome more X-Men characters into the MCU. The actress says that if there’s one role she could have next, it would be as Storm.

“I really want to play Storm. I know it sounds frivolous but I think we really haven’t uncovered how grand she is and all of that inner-turmoil that she has so, I think there’s a world where we can do something like that.”

Given that the MCU is inevitably going to introduce more X-Men characters into its ranks, Storm seems like a character that absolutely will show up at some point. With Erivo’s talents, she could very well be a great choice to bring this iconic comic book character to screens for the MCU era.

If she were to be given the opportunity, Erivo would be the third actress to bring Storm to the screen in live-action form. The first Storm was Halle Berry in the early 2000s X-Men movies, but the character was played by Alexandra Shipp in the more recent movies X-Men: Apocalypse and X-Men: Dark Phoenix.

Of course, there’s no way of knowing what Disney’s plans for the character would be if she was added to the MCU, or whether they’d go for a younger or older version of the iconic superhero.

With the success of Wicked, casting Erivo as someone in the MCU would seem like a slam dunk, even if that character isn’t Storm. Wicked has done incredible numbers at the box office, to the point that it is officially the most successful Broadway film adaptation ever — and as of right now, it has made more than $680 million globally. The film’s sequel is set to be released later this year, so expect to see the franchise everywhere once again towards the tail-end of 2025.

It’s always great to see talented actors sharing their desire to join the MCU, and in an era where there are plenty of new characters being added to the mix, vocalizing their dream role could very well be what’s needed to make it happen. The actress already mastered the power of flight for her role as Elphaba, so why shouldn’t she take to the skies once more as Storm?

Ultimately, there’s no indication of if or when Storm would be added to the MCU should that be something that Disney is looking to do, but hopefully when it does, the role is given to a star as talented as Erivo. If you haven’t yet seen Wicked you can still catch the movie in theaters, but now it’s also available to rent and buy digitally.

Remember back in the mid-2010s when gaming YouTube channels emerged as one of the most lucrative enterprises of the modern era, compounded by titles such as Minecraft, FIFA, and a never-ending stack of horror games spearheaded by Five Nights at Freddy’s?

Well, since then, the homicidal animatronics have done a pop culture speedrun, having been at the center of 20 different games (a library whose first four titles where shoved out in just one year, no less) and, more infamously, a 2023 feature film produced by Blumhouse. It was a woefully incompetent piece of media, but it more than recouped its production budget of $20 million with a $297.1 million box office haul, so we’re definitely getting more of these. Even now, the denizens of Peacock bafflingly consider it to be somewhat worthy of their time.

Per FlixPatrol, Five Nights at Freddy’s has emerged as the 10th most watched film on the United States’ Peacock charts at the time of writing, squaring off against an influx of DreamWorks and Illumination titles, from Madagascar (ninth place) to Despicable Me 4 (first place).

Five Nights at Freddy’s stars Josh Hutcherson as Mike, a down-on-his-luck man who finds himself taking a new job as the night guard at a pizzeria, so as to keep custody of his younger sister Abby (Piper Rubio), who their wicked aunt is seeking to use to gain custody payments. Mike struggles through the job, haunted by his past, but his greatest challenge just might come in the form of the pizzeria’s animatronics, which may or may not be sentient.

The reason this movie did so well with audiences is because the YouTuber MatPat — known for his popular Game Theory videos on YouTube and subsequent connection to the game franchise — has a cameo in this film as a waiter, and he even says his YouTuber catchphrase, “It’s just a theory,” in the film.

There’s other literal reasons that audiences liked this movie, of course, but that aforementioned reason captures the full emotional truth of where the film’s popularity comes from. It’s a product wrapped in an IP that these people have based their personality on, and whenever they see the IP on something (in this case, a movie) or catch references to the thing they base their personality on, they will celebrate the movie because to do otherwise would be to abandon themselves.

That’s not to say people aren’t allowed to like things, but it would do us well to consider the link between passive viewing habits and media that only exists to serve the ego of the consumer. If we do that, maybe fans would be more eager to see the thing they love respected by a genuinely great story, rather than have it cheaply packaged around a literally and subtextually incoherent plot that hinges on Mike falling asleep and having vivid nightmares every 20 minutes.

Did it need to be a truly chilling horror movie? No, not at all. Should it have approached its narrative with an honesty that probably would have omitted the scene where Abby builds a fort with the animatronics? Yes, absolutely.

Whenever we catch wind of an Americanized remake of a non-English film, a variety of questions spring to mind: “Why are we doing this?” “Is this necessary?” “Will this encourage people to seek out the original film?” “Will there be a Deadpool cameo, at least?”

All very valid and pressing inquiries that Hollywood ought to give the utmost consideration going forward. For now, though, this impulse remains one of the great mysteries of the entertainment machine, and so if we have to put up with films like 2024’s Mothers’ Instinct, we should at least try and enjoy the complimentary presence of Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain. That’s what the residents of Hulu seem to be doing, after all.

Per FlixPatrol, 2024’s Mothers’ Instinct has cemented itself atop the United States’ Hulu film charts at the time of writing, edging out its fellow motherhood-centric thriller Nightbitch, which rests at second place.

Based on Olivier Masset-Depasse’s 2018 film of the same name, which in turn is based on the 2012 novel Behind the Hatred (Derrière la haine) by Barbara Abel, Mothers’ Instinct stars Hathaway and Chastain as Céline and Alice, two neighbors living in 1960s America who are best friends, and whose sons share a hearty bond of their own. But when one of their children succumbs to a tragic accident, the resulting psychological domino effect begins to unravel both of their lives.

Mothers’ Instinct is a case where its players give far more to the movie than the movie could ever give back to them. Ironically, it’s as though Hathaway and Chastain are mothering the film, guiding it along with their subtle intensity and anxiety-inducing body language, single-handedly breathing emotional life to these characters the film only seems half-interested in accommodating. It’s a parent-child relationship that was supposed to be a collaborative artist-art relationship, and one can only imagine how restless that dynamic would be for the actresses.

And really, that might be the most effective lens to view this movie through. Céline and Alice are facing psychologically torturous turmoil from their predicament, and that turmoil is inseparable from their identities as mothers — mothers, of course, oft being burdened with many a thankless responsibilities and expectations. Simultaneously, the effectiveness of Mothers’ Instinct as a film hinges squarely on Hathaway and Chastain’s performances; a thankless responsibility all its own that could easily reflect in the dwindling mental states of their characters.

This, however, is mostly undercut by the overwhelming likelihood that the film’s failures outside of these performances were not intentional, and even if they were, it’s not exactly the easiest filmmaking strategy to get behind. Sincerity has always and will forever be the cornerstone of great cinema, and while an intentional version of the aforementioned failures would hold quite a bit of cheeky weight that we’d be wise to dissect, movies are at their best when they move you emotionally and challenge you to reconsider things about your life.

And yet, Mothers’ Instinct remains an example of the latter; presumably, it will challenge you to reconsider diving into a movie just because it has Anne Hathaway and Jessica Chastain in it.

The regular truth of the matter is that box office success determines how the media cookie crumbles. Indeed, you can tap into profound emotional truths, land yourself a lead who puts on the performance of a lifetime, and make it through your runtime with minimal plot holes, but first priority will always go to the filmmakers who get more butts in seats, even if they only make loud slop.

This is precisely why Den of Thieves 2: Pantera — due in theaters on Jan. 10 — exists; because 2018’s Den of Thieves managed to snag $80.5 million at the box office on a $30 million budget in spite of its artistic dearth. The worst part? Viewers at home still haven’t wised up to its stench all these years later.

Per FlixPatrol, Den of Thieves has cemented itself as the third most watched film on the United States’ Max charts at the time of writing, falling short of a first-place Juror #2, the latest and perhaps last film from Hollywood legend Clint Eastwood, which was hardly given any chance in theaters despite being one of the best films of 2024.

Den of Thieves stars dad-movie superstar Gerard Butler as Nick O’Brien, an alcoholic officer with the Los Angeles Sheriff’s Department who’s dead set on taking down a gang of thieves led by Ray Merrimen (Pablo Schreiber), an ex-Marine whose crew is planning a heist on the Federal Reserve Bank in downtown Los Angeles. Bouncing between them is Donnie (O’Shea Jackson Jr.), a member of Merrimen’s crew that Nick has the drop on.

The two biggest faults of Den of Thieves is how it doubles down on toxic impulses that shouldn’t be affirmed, and doesn’t seem understand what it’s doing half the time. The film wastes a fair chunk of its frankly unacceptable length (two hours and 20 minutes) exploring the lives of characters that have little to no weight in the film’s story, while the story itself is nothing more than complex info drops about the incoming heist’s logistics.

In others words, Den of Thieves exists to show off how well director-writer Christian Gudegast can intellectualize the ins and outs of the Federal Reserve Bank, all while the characters crack tasteless jokes and abuse each other, only for the film to try and win back our sympathies by showing us Nick’s daughters, who also have nothing to do with the story.

It’s shockingly inept filmmaking, but for some reason, audiences love a bunch of men who appeal to some perverted power fantasy that always stems from a place of hurt rather than a place of healing. And really, pandering to that crowd might be the film’s worst sin. In a world where art has always been one of our greatest tools in fostering empathic literacy, is it not a sickening tragedy when a film insists upon these maladaptive, mean-spirited vices as facts of life to be proudly owned?

If you want to see a truly beautiful example of markedly masculine filmmaking, queue up The Iron Claw, also on Max, and let Sean Durkin paint you a portrait of brotherly love that will leave you sobbing.

Products: the lifeblood of this corporatized hellscape and the manufactured poison to our honest humanity. Whether it’s your Tinder bio, one of the seven or more brands of mayonnaise, or a theatrical film, not a single clump of particles or pixels is safe from the specter of marketing.

And let’s not kid ourselves, this product-obsessed society is almost entirely the reason that the Sonic the Hedgehog films exist. That doesn’t mean, however, that they’re not capable of setting good storytelling examples. The second film, in fact, had quite a bit going for it, even if the meme dumpster that is Sonic the Hedgehog 3 tarnished that momentum almost entirely. Nevertheless, Paramount Plus viewers haven’t forgotten about the franchise’s high point.

Per FlixPatrol, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 has broken the sound barrier and entered the Paramount Plus film charts in the United States at the time of writing, hot on the heels of Gladiator (ninth place), Transformers One (eighth place), and Jack Reacher (seventh place).

Sonic the Hedgehog 2 stars Ben Schwartz as the voice of the blue blur, who’s settled fully into his new life on Earth with his human friends, Tom and Maddie Wachowski (James Marsden and Tika Sumpter). Sonic’s nemesis, Dr. Robotnik (Jim Carrey), returns with dastardly intentions, and has brought the ultra-powerful Knuckles (Idris Elba) to assist him in his plans. But with the help of his new friend Tails (Colleen O’Shaughnessey), Sonic might just stand a chance.

Of the three Sonic the Hedgehog films, the second one sticks the strongest landing. It makes the mistake of involving Tom and Maddie too much, but it also understands that the human characters are necessary for Sonic’s pop culture references to make sense. It further understands that pop culture references are effective for characterizing teenagers, and it has Sonic employ them in a way that adds to his personality, rather than winking at the audience.

Moreover, it understands why Jim Carrey was cast in the role of Dr. Robotnik in the first place. His eccentric dialogue works on a mass-appeal level, but it also allows the actor to work in genuinely intelligent gags and subject matter (Dr. Robotnik namedrops the law of attraction in this movie, just to give an example).

Sonic the Hedgehog 3 does none of this, and plays almost exclusively to the TikTok-Fortnite programming that most everyone assumes is the default for kids and teenagers these days. Jim Carrey looks at the camera while saying he’s an actor playing a character in a movie, Sonic makes a joke about hate-watching “Green Lantern from 2011,” and the film tries to push the exact same emotional arc that we got in Sonic the Hedgehog 2 despite the fact that Sonic clearly doesn’t need one anymore.

The worst part? Everyone seems to be convinced that Sonic the Hedgehog 3 is the best movie in the franchise so far, which paints a profoundly dark picture for the trajectory of film criticism and discourse going forward. Indeed, the fight against influencer culture is a fight for intellectual survival.