Tag: Sundance

Review: ‘Predators’ (2025), starring Chris Hansen, Mark de Rond, Dani Jayden, Casey Mauro, Dan Schrack, John Roach and David Osit

October 30, 2025

by Carla Hay

Archival footage of “To Catch a Predator” in “Predators” (Photo courtesy of MTV Documentary Films)

“Predators” (2025)

Directed by David Osit

Culture Representation: The documentary film “Predators” features a predominantly white group of people (with one multi-racial person and one African American) who discuss their connections to filming police sting operations that arrest suspected sexual predators who are accused of targeting underage victims.

Culture Clash: Critics of these sting operations say that these operations are a form of entrapment and should not be filmed for profit, while supporters say that these filmed sting operations are a valuable public service.

Culture Audience: “Predators” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in behind-the-scenes information on the people and the consequences involved in these filmed predator stings, but the movie doesn’t interview a wide-enough variety of people to give a comprehensive report.

A re-enactment scene in “Predators” (Photo courtesy of MTV Documentary Films)

The documentary “Predators” can be commended for taking a critical look at questionable tactics used in filming sex predator arrests, but the movie’s investigations are flawed. The film’s tone is a little too sympathetic to the suspects caught in the act. Although “Predators” has interviews with law enforcement agents, decoys and TV/Internet personalities who are involved in these filmed sting operations, the movie doesn’t have enough perspectives to give a well-rounded report of this complex issue. For example, there are no interviews with real victims/survivors of any convicted sex offenders who were arrested in these stings.

David Osit is the director, cinematographer, editor and one of the producers of “Predators,” which had its world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival. The movie (which has some re-enactment scenes with actors) looks like it started as a documentary about the rise and fall of the “To Catch a Predator” segment series that was part of NBC’s “Dateline” from 2004 to 2007. But it seems like as time went on, the “Predators” filmmakers decided to make the documentary a wider investigation on how these filmed sting operations have thrived in other ways since the demise of “To Catch a Predator.”

Osit can be heard interviewing people during the documentary, but he doesn’t show his face on camera until the very end, when he does a face-to-face interview with Chris Hansen, the former host of “To Catch a Predator.” This interview is almost presented as a showdown, because Osit says in the documentary’s narration that he used to enjoy watching “To Catch a Predator” when he was a child, but now he thinks “To Catch a Predator” (and copycat shows) are very problematic. Osit says in the documentary’s narration that he is a survivor of childhood sexual abuse, and he believes shows like “To Catch a Predator” don’t properly address the issue of why the suspects (almost all are men) who are arrested for these crimes find themselves in these situations.

“To Catch a Predator” and similar shows use “decoys” (adults posing as underage children who are usually between the ages of 12 to 15) to go online and see which adults will approach them to engage in sexual activity with the adults. The decoys don’t initiate sexual conversations. They wait for the adults to start making the sexual comments. The decoys are often asked to send photos of themselves to the adults who sexually proposition them.

Therefore, the decoys almost always look young enough to pass for an underage child. The decoys also use disguises (such as wigs) to hide some of their real identifying physical features. Most decoys alter their voices to sound younger if they talk to suspects on the phone or in a live video chat.

Where these decoys come from can vary. Some decoys work with non-profit groups that are aimed at fighting sexual predators who target children online. (“To Catch a Predator” worked with a now-defunct non-profit group called Perverted Justice, which provided the show with decoys.) Other decoys are semi-professional actors, while other decoys are not actors but are people who work in law enforcement or who consider themselves to be concerned citizens. Many decoys are also survivors of sexual abuse.

At some point in the predator sting operation, after there is evidence (usually online messages or recorded calls) that the adult is pressuring the decoy to engage in sexual activity with the adult, the decoy will then agree to meet the alleged predator somewhere that the adult wants to meet for the sexual activity. What happens when the adult shows up is then filmed and shown to the public. “To Catch a Predator” and similar shows have usually worked with local law enforcement to coordinate the arrests that take place. The show’s host usually confronts the suspects before suspects are arrested and taken away by police.

“To Catch a Predator” not only showed what these suspects looked like (their faces and voices were never disguised), but the show also revealed the first and last names, occupations of the arrested people, as well as the names of cities where the suspects lived at the time of the arrest, and the charges against the suspects—always with a disclaimer saying that all arrested suspects are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. (Arrest records for adults are legally public information, so there was no privacy violated when “To Catch a Predator” put this information on TV.) “To Catch a Predator” also showed some of the suspects being questioned by police at the police stations where the suspects were booked.

The documentary “Predators” rightfully points out that a big failing of “To Catch a Predator” was that it never gave updates on the outcomes of the arrested people’s court cases. There was also never any follow-up with the arrested people to see how their lives were impacted by their arrests for sex crimes. “To Catch a Predator” had a stated intent to apprehend suspected predators, with the show implying that something worse could’ve happened if the decoy had been a real child.

The people who were arrested on “To Catch a Predator” came from various walks of life, with some in job positions that children are taught to trust, such as schoolteachers or medical professionals. One arrested person was a rabbi. Another was a police officer. Some of the arrested were married fathers who had stable and respectable jobs. The message of “To Catch a Predator” was clear: If these are the types of people who are being arrested for sex crimes against children, then these predators are everywhere, and are often people whom you might least suspect.

“To Catch a Predator,” as controversial and disturbing as it was to some people, was very popular when it was on the air. Fans of the show felt that these arrested suspects needed to be publicly exposed for their alleged perversions. Supporters of “To Catch a Predator” and similar shows often compare the shows to being like public service announcements about the dangers that underage kids can experience from sexual predators who look for victims online.

Osit and other critics of “To Catch a Predator” and similar shows say that the problem with this public shaming is that it doesn’t really address the root cause of why these suspected predators allegedly target underage children. Osit says that when he used to watch Hansen ask the suspects why they went out of their way to meet what the suspects thought would be an underage child, it would always frustrate Osit that Hansen would never be able to find out why the alleged predator became this way

When the suspects on “To Catch a Predator” were asked why they were there to meet up with what they think is an underage child, the suspects usually made the meeting sound like it was going to wholesome, with no sexual contact. Even when confronted with their sexually explicit email or text messages, the suspects either denied how damning these messages were or insisted that it was the first time they had ever done something like that. Hansen would then lecture them like a disgusted parent, identify himself as “Chris Hansen from ‘Dateline,’ and then reveal to the suspects that they are being filmed, before the suspect would be arrested.

Unfortunately, Osit seems to have unrealistic expectations of what Hansen was supposed to be in these situations. Hansen had the role of being a journalist, not a psychiatrist or other type of therapist—albeit a journalist involved in a very sensationalistic, controversial exposé TV program. It’s also very unlikely that people in these “caught in the act” circumstances will confess their deepest and darkest sex perversions to a total stranger (in this case, Hansen), who’s angrily confronting them about being a possible perpetrator of child sex abuse.

The beginning of the downfall of “To Catch a Predator” (which is brought up fairly early in the “Predators” documentary) happened in 2006, when a botched sting operation resulted in the suicide of Bill Conradt, who was assistant district attorney of Rockwall County, Texas. On November 6, 2006, “To Catch a Predator” camera crews accompanied police to Conradt’s home in Murphy, Texas, when the police were attempting to serve search warrant because Conradt had reportedly been sending sexually explicit messages involving child porn solicitation to a Perverted Justice decoy posing as a 13-year-old boy. Conradt committed suicide by shooting himself after finding out that there were “To Catch a Predator” cameras in his house.

Investigators believe that Conradt had been tipped off in advance that this police raid would be filmed for “To Catch a Predator.” After Conradt died, “To Catch a Predator” did an episode on the case, even though Conradt wasn’t arrested or charged with what police suspected him of doing. John Roach, who was the criminal district attorney for Texas’s Collin County from 2003 to 2010, says in the documentary that he advise “Dateline” not to film this raid, but the producers obviously didn’t take that advice.

The documentary “Predators” includes raw footage of police outside of Conradt’s house during this fateful raid. Hansen can be seen talking to some unidentified law enforcement officials. The footage also shows that Conradt was nowhere to be seen when the officers surrounded the house and announced that they were there.

Hansen admits later in the documentary that he and the other producers of “To Catch a Predator” made the mistake of not sticking to the format that had worked for the show: filming people being arrested at a decoy house, not the suspects’ real homes. Byron Harris, a retired reporter who used to work WFAA-TV in Dallas, is interviewed in “Predators” about the Conradt case and doesn’t add any new information.

Bill Conradt’s estate, managed by his sister Patricia Conradt, later sued NBC and “Dateline” for $105 million. In June 2008, the case was settled out of court with undisclosed terms. The last episode of “To Catch a Predator” aired on “Dateline” on December 28, 2007. Around the same time that the lawsuit was settled, NBC confirmed that “To Catch a Predator” had ended, although the network did not use the word “canceled” to describe the end of the show. Hansen told the media that “To Catch a Predator” had just run its course.

Hansen hosted a spinoff show called “Predator Raw: The Unseen Tapes,” which had a compilation of repeats of “To Catch a Predator” cases, with some previously unreleased footage. “Predator Raw: The Unseen Tapes” lasted for three seasons (from 2007 to 2010) and was televised on MSNBC, which at the time was owned by NBCUniversal, the parent company of NBC. Hansen left NBC in 2013, when his contract wasn’t renewed.

Hansen has since gone on to do variations of the “To Catch a Predator” concept (under different titles) on other TV shows or online series. He hosted “Hansen vs. Predator” on the syndicated TV series “Crime Watch Daily” from 2017 to 2018, the year that “Crime Watch Daily” was canceled. Since 2022, Hansen has been hosting “Takedown With Chris Hansen” on TruBlu, a streaming service that he co-founded in 2022 with Shawn Rech, who is seen briefly in the “Predators” documentary. Working with law enforcement in “Takedown With Chris Hansen,” Hansen does the same type of “To Catch a Predator” confrontations with suspected sex predators who are accused of targeting children.

The documentary “Predators” begins with a recorded phone conversation from a “To Catch a Predator” sting, where an unidentified man, who ended up being arrested on the show, talks in a sleazy manner to a decoy, whom he thinks is a girl who’s between the ages of 12 and 14. “Predators” interviews three former decoys who worked on “To Catch a Predator”: Dani Jayden, Casey Mauro and Dan Schrack.

Jayden, who says she worked for the show to get some acting experience, comments on how she sometimes still gets recognized in public for being a “To Catch a Predator” decoy: “Little did I know, it [the “To Catch a Predator” notoriety] was going to live on, probably my whole entire life, until I die.” Jayden adds, “I will probably always, in some universe, be known as ‘the decoy.'”

Jayden says that she took a practical approach to her decoy job, which required her to get involved in a lot of sexually explicit communication with strangers: “I had to look at it as an acting job, but one that really heavily relies on me doing my job correctly. My goal always was ‘Get them to expose themselves. Get Chris Hansen his best interview.'”

When asked why she thinks “To Catch a Predator” was so popular, Jayden replies: “I think it brought awareness to parents. You get sucked in. You’re, like, ‘This [online sexual predators targeting children] is a problem.”

Mauro says she became a decoy on “To Catch a Predator” by chance. Her uncle (whom she does not name) was a realtor helping NBC’s “Dateline” producers with a house (owned by Mauro’s grandmother) that would be used as a place where the suspects would meet the decoy. Mauro’s uncle recommended Mauro for the decoy job because he knew she was an aspiring actress who looked a lot younger than her real age. (Mauro started being a decoy when she was 18.)

Mauro comments on this uncle who recommended her for the decoy job: “He had no idea what he was getting into.” She also said that the disturbing sexual aspects of the show bothered her uncle more than it bothered her. Mauro doesn’t say what her other family members thought about the show, but considering that her family allowed one of their houses to be used as a decoy house in “To Catch a Predator,” this family obviously had some level of acceptance for the show.

By contrast, former decoy Schrack admits he has mixed feelings about his time with “To Catch a Predator” and doesn’t like to think about his time on the show. He says it’s probably because he was the decoy who was communicating with Bill Conradt in the case that led to the fateful search warrant raid. Schrack gets choked up and emotional when he says he still struggles with feelings of guilt that he could have been partially responsible for how Bill Conradt died.

Schrack comments, “You could offer me $10 million to film that episode in Texas again, and I wouldn’t take it. I wouldn’t be happy about that decision.” In the documentary, Osit can be heard assuring Schrack that what happened to Bill Conradt was not Schrack’s fault.

Schrack says he worked as decoy because he wanted to be an actor and “I wanted a paycheck … I don’t think they expected much of me as an actor, but it was nerve-wracking. A lot of it too was ‘Don’t blow your cover. You’ve got a ton of people here who’ve been working hard, for X amount of days.'” Schrack says he was also motivated to do the decoy work because it felt like he was doing good things for society. “It was kind of a cool gang that you were in, making sure that these bad guys don’t hurt any kids.”

Jayden, Mauro and Schrack (who are each interviewed separately) are also seen reacting to watching old footage of themselves on “To Catch a Predator” that they hadn’t watched in several years. Mauro comments on looking back on her decoy work: “I didn’t realize at the time how taxing it was mentally and emotionally.”

Mark de Rond is an ethnographer who gets quite a bit of screen time in “Predators,” even though he’s never been directly involved in shows like “To Catch a Predator.” He explains the appeal of these types of shows: “What first interested me about ‘To Catch a Predator’ was it shows that grown men can be so vile [with] what they assume are kids, and how it is we seem to enjoy watching the same men being humiliated on TV. The goal of the show was to educate people about the Internet, the ‘stranger danger’ folk, but it ended up shocking people.”

Osit is heard telling de Rond why Osit was interested in watching “To Catch a Predator” when he was a child who experienced sexual abuser from a predator: “I’ve been on a lifelong quest to understand how someone could do that. And partly, what drew me to the show when I was young was that first initial question that Chris [Hansen] would ask: ‘Help me understand.'”

Osit continues, “But the show never really answered that question for me. I don’t think it was ever really interested in the answer. So, the more I’ve learned, the more I’ve been disappointed.” Osit also comments on working on the “Predators” documentary: “It’s taught me a lot of empathy. And I’m sorry, the show [‘To Catch a Predator’] tries to crush that.” Meanwhile, de Rond says in agreement: “Understanding is not the goal of the show.”

This is where “Predators” might lose some good will with viewers. Osit talks about “empathy,” but empathy for whom? He puts a lot of emphasis about empathy for suspects being exploited on a TV show, but what about real victims of child sexual abuse? There’s not much empathy for real sexual abuse victims/survivors in this documentary, even though Osit says he’s experienced sexual abuse.

Greg Stumbo, a former Kentucky attorney general, was one of the prosecutors who handled cases of some the people who were arrested on “To Catch a Predator”—and he’s firmly in the camp that believes “To Catch a Predator” was a good public service. Stumbo says of people who were usually arrested on the show: “These people are out there, and they’re dangerous … My job is not to rehabilitate them. My job is to make them responsible for the act they committed … I have absolutely no compassion for them … They’re just dangerous for our children. You don’t understand the problem if you’re critical of [the show].”

A former law enforcement official with a different point of view is Walt Weiss, a former detective for the Murphy Police Department in Texas. Weiss was part of the team that was at Bill Conradt’s house during the search warrant raid that went horribly wrong. Weiss says one of the main problems that can happen with shows like “To Catch a Predator” is when the show’s producers want to control or influence how law enforcement officials do their jobs in these cases.

Weiss makes these scathing comments: “Chris Hansen is not a police officer. He’s not a prosecuting attorney. They’re running a TV show, and it looked more and more like someone was being given carte blanche to come in and direct operations at the police department. They [the “To Catch a Predator” production team] went over there to do something at that [Bill Conradt] house because it would do something for the show, not something for society, not something in the interest of law enforcement. And the role that I played in it, that’s a stain on my soul that I’m going to live with if I’m any kind of human being at all.”

“Predators” has a fairly long segment about online shows that are copycats of “To Catch a Predator.” The documentary does an interview profile on YouTube personality Skeet Hansen, who says Chris Hansen is his idol and the reason why Skeet Hansen started a YouTube channel (called Skeeter Jean) that is modeled after “To Catch a Predator.” Skeet Hansen works with a small crew of people, usually one or two camera operators and a decoy. In the documentary, Skeet Hansen insists his show is legitimate and professional because he and his team coordinate with law enforcement and give evidence to law enforcement about the suspects who are confronted on camera.

One of these confrontations is featured in the “Predators” documentary, which doesn’t show the suspect’s face. The suspect, who is only identified as Eric, is shocked and fearful that what’s being filmed will ruin his life. Skeet Hansen and his associates in the room become alarmed when Eric starts to express suicidal thoughts. Someone in the crew asks Eric to sign a release form to allow his face to be shown in the footage, but he says refuses to sign the form. Skeet Hansen calls 911 to report what’s going on, and the police arrive to take Eric away. The “Predators” documentary doesn’t include information on what happened to Eric.

Skeet Hansen says when comparing himself to Chris Hansen: “He’s a journalist. And, for the most part, I’ll be looked at as a YouTuber who does it for clicks and views and all that.” Skeet Hansen admits he’s used an illegal tactic of having people on his show pretend to be police officers when confronting the suspects.

Skeet Hansen defends his right to make money off of this type of show: “There’s never been a detective that solved a murder that didn’t get paid for it, so why shouldn’t I be able to monetize off of catching these guys, like the original show, and making this content for people’s entertainment?” It’s quite a stretch when a YouTuber with no law enforcement training compares himself to a professional detective.

A woman identified only as T Coy works with Skeet Hansen as a decoy for his YouTube channel. T Coy says she’s a survivor of sexual abuse, and openly admits she gets a certain amount of satisfaction in seeing suspected predators get arrested because of her work. T Coy comments, “It’s fucking funny when a bad guy gets what’s coming to him.”

As an example of how narrow and a bit hypocritical “Predators” can be when trying to prove a questionable agenda, the documentary repeatedly advocates for trying to understand these suspects better, and yet the documentary doesn’t interview anyone who’s been arrested for these crimes. The closest that the documentary comes is spotlighting a case that makes an arrestee look as sympathetic as possible: A man identified only as Hunter (an alias) was arrested on “Takedown With Chris Hansen” when Hunter was 18 and charged sending sexually explicit content to a girl who was about 15 or 16.

As a result of the arrest, Hunter dropped out of school, was harassed for being a “sex offender,” fell into a deep depression, and has had problems getting a job. “Predators” interviews Hunter’s mother, whose name is not mentioned in the documentary. She says that Hunter, who lives with her, still struggles with depression. As she’s doing the interview, Hunter can be heard sobbing in another room. Hunter’s mother bitterly says, “I wish Chris [Hansen] could feel 1% of our pain, even though it fixes nothing.”

This might be gut-wrenching to watch for some people, but some viewers might be wondering why the documentary didn’t go into more details about what exactly Hunter said in his communication that was so bad that it got him arrested. Many of the arrested suspects on these shows have sexual communication that is too disgusting and offensive to be repeated verbatim on certain media platforms. “Predators” also leaves out the fact that people arrested on shows like “To Catch a Predator” aren’t arrested because of a few vague messages. A lot of detailed evidence must be presented to law enforcement first before law enforcement will get involved and agree to arrest the suspects in such a public way.

By singling out Hunter as a example of an alleged unfair arrest, “Predators” glosses over the fact that there are many adults over the age of 18 or 19 who’ve been convicted of sex crimes as a result of “To Catch a Predator” and similar shows. Where are those interviews in the documentary? Why did the “Predators” documentary not include examples of arrests that were done right and resulted in convictions?

Osit has said in interviews for “Predators” that he had no interest in putting a spotlight on any of the suspects in this documentary. Fair enough. But many of these suspects became convicted criminals, who probably did the same things to real victims, not decoys. Why aren’t real victims of “To Catch a Predator” convicts interviewed in this documentary?

Those interviews are not in this documentary because “Predators” is more interested in pointing out what’s been obvious for years: Shows like “To Catch a Predator” don’t care if people arrested for these crimes will have their reputations ruined. These shows don’t care to understand why sexual predators exist. Unfortunately, Osit doesn’t seem to understand that it’s not the job of these shows to “fix” or have pity for people who have these deviant problems, especially when many of these predators cannot or will not be rehabilitated. These shows merely point out how suspected predators operate, so that people can be more aware of the problem and take as many safety precautions as possible.

By the time Osit sits down with Chris Hansen for an interview, it seems like Osit wants to get Hansen to make some sort of apology for causing Osit to feel disillusioned about “To Catch a Predator.” Chris Hansen doesn’t take the bait and makes no apologies for his involvement in these types of shows. Chris Hansen rightfully points out that for every person who might have a complaint about these shows, there are many more people who support these shows and want these shows to continue. He says he knows, based on the feedback he gets from the general public.

Chris Hansen gets a bit sanctimonious when he says about “To Catch a Predator” and similar shows that he’s done: “I truly believe that’s the kind of reporting I’m supposed to do … What I do is for a greater purpose.” And yes, it’s also a job for him. The documentary shows Hansen attending events like CrimeCon and a TruBlu launch presentation, as if to “expose” that people make money off of crime reporting. Is Chris Hansen supposed to give all his money to charity? Get real.

During his interview with Chris Hansen, Osit brings up Hunter’s case as an example of what Osit thinks was an unfair arrest. Osit doesn’t mention that the overwhelming majority of the cases on Chris Hansen’s shows were about non-teen adults who were arrested for being sexual predators to underage children. Hansen admits that Hunter is a rare case where Hunter being 18 years old (instead of being a much-older adult) at the time of his arrest should’ve been taken more into consideration before Hunter was featured on “Takedown With Chris Hansen.” The “Predators” documentary mentions that Hunter’s case was removed from “Takedown With Chris Hansen” after Hunter agreed to enter a rehabilitation program and agreed not to re-offend.

Chris Hansen also says that there are usually three types of adult predators who are caught in these sting investigations: The first type is someone who would be a sex predator, even if the Internet didn’t exist. These are usually predators who re-offend and are the hardest to rehabilitate. The second type is someone who probably wouldn’t be a sex predator if the Internet didn’t exist. The third type is a teenager who was legally an adult when caught being sexually involved with someone who was an underage teen. Hansen says this third type of suspect is the one most likely to get leniency in the legal system.

Chris Hansen is probably accustomed to getting certain critics blaming him for a problem that’s bigger than any media show. That’s why he gives this very well-thought-out, eloquent answer when Osit tries to make Chris Hansen look like a villain: “I understand your point. And it’s valid. But you don’t know how many times someone has come up to me at a store, at a restaurant, on the street, and said to me: ‘Thank you for what you do. I was victimized by an adult when I was a child, traumatized in a way that has forced me to be in therapy to this day. And every time you confront a predator, it makes me feel better.'”

Chris Hansen adds, “I understand people saying, ‘You push it too far. You take a man at his worst, and you put it on television. You shame him.’ I’m okay with that. And I’ll take that criticism. But for every human being who comes up to tell me their story about being a survivor, this particular investigative franchise is for them. And I’m okay with that. And if that’s my legacy, I’m very comfortable.”

In conclusion, Chris Hansen says about being an investigative journalist who is best known for getting suspected sexual abusers arrested: “I had no idea, getting into this, what it would become, the impact it would have. And it sends a message that we will stand up for the survivor. And that is a big part of what we do in this particular series of investigations.”

The flaws of shows like “To Catch a Predator” are thoroughly dissected and put on display in “Predators.” And the documentary has some very interesting comments from many of the people who are interviewed. But by putting too much emphasis on empathy for the suspects, “Predators” comes dangerously close to losing sight of who should be the most important people in a documentary like this one: the survivors of sexual predators.

MTV Documentary Films released “Predators” in select U.S. cinemas on September 19, 2025.

Review: ‘Peter Hujar’s Day,’ starring Ben Whishaw and Rebecca Hall

October 23, 2025

by Carla Hay

Ben Whishaw and Rebecca Hall in “Peter Hujar’s Day” (Photo courtesy of Janus Films and Sideshow)

“Peter Hujar’s Day”

Directed by Ira Sachs

Culture Representation: Taking place in New York City, on December 19, 1974, the dramatic film “Peter Hujar’s Day” (based on a real-life audio-recorded interview) features an all-white cast of characters representing the middle-class.

Culture Clash: In an interview recorded on reel-to-reel tape, photographer Peter Hujar tells writer Linda Rosencrantz what he did the day before.

Culture Audience: “Peter Hujar’s Day” will appeal primarily to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners, photographer Peter Hujar, and movies about people in New York City’s artistic scene in the 1970s.

Rebecca Hall and Ben Whishaw in “Peter Hujar’s Day” (Photo courtesy of Janus Films and Sideshow)

“Peter Hujar’s Day” has a compelling depiction of a real-life 1974 interview between photographer Peter Hujar and writer Linda Rosenkrantz. It’s a ‘slice of life’ film about a conversation that might not hold everyone’s interest, even with good acting. Viewers who are most likely to enjoy the movie are those who want to get a re-enacted peek into a day in the life of a New York City-based portrait photographer who blurred the lines between mainstream and underground. (Hujar died of AIDS in 1987. He was 53.)

Written and directed by Ira Sachs, “Peter Hujar’s Day” had its world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival and made the rounds at other film festivals in 2025, such as the Berlin International Film Festival, the New York Film Festival and the Rome Film Festival. The movie takes place in only one location (the apartment building where Hujar lived in Manhattan’s East Village) and has only two people who are shown speaking in the entire movie: Peter Hujar (played by Ben Whishaw) and Linda Rosenkrantz (played by Rebecca Hall). For the purposes of this review, the real people will be referred to by their last names, while the characters in the movie will be referred to by their first names.

“Peter Hujar’s Day” clocks in at 76 minutes, which is the right amount of time for the type of conversation portrayed in the movie. Anything longer than 90 minutes for this movie would test the patience of most viewers, because a great deal of “Peter Hujar’s Day” consists of stream-of-consciousness rambling. “Peter Hujar’s Day” writer/director Sachs originally conceived the movie as a short film. And at times, it’s easy to wonder if “Peter Hujar’s Day” would’ve been better as a short film, as Peter tends to drone on and on about things that are quite trivial and would interest only a very specific and niche audience.

An opening caption explains that the interview took place on December 19, 1974, for a book that Rosenkrantz was writing but which never got published. She recorded the interview on a reel-to-reel tape. The dialogue in the movie is based on this audio recording, which wasn’t discovered until 2019.

“Peter Hujar’s Day” is made to look like this interview was filmed in 1974. The footage has a grainy Super 8mm quality and aspect ratio that would’ve been used in the mid-1970s. Peter and Linda talk mostly inside his apartment unit, but some of their conversation takes place on the roof of the apartment building, located above the Eden Theater. Fun fact: In 1974, Hujar was living and working in a loft where actor/singer Jackie Curtis (an occasional drag queen) used to live.

The interview is more like a casual conversation. Linda doesn’t have a prepared list of questions for this interview. Her follow-up questions are based on whatever Peter says. Peter is asked to describe what he did the day before. His response is a steady flow of comments and descriptions—sometimes wryly observant, sometimes gossipy, sometimes vulnerable.

At this point in his career, Hujar (whose specialty was portrait photos using black-and-white film) is getting assignments from mainstream publications, such as The New York Times and Elle, but he was still doing his own edgy photos that are displayed in galleries. Openly gay Hujar often featured homoeroticism in his photographs. Hujar’s work inspired the work of photographers David Wojnarowicz and Robert Mapplethorpe. Wojnarowicz was an ex-over of Hujar’s who became Hujar’s protégé.

In “Peter Hujar’s Day,” Peter admits he has a habit of name-dropping, although he dislikes it when other people name drop. He name drops writer Susan Sontag when he talks about someone he knows who wanted Max Kozloff (who was an editor at Artforum at the time) to write a book introduction. Peter says he told the person seeking Kozloff’s contact information: “I don’t know Max Kozloff. Why don’t you ask Susan Sontag?”

Peter also dishes some details about how famed poet Allen Ginsberg acted when Peter went to Ginsberg’s apartment to photograph Ginsberg for a New York Times feature article. Peter tells Linda that he was shocked that Ginsberg lived a dumpy apartment that looked like it belonged in a “run-down tenement,” linoleum floors and all. According to Peter, he and Ginsberg did not get off to a great start because Ginsberg didn’t know and didn’t want the photos to be portrait-styled.

After some back-and-forth arguing, where Peter says he told Ginsberg that The New York Times gave a non-negotiable assignment to take portrait photos, Ginsberg eventually relented and agreed to pose for portrait photos. According to Peter, Ginsberg relaxed a little during the photo session. During his conversation with Ginbserg, Peter said Ginsberg advised Peter that if Peter ever got to photograph writer William Burroughs, then Peter should give Burroughs oral sex, even though Ginsberg supposedly said that Burroughs preferred “WASP-y prep school boys.”

Peter’s surprise about Ginsberg’s living conditions is an example of how many celebrated artists of that era were not doing well financially. Peter gives insight into why, when he admits to Linda that he—like many artists—cannot be business-savvy at all. Peter says he often doesn’t keep track of how much he’s supposed to paid for assignments, or even if he’s been paid at all.

Peter also says it’s not uncommon for him to give his photos and negatives to a stranger who shows up at his apartment and says they’re from the media outlet that gave him the assignment, but Peter doesn’t verify who that person is when he hands over these items. He mentions this after saying that a girl from Elle is supposed to come over to his place to pick up some photos, and he wonders out loud what it would be like if she seduced him.

Even though Linda does not approach the interview as an intense interrogator, she doesn’t let Peter’s inconsistencies and contradictions slide. Throughout this interview, Peter occasionally admits that he what he’s saying might not be entirely true. He’s a raconteur who’s an unreliable narrator.

He also makes catty remarks about colleagues, such as saying that artist Ed Baynard has a tendency to be long-winded and is “insane” for how long Baynard keeps people on the phone. In another comment, he remarks that model Lauren Hutton is “beautiful” but “looks like a man.” In other comments, he speculates about who might be sleeping with whom in his community of New York queer artists who are getting international recognition.

Whishaw gives an impressive performance as Peter, who is quite the motormouth and who doesn’t know the meaning of “less is more” when talking about himself. Hall’s performance as Linda is much more measured and calmer, since Linda’s role is mainly to listen to Peter talk about whatever he wants. Aside from a few artsy interlude shots that look like Peter and Linda are posing for dream-like portraits, “Peter Hujar’s Day” is really a filmed conversation. Whether not a viewer will feel curious or checked-out of this conversation will depend entirely on a viewer’s regard for New York artists in the 1970s.

Janus Films and Sideshow will release “Peter Hujar’s Day” in select U.S. cinemas on November 7, 2025.

Review: ‘The Perfect Neighbor’ (2025), a riveting documentary about the killing of Florida mother Ajike Owens

October 18, 2025

by Carla Hay

A scene from “The Perfect Neighbor” of kids holding up a photo of Ajike Owens. Her eldest child Isaac is pictured second from left. (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

“The Perfect Neighbor” (2025)

Directed by Geeta Gandbhir

Culture Representation: The documentary film “The Perfect Neighbor” features a group of white and African Americans in archival footage from 2022 to 2024, in the case of Ajike Owens, a 35-year-old mother of four, who was killed by a neighbor in Ocala, Florida, on June 2, 2023.

Culture Clash: Owens was shot to death by Susan Lorincz, who was 58 years old at the time, after several months of an escalating feud between Lorincz and her neighbors, who accused each other of harassment.

Culture Audience: “The Perfect Neighbor” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in documentaries about racist crimes and neighbor disputes that turn deadly.

Susan Lorincz (seated) in “The Perfect Neighbor” (Photo courtesy of Netflix)

The all-archival documentary “The Perfect Neighbor” uses mostly police camera footage to tell the harrowing story of how lies from a hateful bigot can escalate into the killing of a defenseless person. There are no follow-up interviews with anyone involved in the case. This well-edited documentary is presented as a series of incidents, police interviews and events that were recorded on video from 2022 to 2024.

Directed by Geeta Ganbhir, “The Perfect Neighbor” had its world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival, where it won the Directing Award: U.S. Documentary. “The Perfect Neighbor” had its New York premiere at the 2025 New York Film Festival. The movie’s footage (which is shown in chronological order) was primarily filmed in Ocala, Florida, where the killing of 35-year-old Ajike “A.J.” Owens took place on June 2, 2023. Owens, who was unarmed, was shot to death on the front doorstep of the rented house of her neighbor Susan Lorincz, who was 58 years old at the time and living by herself. Owens was a single mother of four children.

Lorincz admitted to shooting Owens through Lorincz’s locked door. Lorincz claimed she was acting in self-defense because Owens was pounding on the front door and threatening Lorincz. About two minutes before Lorincz shot Owens, Lorincz called 911 to report this alleged threat. Florida’s “stand your ground” laws say that a person can claim self-defense in a killing if the killer reasonably felt that their life was threatened by the person or persons who were killed, in the moments before the killing.

Almost everyone in the documentary’s footage is not identified by their names, except for Lorincz, Owens, Owens’ mother Pamela Dias, and Owens’ two eldest children: sons Isaac and Israel, who were both interviewed by police immediately after the shooting. Isaac says that he saw his mother getting shot. The most heartbreaking part of the documentary is the footage showing Ajike Owens’ loved ones, especially her children, being told that she died.

“The Perfect Neighbor” director Ganbhir has said in interviews that Ajike Owens’ family gave permission to include all of the footage that is in this documentary. Ganbhir says she got involved in making this documentary because Ajike Owens was the best friend of Ganbhir’s sister-in-law. A portion of the documentary’s revenue is reportedly going to financially help Ajike Owens’ children.

The documentary shows that Lorincz was in a police interrogation room (but not yet under arrest) when she found out that Ajike Owens died. Lorincz’s reaction shows signs of her being a malignant narcissist because she’s more concerned about herself rather than feeling remorse that she killed another human being. Lorincz’s attitude throughout the questioning is saying versions of this “blame the victim” excuse: “I no choice but to shoot her because she was pounding on the door, and I was scared.”

Police body cam footage in the documentary shows that for more than a year leading up to this shooting, Lorincz called police several times to complain about neighborhood kids and their parents, whom she claimed were harassing her by making too much noise or leaving garbage near her house. In February 2022, she claimed that Ajike Owens threw Lorincz’s small “No Trespassing” sign at Lorincz. In a interview with police who were called to the scene, Ajike admitted that she tossed the sign behind her, but she said she wasn’t specifically aiming at Lorincz.

In April 2023, Lorincz called police for a complaint saying one of the neighborhood boys tried to put a dog in the back for her truck. By May 2023, police received the first report that Lorincz was showing people she had a gun, and she told people she wouldn’t hesitate to use the gun. She often demanded that police arrest certain kids or their parents whom she accused of harassing her. However, no arrests were ever made from her complaints because Lorincz could never provide any proof, and witnesses interviewed said that Lorincz was lying.

The people she accused told a very different story from what Lorincz was claiming in her accusations. They said Lorincz was the harasser, who would curse and yell at kids for playing in nearby streets or in a grassy vacant lot that she didn’t own. By her own admission, Lorincz (who is white) would also hurl hate speech slurs meant to insult black people and mentally disabled people when she would have disputes with her neighbors. Most of the people she complained about are African American.

On the night that Ajike Owens was killed, Owens had gone over to Lorincz’s house to retrieve a computer tablet that her second-eldest son Israel had accidentally left outside near Lorincz’s house. Ajike Owens believed that Lorincz had taken the tablet out of spite. According to Israel, Lorincz threw the tablet and rollerskates at him but the objects did not hit him.

When Israel’s older brother Isaac went to confront Lorincz about her violent act of throwing items that could cause injuries, Lorincz angrily told Isaac to get his mother to come over to talk to Lorincz. Witnesses said that when Ajike Owens went over to Lorincz’s house, Ajike Owens was shouting at Lorincz through the Lorincz’s closed front door, but Ajike Owens wasn’t shouting any threats to harm Lorincz. Ajike Owens did not have any weapons when she went over to Lorincz’s house.

The documentary also includes police body cam footage of Lorincz being arrested—in an unrelated incident in March 2023—for ramming her truck against a wire fence and damaging the fence because the fence was locked, instead of contacting the owner to unlock the fence. An eyewitness had come forward and had identified Lorincz as the person who damaged the fence. In the police body cam footage of cops interviewing Lorincz about the incident, Lorincz initially lies about being outside during the time of the property damage.

But when she’s told that a witness identified her as the person causing the fence damage with her truck, Lorincz admits she caused the damage. When Lorincz starts to understand that she might be under arrest, she tries to make the excuse that she had a panic attack when she damaged the fence because she had been beaten and raped in the past. When a cop reads her Miranda rights (including the right to remain silent), Lorincz says she doesn’t want to talk to the arresting cops anymore, but then she contradicts that statement by continuing to talk.

When one of the cops mentions to Lorincz that the owner of the fence wants someone to pay for the damage, Lorincz tries to talk her way out of getting arrested by saying she’d like to resolve the situation privately with the owner. Unfortunately, “The Perfect Neighbor” does not mention what was the result of this arrest. The only reason to put this footage in the documentary was to show that Lorincz had been arrested before for committing violence, as well to show how she acts when she’s about to be arrested for a crime that she admitted doing.

There is no other background information on the victims or the killer in the documentary. What is clear from the footage of this escalating feud, Lorincz’s arrest for the killing, and her subsequent trial: She often tried to look like a helpless victim, but her actions show that she is someone who committed a cold-blooded crime and didn’t have much remorse about it.

The footage shows that as she was about to be arrested for manslaughter in a police interrogation room, Lorincz refused to stand up from the chair where she was sitting when the three cops in the room asked her to stand up so she could be arrested. The cops also didn’t touch her during her refusals, and they gave her plenty of time to decide when she wanted to stand up and be taken to the arrest booking area. Lorincz also tried to talk her way out of the arrest by saying that she didn’t feel well. In other words, the documentary shows that, unlike many other crime suspects, Lorincz was always treated politely by the police.

Lorincz was arrested four days after killing Ajike Owens. The movie also shows some of the controversy about why it took this long for Lorincz to be arrested. Family members, friends and other supporters of Ajike Owens were very open in declaring that there was a racial disparity in how cordially Lorincz was treated during the investigation, compared to people of color who are suspected of manslaughter. After Lorincz killed Ajike Owens and before Lorincz was arrested for manslaughter, Lorincz was given police escorts to and from where she wanted to go because she claimed she needed safety protection.

Because this is a high-profile crime case, the outcome of Lorincz’s trial is well-known: She was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to 25 years in prison. This impactful documentary serves as an example of how people should not take false accusations lightly from anyone who has a toxic and dangerous agenda. It also shows how important it is to seek justice when a perpetrator pretends to be a victim.

Netflix released “The Perfect Neighbor” in select U.S. cinemas on October 10, 2025. The movie premiered on Netflix on October 17, 2025.

Review: ‘Kiss of the Spider Woman’ (2025), starring Diego Luna, Tonatiuh and Jennifer Lopez

October 14, 2025

by Carla Hay

Jennifer Lopez and Tonatiuh in “Kiss of the Spider Woman” (Photo courtesy of Roadside Attractions and Lionsgate)

“Kiss of the Spider Woman” (2025)

Directed by Bill Condon

Culture Representation: Taking place in Argentina, in 1983, the musical film “Kiss of the Spider Woman” (based on the novel of the same name) features a predominantly Latin cast of characters (with a few white people) representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.

Culture Clash: A flamboyantly gay prisoner, who is obsessed with the glamour of old Hollywood movies, tells stories to his left-wing activist cell mate about a lovelorn fashion editor, an actress and a femme fatale named the Spider Woman, as the two men grow closer during their imprisonment. 

Culture Audience: “Kiss of the Spider Woman” will appeal primarily to fans of movie’s headliners, the various incarnations of “Kiss of the Spider Woman,” and musicals that have stories within stories.

Tonatiuh and Diego Luna in “Kiss of the Spider Woman” (Photo courtesy of Roadside Attractions and Lionsgate)

“Kiss of the Spider Woman” is a re-imagining that bites off more than it can chew. The ambitious “movie within a movie” concept can be messy at times and magical at other times. The 2025 movie music “Kiss of the Spider Woman” aims to bring the best elements of the Oscar-winning 1985 drama film and the Tony-winning 1992 Broadway musical, but there “Kiss of the Spider Woman” won’t be winning a slew of awards, although this film can be entertaining.

Written and directed by Bill Condon, “Kiss of the Spider Woman” is originally based on Manuel Puig’s 1976 novel of the same name. The 1985 movie was set in Brazil during political turmoil under a totalitarian government. The 2025 movie takes place under similar political turmoil in 1983 in Argentina, the country that is the setting of the novel. “Kiss of the Spider Woman” had its world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival. The movie was filmed in Uruguay.

In the 2025 version of “Kiss of the Spider Woman,” openly gay prisoner Luis Molina (played by Tonatiuh), who is serving an eight-year prison sentence for public indecency (he was caught in sexual activity with another man in a public bathroom), is transferred to the section of the prison where the political prisoners are held. Luis (who worked as a clothing store window dresser before he was arrested) becomes the prison cell mate of left-wing political activist Valentín Arregui (played by Diego Luna), who is part of the resistance movement against the current Argentinian government. Unbeknownst to Valentín, Luis has been planted in the cell by prison warden Oscar Ledesma (played by Bruno Bichir) as a spy who’s under orders to get confidential information from Valentín, so that Valentín’s cohorts and loved ones can be punished.

As a reward for getting the type of information that Oscar is seeking, Luis has been promised an early parole. Luis desperately wants this parole because he’s worried about his ailing widowed mother (played by Lucila Gandolfo), who dotes on Luis and sends him care packages while he’s incarcerated. Luis’ father died when Luis was 4 years old. When Luis was a child, his mother (who doesn’t have a first name in the movie) worked as an usher in a movie theater and brought Luis to her job, where Luis would spend hours watching movies.

Luis, who is a dedicated follower of fashion, is fixated on old-style Hollywood glamour in movies from the 1940s and 1950s. His favorite movie of all time is “Kiss of the Spider Woman,” starring Ingrid Luna, also known as La Luna (played by Jennifer Lopez), in the role of the Spider Woman. Luis tells Valentín the story of the Spider Woman, a mystical femme fatale, who is from a fictional South American country. Every 10 years, the Spider Woman goes to a village and demands that a villager sacrifice a loved one to her. The sacrificed person dies after the Spider Woman kisses that person.

Luis often says he wishes he could be like the actresses who are his idols. He also tells Valentín the story of a fictional 1950s fashion magazine editor named Aurora (also played by Lopez), a bachelorette who hasn’t had a great romance in her life because she mistrusts men. Aurora’s closeted gay best friend/executive assistant is Kendall Nesbitt (also played by Tonatiuh), who becomes jealous when Aurora begins dating a successful photographer named Armando (also played by Luna). The musical’s song-and-dance numbers are centered on this love triangle story, as well as the legend of the Spider Woman.

The 2025 version of “Kiss of the Spider Woman” has a brief and useless love triangle subplot in Luis’ story about Aurora. Armando’s ex-girlfriend Paulina Paz (played by Aline Mayagoitia) meets Aurora at a gala event on the same night that Aurora meets Armando. The two women exchange catty comments before Paulina catches the eye of Johnny Deisderio (played by Driton “Tony” Dovolani), a “two-bit gangster” who extorts people, according to Luis.

When Luis and Valentín first meet each other in their prison cell, Valentín is stand-offish and rude. Valentín tells talkative Luis that Valentín wants silence in their prison cell while Valentín is reading and studying. Valentín takes himself very seriously as a progressive activist and went on a hunger strike last year.

When Luis asks Valentín if he has a significant other, Valentín mentions that he has a special woman in his life named Marta (played by Josefina Scaglione), whom he says is patiently waiting for Valentín to be released from prison. Luis says that his most recent crush has been on a married father named Gabriel (played by Augusto Gordillo), who enjoys Luis flirting with Gabriel but who hasn’t reciprocated Luis’ affections. However, according to Luis, Gabriel has confided in Luis and shared some of Gabriel’s biggest secrets with Luis.

Early on in the movie, Valentín makes it clear to Luis that Valentín is not sexually attracted to men. “Don’t worry,” Luis sniffs. “You’re not my type.” During the course of the movie, Luis blurs the lines of his gender identity in ways that indicate that Luis is gender-fluid. Most of the time, Luis seems to identify as a gay man. At other times, Luis says he feels like a woman and hints that he could be a transgender woman. And in another scene, Luis says Luis doesn’t want to be identified by any gender at all, which suggests that Luis sometimes identifies as non-binary.

Although Luis’ gender fluidity is considered too radical for this conservative Argentinian society in 1983, Luis has some very old-fashioned ideas of gender roles when it comes to men and women. Luis tells Valentín his thoughts on feminism. “A real woman doesn’t want equality. There’s no kick to it.” In response, Valentín (who believes in gender equality) scoffs at Luis: “You’re full of crap.”

And speaking of being “full of crap,” a low point in the movie is an unnecessary scene where Valentín has been poisoned by the prison guards who gave him a recent meal, and Valentín defecates on himself. About 10 minutes of screen time is all about this defecation and Luis removing Valentín’s trousers and underwear so he can help Valentín clean up. It’s literally one of the messiest parts of the movie.

Although Luis tells Valentín when they first meet that Valentín isn’t his type, over time it becomes obvious that Luis is attracted to Valentín, who is the avatar for Armando in Luis’ fantasies where Luis openly admits that he wants to be like Aurora, Ingrid Luna, and all the other fabulous divas who preoccupy Luis’ thoughts. Luis tells Valentín that Luis isn’t impressed with actresses such as Meryl Streep, Glenn Close, Sissy Spacek and Glenda Jackson because he thinks that these talented actresses don’t know how to be glamorous. As time goes on, Valentín starts to enjoy hearing Luis’ stories, and the two men have a growing emotional attachment to each other.

“Kiss of the Spider Woman” is hit and miss when it comes to all aspects of the film. The costume design runs the gamut from top-notch cinematic quality to Vegas-impersonator tacky. The movie’s production design, which is at its best in the song-and-dance scenes, requires a lot of suspension of disbelief in the prison scenes. Luis and Valentín get a lot of decorative amenities that wouldn’t be allowed in most prisons. These decorations include lighted candles, which would actually be very dangerous inside a prison cell.

Luis also has a beaded curtain for his bed. Luis mentions that he got the beaded curtain because he lets the prison guards degrade him with homophobic insults. (“Kiss of the Spider Woman” shows this degradation, as well as physical abuse that Luis and Valentín experience in prison from the cruel prison employees.) More grittiness was needed for the prison cell’s set designs, to put an emphasis on how deprived these prisoners are, instead of making it look like the prisoners can decorate their cells to look like a fortune teller’s room.

This version of “Kiss of the Spider Woman” has impressive cinematography in contrasting the dark and grim setting of the prison and the vibrant Technicolor settings of Luis’ stories. However, the back-and-forth editing transitions between Luis’ stories and Luis’ reality are sometimes awkward. The movie also has a very superficial depiction of the political turmoil that is given much more importance in other versions of “Kiss of the Spider Woman.”

As a musical, “Kiss of the Spider Woman” has adequate but not spectacular singing performances of the songs, which were originally written by John Kander and Fred Ebb for the Broadway musical. The movie does not have most of the songs from the stage musical. Lopez sings the “Kiss of the Spider Woman” title song in what sounds like an over-produced dub created in a recording studio.

Lopez and Luna perform “An Everyday Man,” “Where You Are” and “A Visit” with acceptable range, but nothing they do in the song-and-dance numbers would be considered Oscar-worthy. Tonatiuh’s version of “She’s a Woman” is a highlight of the film, but there aren’t enough of these moments to make “Kiss of the Spider Woman” an outstanding movie musical. “Come Out,” an original bonus track written for the movie, is underwhelming and somewhat forgettable. The movie’s music score by Sam Davis is serviceable.

The performances in 2025’s “Kiss of the Spider Woman” are energetic, but most of the love scenes look very fake and forced. Lopez and Tonatiuh have memorable moments and show plenty of on-screen magnetism, but they look like they’re trying too hard to win awards by being in this movie. Luna fares the best with the movie’s most naturalistic performance, which sometimes gets overshadowed by his co-stars’ affected and show-boating mannerisms. “Kiss of the Spider Woman” is worth watching for anyone who is inclined to like musicals, but it’s far from a masterpiece and would’ve been better with a more streamlined story.

Roadside Attractions and Lionsgate released “Kiss of the Spider Woman” in U.S. cinemas on October 10, 2025.

Review: ‘If I Had Legs I’d Kick You,’ starring Rose Byrne, Conan O’Brien, Danielle Macdonald and A$AP Rocky

October 3, 2025

by Carla Hay

Rose Byrne in “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” (Photo by Logan White/A24)

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You”

Directed by Mary Bronstein

Culture Representation: Taking place on New York’s Long Island, the comedy/drama film “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with a few African Americans and Asians) representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: A therapist begins to mentally unravel while caring for her sick child, and several other stressful things happen to her.

Culture Audience: “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” will appeal mainly to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and dramas that take a surrealistic and dark comedy look at motherhood and caregiving.

A$AP Rocky and Rose Byrne in “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” (Photo by Logan White/A24)

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” delves deep into the unraveling psyche of a sick child’s caregiver mother, who cracks under the pressure of feeling overwhelmed and underappreciated. Rose Byrne’s performance is a master class in anxious empathy and tragicomedy. The movie has surrealistic and absurd elements but remains realistic when making viewers think about who’s looking after the well-being of caregivers.

Written and directed by Mary Bronstein, “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” had it world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival. It has since made the rounds at other film festivals in 2025, including Berlin International Film Festival (where Byrne won the prize for Best Lead Performance), the Telluride Film Festival and the New York Film Festival. “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” takes place on New York’s Long Island, where the movie was filmed on location.

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” begins by showing frazzled mother Linda (played by Byrne) in a doctor’s meeting with Linda’s only child: a daughter named Phoebe (played by Delaney Quinn), who’s about 7 or 8 years old. Phoebe’s face is not shown in the movie until a pivotal point in the story.

This meeting is to discuss any progress in Phoebe’s medical condition, but Phoebe has told the doctor that she’s worried about her mother being “stretchable” like “putty.” Phoebe also tells the doctor that her mother is “sad.” Linda tries to appear calm and tells the doctor that’s she’s not “stretchable” and is definitely not “sad.” Linda wants to give the impression that she’s got everything under control.

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” doesn’t reveal right away why Phoebe is under medical care. However, it’s shown through flashbacks, conversations and other snippets of information that Phoebe has a mental illness that has made her afraid to eat food. Therefore, Phoebe has to be fed through a feeding tube that is inserted into her stomach, with the feeding usually done at night when she’s asleep. Phoebe was hospitalized for an unnamed period of time, but she is now getting outpatient care. The family has a feeding tube machine in their rented apartment.

Phoebe also has other anxieties. She is terrified of dying and doesn’t like to stay away from Linda for too long. Phoebe goes to school during the day, but it’s hard for her to make friends. Linda’s husband Charles (played by Christian Slater) is away for eight weeks because of his job in the U.S. military. Linda, who works as a psychotherapist in the Long Island hamlet of Montauk, doesn’t have any help in taking care of Phoebe when Charles is away.

Linda thinks Phoebe is well enough to no longer need the feeding tube. However, Linda is told by the hospital’s medical professional that the feeding tube can’t be removed until Phoebe reaches a minimum weight that Phoebe has not yet reached. If Phoebe doesn’t reach this weight by a specific deadline, Linda could be considered an irresponsible caregiver, and the hospital could decline the health insurance coverage for Phoebe.

Within the first 10 minutes of the movie, something happens that sets off a chain of events leading to one stress after another for Linda. Water suddenly gushes out from a bedroom ceiling in the family’s apartment, leaving a large hole in the ceiling and significant water damage in the room and other rooms in the apartment. When Linda looks up at the hole, she sees what can only be described as firefly-type lighting in an abyss-like galaxy. It’s the first indication that Linda might be losing some grip on reality.

Linda’s inattentive landlord (played by Manu Narayan) is responsible for repairing the damage. In the meantime, Linda decides to temporarily live in a motel with Phoebe while still maintaining a full-time work schedule. Being in this new and uncomfortable environment is a catalyst for Linda taking a very difficult and emotionally painful look at the toll it takes on her to try to be a “supermom.”

During this nerve-racking time in Linda’s life, the medical professionals who are supposed to help Linda are cold and clinical in their interactions with Linda. Her unnamed therapist (played by Conan O’Brien), who works on the same building floor as Linda, barely tolerates her and doesn’t seem to like her at all. Phoebe’s physician Dr. Spring (played by Bronstein) only talks to Linda about Phoebe, in terms of the weight that Phoebe is supposed to have and trying to get Linda to set their next appointment.

Linda finds some emotional comfort with an unexpected person: James, nicknamed Jamie (played by A$AP Rocky), a stoner maintenance employee at the motel. James is kind to Linda, while his front-desk co-worker Melanie (played by Amy Judd Lieberman) is rude. The movie also shows Linda in therapy sessions with clients Stephen (played by Daniel Zolghadri), Kate (played by Ella Beatty), Eva (played by Helen Hong) and Caroline (played by Danielle Macdonald).

Caroline, who is the mother of a baby boy named Riley, is extremely paranoid about leaving Riley with anyone who isn’t Caroline. Caroline brings Riley to the therapy sessions, which make Linda feel guilty because while Caroline appears to be a doting and overprotective mother, Linda is becoming an increasingly impatient and irritable mother. When Phoebe is asleep, Linda often leaves the motel room so she can have time for herself.

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” shows how a mental breakdown can sneak up on someone if that person isn’t getting the proper mental health care. Stresses can accumulate like a dripping water faucet can cause water to accumulate until there’s an overflow that can cause damage. And sometimes, all it takes is one bad day for someone who go into a mental health freefall.

“If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” isn’t a completely depressing movie. The story shows some comedic moments (usually those involving Linda and James), especially in how Linda seeks to relieve some of her stress through alcohol, marijuana and other drugs. A scene in the movie reveals that even if Charles had been home during this time, he would still expect Linda to do the vast majority of the caregiving while she still works full-time.

Linda can be petulant, flaky, and self-absorbed, but she’s also well-intentioned and usually tries her best to be a good parent. In other words, she’s thoroughly human and realistically flawed. And considering the circumstances she’s under, no one should be expected to be perfect.

However, as much as society expects caregivers (especially female caregivers) to be expert multi-taskers, Linda puts a lot of this pressure on herself too. One of the best scenes in the movie is when Linda attends a caregiver support group led by Dr. Spring and gives an outspoken rant that goes against what Dr. Spring is saying to counsel the support group. It’s in this scene where Linda shows a lot of self-loathing for not meeting her own expectations of who she wants to be as a caregiver and as a mother.

Although all the cast members do well in their roles, Byrne gives the movie its emotionally authentic core and foundation—even when the story and direction tend to wander into episodic scenes that resemble a sitcom. A few of the subplots seem thrown into the story to stretch the movie’s runtime. And the movie’s forays into surrealism sometimes look “try hard” awkward and might alienate some viewers.

Some viewers might also have issues with how Linda (and the movie, by extension) can take for granted that Linda is privileged, compared to other people with the same problems. However, not every movie has to be about people experiencing poverty or oppression. “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” is an impactful look at how mental distress doesn’t discriminate, being a “supermom” is near-impossible standard, and caregivers need people looking after them too.

A24 will release “If I Had Legs I’d Kick You” in select U.S. cinemas on October 10, 2025, with an expansion to more U.S. cinemas on October 24, 2025.

Review: ‘Twinless,’ starring Dylan O’Brien and James Sweeney

September 22, 2025

by Carla Hay

Dylan O’Brien and James Sweeney in “Twinless” (Photo courtesy of Roadside Attractions and Lionsgate)

“Twinless”

Directed by James Sweeney

Culture Representation: Taking place in Portland, Oregon, and in Moscow, Idaho, the comedy/drama film “Twinless” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with a few Asians and African Americans) representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: Two men become close friends after meeting in a therapy group for people grieving over the deaths of their twins, and one of the men has very disturbing secrets.

Culture Audience: “Twinless” will appeal mainly to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and dark comedies that are quirky and artistically made.

Dylan O’Brien and James Sweeney in “Twinless” (Photo courtesy of Roadside Attractions and Lionsgate)

“Twinless” is a compelling mix of a twist-filled psychological thriller and a wickedly dark comedy. Dylan O’Brien and James Sweeney give knockout performances as two friends who have a co-dependent relationship after meeting in group therapy. Some of the plot reveals are more surprising than others, but “Twinless” will still make viewers think about how grief and low-self-esteem can cause people to do extreme things.

Written and directed by Sweeney, “Twinless” had its world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival and them screened at the 2025 Tribeca Film Festival. “Twinless” takes place mostly in Portland, Oregon (where the movie was filmed on location), and briefly in Moscow, Idaho. The story’s timeline is about one year and is told in non-chronological order.

In “Twinless,” Roman (played by O’Brien) and Dennis (played by Sweeney) meet in a Portland therapy group for people who are grieving the deaths of their respective twins. Roman has recently lost his identical twin Rocky (seen in flashbacks and also played by O’Brien), who died when Rocky was mowed down on the street by a hit-and-run driver. Roman’s permanent residence is his hometown of Moscow, Idaho, but he decided to stay a while in Portland (where Rocky lived) to settle some of the legal matters related to Rocky’s death.

Dennis says that he lost his identical twin Dean in a car accident. Dennis tells Roman that Dennis feels tremendous guilt about Dean’s death because Dean had been rushing in his car to pick up Dennis at an airport. Dennis feels that if he hadn’t scolded Dean over the phone for being late, then Dean might not have been speeding, and Dean might still be alive. Dennis says that he and Dean were so close, they were roommates in college.

Roman and Rocky were identical twins but had very different bachelor lifestyles, which led to Rocky and Roman being estranged at the time of Rocky’s death. Rocky was openly gay, had a comfortable job at a tech design firm, and was an intelligent college graduate who spent some time studying in Japan. By contrast, heterosexual Roman is a less-than-smart high school dropout, is frequently unemployed, and directionless in his life. Roman is the type of person who is unaware that his hometown of Moscow in Idaho isn’t the only city in the world with the name Moscow.

Before temporarily relocating to Portland, Roman lived with his prickly mother Lisa (played by Lauren Graham), who is in such deep grief over Rocky’s death, she’s in the type of depression where she finds it difficult to get out of bed. Roman, who always felt inferior to Rocky, perceives Lisa’s depression as an indication that she loved Rocky more than Roman. Other supporting cast members who have standout roles include Dennis’ perky and friendly co-worker Marcie (played by Aisling Franciosi), who works as a receptionist; a gay man named George (played by Chris Perfetti), who had been dating Rocky not long before Rocky died; and Charlotte (played by Tasha Smith), the wisecracking leader of the twin grief support group.

Dennis (who is openly gay and very sarcastic) and Roman (who is heterosexually macho and plain-speaking) quickly become close friends who bond over the losses of their respective twin brothers. About halfway through “Twinless,” it’s revealed that one of these pals has very dark and disturbing secrets that he wants to keep hidden by any means necessary. The well-paced and tension-filled “Twinless” (which has excellent cinematography from Greg Cotten, including artistic use of split-screen imagery) is a fascinating portrait of warped personal reinvention and how it can’t solve someone’s problems if that person still feels empty inside.

Roadside Attractions and Lionsgate released “Twinless” in U.S. cinemas on September 5, 2025. The movie will be released on digital and VOD on October 3, 2025.

Review: ‘Folktales,’ starring Hege Wik, Romain Le Biannic, Bjørn Tore Måseid, Ketil Foss, Iselin Breivold and Thor-Atle Svortevik

September 4, 2025

by Carla Hay

Hege Wik and Odin in “Folktales” (Photo by Lars Erlend Tubaas Øymo/Magnolia Pictures)

“Folktales”

Directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady

Some language in Norwegian and Spanish with subtitles

Culture Representation: Filmed from August 2023 to May 2024, the documentary film “Folktales” features a predomninantly white group of people (with one Latin person and one Asian person) who are connected in some way to Pasvik Folk High School in Norway.

Culture Clash: Students of Pasvik Folk High School spend time in the Arctic Circle in harsh weather conditions and learn survival skills and how to participate in dog sledding in a year-long program.

Culture Audience: “Folktales” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in watching a beautifully atomspheric “coming of age” documentary that is more contemplative than informative.

A scene from “Folktales” (Photo by Tori Edvin Eliassen/Magnolia Pictures)

“Folktales” is a documentary that is style over substance. However, there’s enough substance for people interested in seeing how a Norwegian folk high school builds character and confidence through dog sledding. Heartfelt moments balance out slow pacing.

Directed by Heidi Ewing and Rachel Grady, “Folktales” was filmed from August 2023 to May 2024. The movie had its world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival. The documentary’s title refers to how the modern-day events of the documentary are somehow relevant or linked to ancient Norwegian folktales of Norns: goddesses who weave people’s fates through yarn.

“Folktales” begins by showing foreboding scenes of a wintry Norwegian wooded area at night. A woman says in a voiceover in Norwegian: “Odin, the king of the gods, walked through an enchanted forest toward the Tree of Life. On the roots of the tree, he found the Norns, the three Fates who weave our destinies out of yarn.”

The narration continues: “‘Give me the gifts that ensure a happy life,’ said Odin. ‘No,’ said the Fates. ‘You cannot receive those gifts so easily … You must earn those gifts on your own.'” It’s somewhat of a pretentious way to begin the documentary, which doesn’t have any other reference to Norse mythology except scenes that show red yarn wrapped around forest trees, with the yarn obviously put there by the filmmakers.

Pasvik Folk High School is an “alternative” learning institution, which has a year-long program. The school is based in Finnmark, Norway, which is 200 miles above the Arctic and is near the border of Russia. The purpose of the school and other Norwegian folk schools is to “offer a way for teens to seek a year of independence before embarking on adulthood,” according to a caption in the documentary. “Folktales” focuses on three students of Pasvik Folk High School:

  • Hege Wik, who was 19 when this documentary was filmed, is from Sandnes, Norway. She says to be a young woman is “chaos.” She describes herself as someone who’s gotten tired about being overly concerned about what other people think about her. Wik also says her father was killed, but she doesn’t like to talk about it. And that’s when you that there will be a part of the documentary where she will talk about it.
  • Bjørn Tore Måseid, who was 19 when this documentary was filmed, is from Fauske, Norway. He describes himself this way: “I’m nice, but I’m kind of annoying.” He says it’s hard for him to find and keep friends because he can be socially awkward and often says things that make people feel uncomfortable.
  • Romain Le Biannic, who was 18 when this documentary was filmed, is from Groningen, Netherlands. He describes himself this way: “I’m not really a confident person … I hope to overcome social anxiety.” He mentions that he dropped out of high school because he wasn’t doing well in school, and he lost interest in school activities.

In addition to dog sledding, the school’s program involves “survival skills” camping in the woods for a period of time during the brutal winter weather. The documentary shows the students gathered for a welcoming orientation session led by Pasvik Folk High School principal Ketil Foss, who has a kind but firm way of communicating and treats students like a supportive father. Also featured prominently in the documentary are dog sledding teachers Iselin Breivold and Thor-Atle Svortevik.

Some other students are shown talking, but their personal stories are not told in the documentary. Although Pasvik Folk High School is open to students from all over the world, “Folktales” gives some acknowledgement that Pasvik Folk High School has very homogenous racial demographics, with white Western Europeans comprising the overwhelming majority. And even in those demographics, there are minorities: Le Biannic, who is white, says he feels like an outsider because he’s from the Netherlands, not Norway.

The movie shows one unidentified Spanish-speaking male student talking to his mother on the phone. The mother asks him if he’s found any ethnic food markets in Norway. The student somewhat laughs and says there are no ethnic food markets in Norway because there are hardly any ethnic people. Elsewhere, one unidentified Asian female student is seen briefly in the orientation sessions and is never really seen again.

For a documentary about teenagers learning dog sledding, there’s not a lot of footage of the nitty-gritty training instructions that take place on the sleds. And the actual dog sledding scenes are less than 15% of the movie’s screen time. Instead, there are scenes of the students getting to know the dogs (most of dogs are Siberian Huskies) and getting familiar with how to use leashes on the dogs when the dogs are not on the sleds.

There are also cute but somewhat superficial scenes of the students frolicking in the snow, such as overhead shots of them forming play circles, or making “snow angels” by lying on their backs and moving their arms and feet. There’s no question that “Folktales” has gorgeous cinematography (Lars Erlend Tubaas Øymo was the chief cinematographer) that showcases the natural beauty of the locations where the documentary was filmed. The documentary falls a bit short when it comes to telling the stories of the living beings who are involved in the dog sledding.

Wik, Måseid and Le Biannic are somewhat presented as narrating observers of their own stories, like reality show cast members, instead of just letting viewers see how these participants evolve, in pure cinéma vérité style. Their physical hardships in the program seem to be glossed over or sidelined. Anyone expecting more of an outdoor adventure-styled documentary will be disappointed because “Folktales” can get sluggish and repetitive with a lot of scenes of casual and innocuous conversations indoors.

People who love dogs will be disappointed that “Folktales” doesn’t delve deeper into stories of the dogs that Wik, Måseid and Le Biannic get attached to the most. Billy is a very sociable male dog that Måseid seems to like a lot. Guinness is a pregnant dog, who is later shown giving birth to her pups. Diamante, nicknamed Dia, is a shy female dog who bonds very early with Le Biannic, who also describes himself as shy. Le Biannic also likes a male dog named Mjød. Saatso is a male dog with cancer, and Wik is shown spending time comforting him. There’s also a cat named Tigergutt, who’s sort of like a mascot for the dog sledding team.

“Folktales” has gotten some criticism from people who think dog sledding is barbaric and cruel to dogs. It’s a bit unrealistic to think that dogs living in arctic environments won’t be shielded from brutally cold weather. There is certainly room for debate on whether or not dog sledding is necessary as a sport. The dogs shown in “Folktales” look like they are being taking care of very well by the humans responsible for taking care of them.

In “Folktales,” the dogs trained for dog sledding actually look eager to pull the sleds, like athletes ready to participate in a physically demanding sport. The main thing in the documentary that might lead anyone to think that the dogs could be abused is how the dogs look restless and uncomfortable when chained on fairly short leashes to dog houses outside before they are taken to the sleds.

It’s not stated or shown in the documentary how long these dogs have to wait outside in the cold under these circumstances. The dogs are seen having indoor shelter for sleeping, and none look like they are underfed—even in the scenes where the students have to “rough it” outdoors during the survival skills part of the program. “Folktales” could have been more diligent and responsible about explaining how the dogs are cared for in this program. It’s not enough information just to show the students feeding and petting the dogs.

Even without these dog stories, the human stories have moments of emotional vulnerability to give “Folktales” substance beyond just showing scenic shots of people and things in snowy wooded locations. Wik opens up about what happened when her father was killed. One of the students (it’s easy to guess who) abruptly quits the program and then returns after having a change of heart. Interestingly, the most emotional moments in “Folktales” are at the graduation ceremony, near the end of the film.

In the first half of the documentary, Ketil makes this comment about the school’s program: “In the beginning, the students think it’s all about the dogs … but the dogs are just the method. Of course, we have the higher goal. The higher goal is the human being. The dogs teach us to be more human, to maybe be more patient, and we might pay attention to others even more.”

“Folktales” is satisfying enough to show the expected outcomes of Wik, Måseid and Le Biannic going through this folk school program. Måseid (an extrovert) and Le Biannic (an introvert) end up becoming friends in the way that’s familiar to anyone who’s seen enough “coming of age” movies where two teenagers with opposite personalities form an seemingly unlikely friendship. “Folktales” is predictable, in the sense that it could also be used as a marketing/public relations tool for the school. You’re not going to hear any criticisms of Pasvik Folk High School in “Folktales.”

It’s not necessarily a bad thing for a documentary to put a positive spin on whatever the focus of the documentary is. “Folktales” has plenty of artfully filmed scenes that make living in the snowy woods of Norway look both enchanting and challenging. What “Folktales” needed was more of a window into the souls of the people who were chosen to be the focus of this documentary, because viewers still won’t know much about these people by the end of the movie.

Magnolia Pictures released “Folktales” in select U.S. cinemas on July 25, 2025, with an expansion to more U.S. cinemas on August 1, 2025. The movie was released on digital and VOD on September 2, 2025.

Review: ‘Lurker’ (2025), starring Théodore Pellerin, Archie Madekwe, Zack Fox, Havana Rose Liu, Wale Onayemi, Daniel Zolghadri and Sunny Suljic

September 3, 2025

by Carla Hay

Archie Madekwe and Théodore Pellerin in “Lurker” (Photo courtesy of MUBI)

“Lurker” (2025)

Directed by Alex Russell

Culture Representation: Taking place in the Los Angeles area and in London in 2018, the dramatic film “Lurker” features a racially diverse cast of characters (black, white, Asian) representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.

Culture Clash: A clothing retail clerk inserts himself into a pop star’s “inner circle” entourage and schemes up ways to rise through the ranks by any means necessary.

Culture Audience: “Lurker” will appeal mainly to people who are fans of the movie’s headliners and psychological thrillers about the ruthless and obsessive things that people do to get close to celebrities.

Olawale “Wale” Onayemi, Zack Fox and Havana Rose Liu in “Lurker” (Photo courtesy of MUBI)

“Lurker” is an unsettling portrait of ambition, fame, and the blurred lines between fandom and obsession. The movie skillfully shows who is being used and manipulated in a relationship between a pop star and a member of his entourage. Some viewers might not like how the movie ends, but the movie’s last scene is a searing commentary on what is more likely to happen in real life instead of a typical Hollywood ending.

Written and directed by Alex Russell, “Lurker” (which had its world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival) is Russell’s feature-film directorial debut. Russell has been a writer on the Emmy-winning TV series “The Bear” and “Beef.” Both series have themes of obsessiveness and how people with insecure egos pursue admiration and respect from strangers, sometimes to extreme levels. “Lurker” explores similar themes, but the story is told from a more intimate perspective of a smaller group of people, one of whom is a mysterious loner.

“Lurker” takes place in the Los Angeles area in 2018. The movie is told in non-chronological order, with some of the story shown as home videos to give the impression that some of this story could have been outtakes from a documentary. The first scene in “Lurker” is one such “home video” clip.

A singer/songwriter named Oliver (played by Archie Madekwe) in his mid-to-late 20s asks a question to an entourage member named Matthew Morning (played by Théodore Pellerin), who is about the same age as Oliver: “Where do you see yourself in five years?” Matthew is visibly uncomfortable about how to answer this question and then he eventually replies, “I already have everything I want.”

The movie then flashes back to the day that Oliver and Matthew met. Oliver (who is originally from England) has been living in Los Angeles since he was 18. Oliver relocated to Los Angeles to pursue his dream of becoming a respected music star. Oliver performs music that’s a combination of dance/electronic and R&B.

When Oliver and Matthew met, Matthew was working in the type of sparse clothing boutique that has casual but probably overpriced shirts and trousers for people who want to look “cool” without trying too hard. Oliver is a rising star on the music scene, with some hits that have made him famous to pop music fans, but he’s not famous enough to be a household name. During the course of this movie’s story, Oliver is shown working on his second album.

As soon as Oliver comes into the store, Matthew’s co-worker Jamie (played by Sunny Suljic) immediately knows who Oliver is. Jamie gets star-struck, but Matthew plays it cool. Other customers in the store notice Oliver and act like people usually do when they see a celebrity: They stare or approach to say a quick hello. A few people take out their phones to get photos, film videos or post about it on their social media.

Matthew sneakily puts Nile Rodgers’ 1983 track “My Love Song for You” on the store’s sound system because Matthew knows that Oliver is a fan of the song. Oliver reacts enthusiastically and says out loud that he wants his next album to sound inspired by “My Love Song for You.” Oliver asks who chooses the music for the store. Matthew sheepishly says he chose the song because “My Love Song for You” is a song that Matthew’s grandmother likes.

Matthew tells Oliver that he’s not familiar with Oliver’s music or any current music. Oliver is intrigued by Matthew because he thinks Matthew is a “real person” who will give honest opinions to Oliver. And so, Oliver invites Matthew to Oliver’s upcoming live performance at a large nightclub.

Oliver and Matthew exchange phone numbers, while Jamie observes this interaction with noticeable envy. As Oliver is leaving, Matthew calls Oliver’s phone number to verify that it’s really Oliver’s personal phone number. Oliver answers his phone immediately and glances back at Matthew, who looks happy and relieved that he has Oliver’s personal phone number.

At the concert, Matthew learns some realities of being a new hanger-on/possible friend of an attractive celebrity. People in Oliver’s entourage have unspoken rivalries and ambitions about being at the top of the entourage’s hierarchy. Matthew, who seems shy and nerdy, is not perceived as a threat but as an innocuous curiosity. Later in the movie, it becomes obvious that Matthew’s geeky image is a mask for his true personality of being ruthless and conniving.

It should be noted that all of Oliver’s entourage members are in the same age group as Oliver. If Oliver has any agents, managers or attorneys (who would usually be older than Oliver), they are not seen in the movie. It’s a choice for “Lurker” to have the members of Oliver’s inner circle consist of only people in his age group because there are many scenes where Oliver and his entourage seem to goof off and live in a perpetual state of adolescence. For example, Oliver and the people in his inner circle think it’s hilarious to film themselves riding bicycles into garbage cans on the street.

Backstage before the concert, two of Oliver’s entourage members—Swett (played by Zack Fox) and Bowen (played by Olawale “Wale” Onayemi)—are sitting on a couch and immediately test Matthew on what type of character he has and how far he’s willing to go to fit in with this entourage. Oliver and a female fan are on the couch and observe this spectacle.

Also on the couch is entourage member Noah (played by Daniel Zolghadri), who is later revealed to be someone who was hired to direct and edit Oliver’s music videos and a documentary about Oliver. Some of the footage is used for clips to upload on Oliver’s social media. Swett and Bowen don’t seem to have real jobs but are hanging out with Oliver as “professional friends” who live with Oliver.

In this backstage area, Swett and Bowen play mind games with Matthew and say that they have a ritual of pulling down their trousers in tribute to a deceased friend named James. It’s a lie, of course, and they mock Matthew for not following this “ritual” and then mock him for being too gullible. The mockery prompts Matthew to not only pull down his trousers but also his underwear. This stunt gets a big laugh out of Oliver, Swett and Bowen, who now know that Matthew won’t hesitate to embarrass himself for their amusement.

Backstage at the concert, Matthew also meets Oliver’s house manager/personal assistant Shai (played by Havana Rose Liu), who looks at Matthew as a hanger-on who won’t last long, but she gives him this advice anyway: “You should make yourself useful if you want to stick around.” Matthew ends up taking this advice with a vengeance.

Shai, Swett, Bowen and Noah all live in Oliver’s house. Noah is the quietest member of the entourage and is the one least likely to play mind games with Matthew. For example, when Noah was in the same room when the trouser prank was pulled, Noah didn’t instigate the prank and just played along.

During the concert, Matthew looks at Oliver in such an adoring way, it becomes evident that Matthew knew who Oliver was all along. Later, there are more indications that Matthew is an obsessive fan who wants to be as close to Oliver as possible. Not much is revealed about Matthew’s personal life except that he lives in a house with his grandmother Christine (played by Myra Turley), who adores Matthew and lets Matthew come and go as he pleases. Matthew doesn’t have a car and travels by bicycle.

After the concert, Oliver invites Matthew to hang out with Oliver and Oliver’s entourage in Oliver’s hillside home. When Oliver and the entourage have a “house meeting” that excludes Matthew, Matthew uses it as an opportunity to quietly look around in Oliver’s bedroom and take photos with a professional camera that Matthew has brought with him. Matthew also notices that Oliver leaves the meeting looking annoyed.

A short while later, Oliver and Matthew have a private conversation in Oliver’s bedroom. Matthew gushes to Oliver: “I really think you’re going to be the biggest artist in the world.” Oliver loves the flattery and confesses that he’s frustrated because the people in his entourage think that Oliver’s current fame is as good as it’s going to get. Oliver has bigger ambitions and wants to become a superstar.

Oliver notices that Matthew has a professional camera. Oliver tells Matthew that he thinks Matthew has a “good eye” that matches Oliver’s artistic tastes. And so, Oliver invites Matthew to hang out for a few weeks to take photos and videos of Oliver. Payment is not discussed because Oliver correctly assumes that Matthew will willingly work for free under these circumstances.

The next time that Matthew is invited to Oliver’s house, Oliver isn’t there yet. Matthew is left to awkwardly hang out with Swett and Bowen, who are playing a video game in the living room. Swett is harsher than Bowen, when it comes to whatever teasing, criticisms and hazing “tests” that Matthew is put through to gain acceptance.

Shai, who is very observant and somewhat wary of Matthew, has Matthew do housekeeper duties of cleaning up and doing laundry, as a way to test Matthew’s willingness to do whatever is asked of him. Matthew acts so eager to please around Oliver, Oliver tells Matthew that Matthew can help Noah with the documentary work. Oliver makes this decision without consulting with Noah first.

Matthew doesn’t know anything about filmmaking, but he can operate a hand-held video camera, and he can come up with resourceful and creative ideas. Matthew uses these skills to his advantage. Just like Shai, Noah is tolerant but slightly cautious about Matthew and how Matthew’s presence might affect their status in Oliver’s entourage.

There’s a memorable scene where “Lurker” shows how Matthew is skilled at flipping a power dynamic. Oliver is filming a music video outdoors, with Noah as the director. The members of Oliver’s entourage (including Matthew) are at this video shoot when Noah finds out that a necessary camera battery was left behind at Oliver’s house.

Noah blames and scolds Matthew about it, but Matthew comes up with an idea to remedy the situation. Oliver loves the idea and lets Matthew take the lead in filming the rest of the music video, while Noah has to assist Matthew. In the end, it doesn’t matter if Matthew deliberately left behind the camera battery or not, because Matthew was able to convince Oliver that Matthew was more “useful” than Noah in this situation.

As Matthew spends more time with Oliver and appears in Oliver’s social media, Matthew sees how Oliver’s fame starts to rub off on Matthew. Many of Oliver’s social media followers also start to follow Matthew on social media as soon as Oliver follows Matthew on social media. Matthew is sometimes recognized in public by Oliver’s fans.

Matthew eventually quits his job at the clothing store to work for Oliver, who is presumably paying Matthew at this point. Matthew begins to get more respect from Oliver, who sees Matthew as worthy of a position higher than assistant videographer/photographer. Matthew’s quick ascension in Oliver’s entourage will inevitably rub some people the wrong way.

Oliver’s personal background is mentioned briefly, but it explains why Oliver lives the way that he does. In a scene where Oliver opens up to Matthew, he tells Matthew that Oliver is estranged from his mother. Oliver describes Oliver’s father as someone who didn’t believe Oliver could be successful in music, but Oliver’s father likes the money that Oliver sends to him. Oliver says he moved to Los Angeles so Oliver could live somewhere where Oliver could choose his own family.

Without giving away too much information, it’s enough to say that “Lurker” shows how Matthew’s ascent in Oliver’s entourage hierarchy has a lot to do with Matthew’s scheming that goes undetected because he presents himself as a harmless and dorky person. Oliver is charismatic but fickle about which member of the entourage will get Oliver’s biggest approval in any given situation. Tensions begin to grow between the entourage members.

Jamie wants to join the entourage too. Not surprisingly, Matthew sees Jamie as competition for Oliver’s attention and Oliver’s approval. Matthew and Oliver engage in various power struggles. And there’s an undercurrent of homoeroticism because Matthew (whose sexual identity is never explicitly declared in the movie) seems to be sexually attracted to Oliver.

“Lurker” can at times be repetitive in hammering home its points about the parasitic aspects of fame. However, there is a very intriguing tone to the movie because it’s not a typical film about the relationship between a celebrity and an obsessed fan. In a formulaic scripted movie, the fan’s obsession usually turns into stalking and becomes over-the-top, with the obsessed fan and/or celebrity getting physically hurt. “Lurker” invites viewers to think about a different type of toxicity that can happen when a celebrity knowingly or unknowingly makes an obsessed fan part of the celebrity’s trusted entourage, and the damage is more psychological than physical.

Pellerin and Madekwe elevate “Lurker” with their believable performances, with Pellerin having the more difficult role as the opaque and disingenuous Matthew. Even though “Lurker” is set during an era when social media platforms have changed how fame is marketed and exploited, the movie’s most elemental themes remain timeless. “Lurker” ultimately asks this provocative question: Rich and famous people might have wealth and power, but for those whose celebrity status entirely depends on support from fans, who’s really in control?

MUBI released “Lurker” in select U.S. cinemas on August 22, 2025. MUBI’s streaming service will premiere the movie on October 10, 2025.

Review: ‘East of Wall,’ starring Tabatha Zimiga, Porshia Zimiga, Scoot McNairy and Jennifer Ehle

August 26, 2025

by Carla Hay

Tabatha Zimiga in “East of Wall” (Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics)

“East of Wall”

Directed by Kate Beecroft

Culture Representation: Taking place in South Dakota, the dramatic film “East of Wall” (loosely based on the lives of real people) features a predominantly white cast of characters (with some Native Americans) representing the working-class, middle-class and wealthy.

Culture Clash: A widowed mother struggles to keep her horse ranch in business, as she deals with family issues and the dilemma of whether or not to sell the ranch.  

Culture Audience: “East of Wall” will appeal primarily to people who are interested in movies about horse owners and female-led working-class ranch families who are not often depicted in movies.

Jennifer Ehle in “East of Wall” (Photo courtesy of Sony Pictures Classics)

“East of Wall” is a quietly impressive “slice of life” semi-biographical drama about the struggles of a widow to keep her ranch in business and her family intact. Some viewers will think the movie is too slow-paced, but the performances have real grit. Many of the “East of Wall” cast members are non-professional actors who are depicting versions of themselves.

Written and directed by Kate Beecroft, “East of Wall” had its world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival, where the movie won the NEXT Audience Award. “East Wall” also screened at the 2025 Tribeca Festival. The movie takes place in the Badlands region of South Dakota, where “East of Wall” was filmed on location. Beecroft got the idea for the movie after spending time at the real-life South Dakota horse ranch of the movie’s protagonist.

“East of Wall,” which is filmed almost documentary style, shows a few weeks in the life of Tabatha Zimiga (playing a version of herself) and the people who are closest to her. Tabatha is a widow whose husband John died the previous year. His cause of death is revealed later in the movie. The movie is titled “East of Wall” because Tabatha lives in an unnamed town that’s east of the city of Wall, South Dakota.

Tabatha (who has a feisty but empathetic personality) inherited a 3,000-acre horse ranch that was previously owned by John. She lives at the ranch with her three biological children: son Skylar (played by Wyatt Mansfield), who’s about 17 or 18; daughter Porshia (played by Porshia Zimiga, Tabatha Zimiga’s real-life daughter), who’s about 15 or 16; and 3-year-old son Stetson (played by Stetson Neumann), who is non-verbal. John was the biological father of Stetson, while Porshia and Skylar have different biological fathers who are not in their lives.

Tabatha was an underage teen when she had Skylar. As for Porshia’s biological father, what happened to him is described later in the movie. Tabatha’s youngest child Stetson is technically the heir to the ranch, but since he isn’t old enough to operate it, Tabatha has taken ownership of it. The ranch’s horses are healthy and trained, but they’re not the types of horses that can be considered racing champions or high-breed show horses.

Several wayward teenagers (about seven to nine boys and girls), who are orphaned or who have neglectful parents, also live at the ranch. Some of the teens are almost like unofficial foster children who live at the ranch full-time, while others live at the ranch part-time and come and go as they please. The teenagers help Tabatha, Porshia and Skylar with taking care of the horses and the rest of the ranch.

Tabatha is especially close to a teenager named Jesse Stanz (played by Jesse Thorson) and wants to become his legal guardian. Jesse’s father has been in prison for the past three years. Jesse’s biological mother is unable to take care of him for reasons that aren’t stated in the movie.

Jesse has some issues at his school: He’s close to failing because of an absentee problem. An early scene in the movie shows Tabatha scolding Jesse to be responsible and attend his classes, so he won’t flunk out of school. Much later, “East of Wall” shows Tabatha and Jess in a family court to hear a judge’s decision on whether or not Tabatha can be Jesse’s legal guardian.

Another member of this unconventional family is Tabatha’s bachelorette mother Tracey (played by Jennifer Ehle), a chain-smoking, hard-drinking raconteur who is proud of her homemade moonshine. Tracey doesn’t want to be a traditional grandmother, but she provides no-nonsense emotional support to the people in her life who need it. Tracey is also very protective of her loved ones.

Tabatha has a live-in boyfriend name Clay (played by Clay Pateneaude), whom she’s been dating for the past 18 months. Clay, who’s about 10 years younger than Tabatha, gets along well with everyone and works on the ranch as a horse trainer. He is a loyal and respectful partner. However, in this movie, Clay doesn’t have enough screen time for viewers to get to know more about him.

Much of “East of Wall” is about showing the process of selling the ranch’s horses at horse shows. Porshia and some of the other teenage girls do horse-riding tricks at these shows, in order to entice customers. The teenagers also film themselves riding the horses, or the horses running around at the ranch. The teens post these horse videos on TikTok, as a marketing technique.

Despite these extra efforts to boost sales, Tabatha’s horse ranch is struggling to stay in business because Tabatha’s horses are selling for less than what she needs to make profits. One day at a horse show, Tabatha gets a highly unusual sale for one of her horses: The horse that was being auctioned off went from a $2,000 bid to a $7,000 bid from an enthusiastic buyer.

The buyer is a smooth-talking rancher named Roy Waters (played by Scoot McNairy) from Fort Worth, Texas. After buying the horse, Roy sends a thank-you note to Tabatha and tells her that the horse is great. And then, days later, Roy shows up at the ranch unannounced.

Roy is amiable but he eventually reveals he has an ulterior motive for this sudden friendliness: He wants to buy Tabatha’s ranch. He assures Tabatha that she and all the current ranch workers will keep their jobs under his ownership. Roy also promises that he will give the ranch major upgrades because he can afford it.

Tabatha could really use the money that Roy is offering, and she likes the idea of someone else paying for the upgrades that the ranch needs. However, Tabatha is hesitant to sell the ranch because she wants to keep the ranch ownership in her family. Tabatha feels that selling the ranch would be betraying the legacy of her late husband John.

Roy is especially friendly to Porshia in a slightly creepy way. It’s not because he’s trying to take advantage of Porshia like a predator. Porshia figures out quickly that Roy had a teenage daughter who committed suicide. Without saying it out loud, Roy thinks Porshia reminds him of his daughter. Tabatha isn’t completely comfortable with why Roy likes to spend time with Porshia.

“East of Wall” ambles along, with stops and starts into scenes that look scripted, while other scenes look very improvised. Some of the film’s scenes are very mundane, while others crackle with emotional intensity. One of the most memorable scenes in the movie is when Tracey, Tabatha and several local women are gathered around a fire and share traumatic stories from their personal lives.

“East of Wall” also admirably depicts relationships between the three generations of women in Tabatha’s family. Tracey, Tabatha and Porshia all have mother/daughter squabbles with each other. But they all have an unshakeable love for each other, amid their painful scars from abuse and trauma.

There’s not much of a plot in “East of Wall.” And there are no real surprises in the movie. But thanks to the cast members’ performances—particularly Tabatha Zimiga and Ehle, who are very compelling to watch—”East of Wall” has a raw, authentic and lived-in quality to it. The movie is a not about making any grand statements about life. It’s about showing what people can do when life doesn’t go smoothly and there aren’t always easy answers to problems.

Sony Pictures Classics released “East of Wall” in select U.S. cinemas on August 15, 2025. A sneak preview of the movie was shown in U.S. cinemas on August 4, 2025.

Review: ‘Together’ (2025), starring Dave Franco and Alison Brie

July 28, 2025

by Carla Hay

Alison Brie and Dave Franco in “Together” (Photo by Ben King/Neon)

“Together” (2025)

Directed by Michael Shanks

Culture Representation: Taking place in an unnamed part of the United States, the horror film “Together” features a predominantly white cast of characters (with a few black people and Asians) representing the working-class and middle-class.

Culture Clash: After moving from a large city to a rural area, two live-in lovers accidentally fall into a mysterious cave and are able to climb out, but strange things begin happening to their bodies, which start to act like magnets to each other. 

Culture Audience: “Together” will appeal primarily to people who fans of stars Dave Franco and Alison Brie and body horror movies that offer a suspenseful and sometimes comedic look at coupledom.

Alison Brie and Dave Franco in “Together” (Photo by Ben King/Neon)

“Together” is a rare horror movie that seamlessly blends unsettling body horror with darkly amusing observations about couples in co-dependent relationships. The movie takes a few unexplained shortcuts but is mostly suspenseful. There are a number of ways that “Together” could have ended. And the movie’s ending is not what most people would guess.

Written and directed by Michael Shanks, “Together” is his feature-film directorial debut and had its world premiere at the 2025 Sundance Film Festival. The movie centers on a couple in love but in a relationship that has grown somewhat stagnant and is put to the test when they literally can’t get away from each other. Viewers who are expecting a full explanation for the superatural occurences in the movie won’t get complete answers, but there’s enough information revealed to offer enough glimpses into why all horror is taking place.

“Together” begins by showing a wooded area in an unnamed part of the United States. (“Together” was actually filmed in Australia.) A search party with dogs is taking place for a missing couple named Keri (played by Sarah Lang) and Simon (played by Shanks), who lived in the area and suddenly vanished. The movie eventually reveals what probably happened to this couple.

Meanwhile, another couple is shown at a going-away party at the couple’s house from which they are moving. Tim (played by Dave Franco) and Millie (played by Alison Brie), are in their 30s who live together and have been dating each other for nine years. Alison and Tim are moving from an unnamed city to a rural area because Alison got a job as an elementary school teacher in this year. Tim is a musician who used to be in a band with a record deal but he’s now an independent solo artist who’s working on a solo album but he will occasionally hire himself out for touring jobs.

That’s exactly what happens when Millie’s musician brother Luke (played Jack Kenny) offers Tim a job as a guitarist to tour with Luke’s band. It’s a job that Tim accepts without much convincing that has to be done Luke also mentions to Tim that Tim should consider getting record deal because a record company would be able to better fund a tour.

It’s not said out loud, but it’s obvious: Tim doesn’t have a steady income, while Millie does. Tim isn’t too keen about moving out of the city, but he has to make this relocation, in order to support Millie and her career decision. During the course of the movie, it becomes apparent that Tim’s financial insecurity is at least some of the reason why there are some cracks in the relationship between Tim and Millie.

The cracks begin to show at the party when, as their gathered friends are watching in the living room, Millie gets down on one knee in font of Tim, mimes opening an invisible box with an invisible engagement ring, and asks him if he’ll spend the rest of his life with her. A visible shocked Tim doesn’t say anything at first. Awkward.

Tim then snaps out of his hesitation and says yes. But he took too long to answer. And his response looks forced and faked. Millie and everyone else in the room can sense it too. It doens’t completely ruin the party, but the mood definitely changes. Later, after the party is over, Tim and Millie are in bed, and he tells he’s sorry for being a jerk. Millie seems to accept his apology.

As time goes on, Tim is show to be more the more self-absorbed and less-committed partner in this relationship. Millie has some issues too. For example, she can be passive aggressive in her communication by expecting Tim to anticipate in advance what she wants instead of coming right out and telling him directly. Millie’s quasi-marriage proposal is an example of that passive-aggressiveness. She wants Tim to propose marriage to her, and that was her way of “nudging” him to do it without telling him directly.

Millie settles in quickly at her new job, where she strikes up a rapport with a friendly co-worker named Jamie (played by Damon Herriman), who happens to the closest neighbor to Millie and Tim in the wooded area where they live. One day, Millie and Tim take a hike in the woods. Tim notices a bell hanging on a tree. The bell has a carving of a sun on it.

Tim falls down in a hole and takes Millie with him when she tries to pull him out of the hole. Their cell phone can’t get signals where they are in this part of the woods. Inside the hole is a small cave, where Tim and Millie see a bell with a carving of a sun on it. It’s the same type of bell that Tim saw earlier. The cave also has some broken church pews that are scattered around the area.

There’s also a large puddle of what looks like fresh water in the cave. Tim takes a drink first and tells Millie that the water tastes fine. She also drinks some of the water, but not as much as Tim. Millie and Tim spend the night in the cave. And the next morning, they find out that there’s a unknown sticky substance that made the sides of their legs stuck together.

Tim and Millie painfully pull their legs apart, which leaves minor injuries. Millie and Tim are then able to climb out of the cave hole. Which begs the question: Why couldn’t they pull themselves out of the hole earlier?

At this point, if you’ve seen the trailers for “Together” or know that this is a body horror movie, you can guess how much of the movie will proceed. Tim’s and Millie’s bodies start acting like magnets to each other, with each incident getting progressively worse. As shown in the movie, Tim has past traumatic issues about his deceased parents that cause him to have nightmares. Millie’s parents are still alive and plan to eventually visit Millie and Tim in the couple’s new home.

Franco and Brie—who are a married couple in real life and who are two of the producers of “Together”—carry the movie with their naturalistic performances in increasingly bizarre situations. There are some body contortions and various “body fusions” that are intended to be cringeworthy, but some of these scenes are actually very funny. “Together” has some clever physical manifestations of being “stuck” in a relationship. In many ways, “Together” isn’t just about being a couple in a co-dependent romance. It’s also about what sacrifices can be made in the name of love.

Neon will release “Together” in U.S. cinemas on July 30, 2025. A sneak preview of the movie was shown in U.S. cinemas on July 21 and July 23, 2025. The movie will be released on digital and VOD on August 26, 2025.

Copyright 2017-2025 Culture Mix
CULTURE MIX