The Films of 2026

[Monterey Jack]

[yoshimori]

At least the sofa didn't resort to a pre-packaged ad hominem gif. Or was that somehow ironic?

[wattsup32]

At least the sofa didn't resort to a pre-packaged ad hominem gif. Or was that somehow ironic?

Amen to that! From now on, Jack, create ad hominem gifs from scratch.

[beamish14]

I can’t conceive of any film being a greater or a more pleasant surprise than The Misconceived. Ostensibly about a failed filmmaker who takes a home renovation job at his wealthy college roommate’s house, it touches upon economic anxiety faced by millennials while also acerbically addressing how studios like A24 and Neon, along with their parallels in the art world, dictate what is “important” in culture.

Oh, and the whole movie is rendered in Unreal Engine and scored with stock music, which amplifies the absurdity and somehow draws us closer to the ideas it explores.

In a Q&A with director James N. Kienitz Wilkins, he explained that the film was essentially created 5 times, with the dialogue recorded first, then actors recording physical gestures in motion capture suits, and rendered with figures that were purchased online. He was adamant that no AI was used, which makes the aural and visual qualities decidedly more uncanny and easy for the viewer to rapidly acclimate to and accept. Wilkins doesn’t consider the film to be animated, although it essentially uses a modified type of rotoscoping, in part because none of the characters were designed from scratch.

As it is an extremely dialogue-heavy film, it really demands multiple viewings, but I’m unsure as to when it will get a Blu-Ray release. It is touring in both a DCP and 35mm print, having played at Anthology Film Archives in New York, Rotterdam, and now in Los Angeles

[Never Cursed]

The Invite: Millennial Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?. Didn't quiiiiite work for me, but Wilde's best movie by far, and the first of her films to have properly restrained performances and a level of social commentary relatively commensurate to the broad, silly premises to which she appears to be drawn (i.e., the first of her movies to feel like it was directed by a director). It might have even been good if Wilde was willing to equate the shortcomings and failures of all four characters and their contributions to their dysfunctional relationships, but she unfortunately makes the serious error of allowing one of them to just...be right,

Spoiler

and to stop the movie at its climax to underline the others' failings in monologue. This isn't the fault of Penélope Cruz, who walks away with the film long before she explains why Rogen and Wilde's marriage is over, but it dislodges the film from its already shaky foundation (an infidelity comedy that won't let its protagonists cheat even when given license, a slow boil towards the revelation of secrets where most of the characters lack discretion or a filter) and makes its message too textual, too bluntly stated, too obvious.

Norton and Rogen are game performers (even if Norton's character gradually becomes irrelevant to the action and is given the classic compensation of a late-game tangent), but I rankled at the repeated nods to Rogen's schlubbiness ("just to be clear, you want to have sex with me?!?!?") in a movie that otherwise positioned itself as being a little more sophisticated than those kinds of dumb appeals. The weak link among the actors is actually Wilde herself, whose decision to portray her character as a nagging, mannered neurotic is somehow hammier and more tropey than Rogen's overflowing hostility towards his guests.

The movie is also blocked and edited with surprising indifference (or "efficiency," I guess) for a movie that could have benefitted from showiness and meaningful interaction. Whatever actors'-workshop qualities the material contains are undone by Wilde's insistence on filming much of the movie in claustrophobic individual close-ups. Not much of this film about the desperate struggle for intimacy from one's intimate partner contains two people interacting in the same shot; charged conversations are frequently relegated to easy shot-reverse-shots or actors talking to their partners' reflections in mirrors. I think it would have been more interesting to see the actors work through this material in more static, "play-like" master shots than constantly cutting between center-framed reactions and interjections.

Spoiler

One of the worst offenders along these lines is the final scene, where Wilde has set up a nice, aesthetically pleasing shot (a gradual zoom in on her and Rogen sharing a moment of intimacy at a piano) and clearly filmed multiple takes all the way through, but where a number of redundant close-ups of the two (and their hand doubles, I guess) have been inserted. Why do this? It ruins a natural and cinematic emotional build-up in favor of purposelessly jerking us between distance and closeness.

I wish Wilde had been confident enough in this shot to let it play uninterrupted - of all the creative choices she's made, why walk over this one? Hopefully her ability to at least create the right kind of images, if not to present them in the right order, portends that she has a good movie in her that will someday manifest (though given that her next projects are apparently a superhero movie and a "holiday movie" from the scribe of Booksmart and Don't Worry Darling, it may not be the next one), but this isn't quite it.

[Lowry_Sam]

The Guardian is reporting that Tender Loving Care will probably be Mike Leigh's last film as he is having health issues.

[Finch]

Sad but totally understandable.

[therewillbeblus]

The Seeing Eye Dog Who Saw Too Much, Eric Jackowitz's debut short, is some kind of wonderful - a giallo spoof that doesn't succumb to eye-rolling obvious nods, but clearly understands the ludicrousness of the genre trappings enough to churn out novel and hilarious punchlines in a continual rhythm without ever repeating a joke. When the film does return to a gag's general area, it embellishes rather than rests on the easy route. And beyond its farcical side, the movie is actually a fun little giallo, fully embracing the style with incredible attention to detail. Apologies for keeping this vague, but it would be a crime to spoil any of these ideas. It's one of the most impressive short films I've seen in a long time, and I hope it winds up becoming available to a wide audience in the near future

[Mr.DarjeelingLimited]

Saw Matt Johnson’s Tony. Ended up being one of my most beloved films of the year. Falls into none of the traps that other biopics do and is really tightly written. Acting is great. Banderas is the absolute highlight.

[Finch]

I saw the director's name and went, is that Canadian Matt Johnson who did Nirvanna and Blackberry and it was! Now I have to see Tony.

[domino harvey]

I’m sorry, I don’t keep track of mainstream new releases but having been made aware of the premise of One Night Only, is this the worst idea for a romantic comedy of all time?

[Never Cursed]

This is the only thing that people have wanted to say about it on social media for, like, months. That said, I still think Neo Ned wins out

[TechnicolorAcid]

This is the only thing that people have wanted to say about it on social media for, like, months. That said, I still think Neo Ned wins out

Jeremy Renner’s in this?! Man if only we had some kind of app to talk about this

[therewillbeblus]

The End of Oak Street: How silly I was to anticipate that such a stupid high concept premise might yield the Amblin-esque feel some audiences pulled from this atrocity. I was hopeful with David Robert Mitchell at the helm, straight out of Director Jail after an eight-year hiatus, following the vastly misunderstood but understandably off-putting masterpiece Under the Silver Lake. Unfortunately this movie has none of the wit of that film or his previous It Follows - it's Jumanji as if directed by a wannabe Shyamalan, if that person had only seen Old and The Happening. Right from the start, the social dynamics are so eerily 'off' thanks to a terrible script and wooden direction (oh, and those odd-angle close-ups within the confines of the house that look like green screens are behind them, when they're clearly not - yuck), that not even Hathaway or especially McGregor can save them, and the kids are awful too. The film commits to its bit in ways that make sense, but in others that are absurd, and never quite finds a tone - sometimes it is reminiscent of early-80s Spielberg in the shallowest atmospherics only, while at other times it feels like imbuing modern horror ideas into its DNA. The little good will the film extends, through "risks" in demonstrating surprising choices of violence and unexpected deaths, is completely undone by the end. It's as if Mitchell and co. gave you some melted ice cream as a treat and then snatched it back. For Hathaway completists only

[domino harvey]

This is the only thing that people have wanted to say about it on social media for, like, months. That said, I still think Neo Ned wins out

Jeremy Renner’s in this?! Man if only we had some kind of app to talk about this

Ha! I watched the Road Work Ahead guy’s YouTube video on Renner’s app and it was both amusing and horrifying to see capitalistic greed extend so deep into the pockets of fans who could not possibly afford to participate and from someone with Marvel Money who objectively did not need to be doing this

As for that film, yes, that is a horrendous premise but it also seems of the time when every indie was a high concept quirk fest so it doesn’t quite set my gag reflex off like this one

[hearthesilence]

Apparently the script for One Night Only topped the annual "Black List" survey of most-liked unproduced screenplays. They really need to poll different people for that thing.

[Captain Paranoia]

Logically, the film with such premise would have the decency to be promoted as a thriller instead of a romantic comedy.

[cantinflas]

After reading this interview with Will Gluck it sounded too compromised. Wouldn't it be like removing the violence from The Purge?

Recent studies have found that Gen Z and Gen Alpha don’t want to see sex on screen. Was that a concern while making this movie?
The answer is 100% yes. I went through this on two movies. I have long pages of empirical data about it. The only thing is I don’t think it’s just Gen Z and Gen Alpha. I believe it’s been a societal shift from taking nudity in adult situations and putting them on your phones at home for everybody. Now it’s more of a private, intimate thing that people don’t want to see when they’re in a shared experience. Whenever people now see nudity or very adult situations in a big theater, they get uncomfortable.

How does that change your approach as a filmmaker?
Once I’ve learned that, which was all through the editing process for my last movie, I applied it to this movie. But even so, I didn’t apply it enough. I cut out so much. There was so much nudity in this movie that we shot on the streets. I felt we needed to show the world that way. As we started to show it to audiences, we felt it takes you out of the movie. You’re engaged in the characters and what’s going on, and then you pan over and there’s two naked people having sex, and you watch the audience … it’s a physical thing. They turn to who they’re with and … the benefits do not nearly outweigh the negatives of it. So we just kept editing it out until we got a balance, and those comments went away.

[domino harvey]

Totes, def don’t want people to feel uncomfortable while watching their fascist regime movie

[therewillbeblus]

The Invite

It might have even been good if Wilde was willing to equate the shortcomings and failures of all four characters and their contributions to their dysfunctional relationships, but she unfortunately makes the serious error of allowing one of them to just...be right,

Spoiler

and to stop the movie at its climax to underline the others' failings in monologue. This isn't the fault of Penélope Cruz, who walks away with the film long before she explains why Rogen and Wilde's marriage is over, but it dislodges the film from its already shaky foundation (an infidelity comedy that won't let its protagonists cheat even when given license, a slow boil towards the revelation of secrets where most of the characters lack discretion or a filter) and makes its message too textual, too bluntly stated, too obvious.

I thought this the first time I saw the movie too, but watched it again tonight with my wife and had a revelation about the end that made me view it in a different light:

Spoiler

While Cruz absolutely breaks down the other relationship's problems (which is the primary focus of the story, honestly, as Cruz and Norton are mostly there to reflect insecurities and grievances mounted, and it should be treated with more weight than the other dynamic), there's a wonderful moment slid into the climax where Cruz and Norton's relationship shows problems as well. Cruz has an oversized reaction to Norton's correction of her English and it spirals quickly. This is peanuts next to what we see from Rogen and Wilde, but it's important to remember that Cruz and Norton are merely one year into their relationship, and while they have "experience" in other marriages, etc. that doesn't elevate them beyond repair. This could be the start of something that grows, or not. Cruz' message is that we can always have a "restart" - cue from the beginning of the movie when Wilde uses a podcast tip to helpfully de-escalate a fight, which is arguably one of two moments (the other being Cruz' prompt) that actually contribute to repair and harmony amongst the couple, even if just briefly, and not coincidentally coming from other resources. So it seems to me that Cruz and Norton have just as good/bad odds at leaning into the dysfunction of Rogen and Wilde with time. They need aid from other resources too, and who knows what they are. Just because Cruz can give advice doesn't mean she can supply enough of her own to save her relationship.

Cruz gets to be the voice of reason at the end because she plays into a power differential as the 'therapist', but that sly inclusion of a spat between her and Norton, that's not really 'repaired' in the moment in a therapeutic way, is critical to not seeing them as a superior dynamic to Wilde and Rogen's - who seem inferior simply because they're the most wounded and vulnerable at this (significantly later) stage of their relationship

[Never Cursed]

watched it tonight with my wife

A bold move!

Spoiler

A good point (and more along the lines of that outburst would have been welcome, as Cruz clearly understood exactly who this character was more than any of the other actors - I wonder if that's because of her presumed greater familiarity with the source material) but I still think Cruz is too correct in this moment, and that tugging on this thread further might have made the final sequence feel less preachy. The important line is the one you highlight (the one about having only so many chances to get a relationship right in life), but she kept hammering home the sources of their dysfunction in a way that I don't think a stranger could access. You would know more about this than I, but there's sometimes a danger with therapeutic voices of moral authority in films where they're able to diagnose their subjects too quickly because the point of the characters is to deliver a message (I think you made this same point about the Euphoria special episode with Jules, where it ironically didn't bother me because I saw the therapist as a device giving us a way into Schafer's character's introspection - i.e., it couldn't have been didactic, as the whole thing was a monologue anyway). I just couldn't believe the confidence and accuracy of Cruz's read on their relationship dynamic after about 90 minutes with Rogen and Wilde (during which she's anything but a neutral, objective observer). It isn't so much that I think her relationship with Norton is better (though as a spectator I'm sure they're happier than Rogen and Wilde) as it is that I resented how quickly she came to her conclusions for no other reason than the movie needs her to do so to have a climax. I guess what I'm trying to say is that the film felt clunky and exposed its narrative construction at a time when it should have felt as natural and emotional as possible.

[therewillbeblus]

I think Cruz gleaned enough information to make her formulation from what we all witnessed objectively throughout the evening, so I didn't think she came to any contrived conclusions. If anything, you could blame the script for giving away so much information for her to reach that point throughout the film, but it's all for entertainment (and not exactly an 'inaccurate' depiction of a dysfunctional relationship playing out in real time) so what would be the point of that?

watched it tonight with my wife

A bold move!

I thought so too, but she absolutely loved it! When it was over, she said, "That's it? We could get two more hours." I have no idea what to make of that

[TechnicolorAcid]

Tony (Matt Johnson) is kind of like the food Bourdain makes in it, it’s essentially just a serving fast food but you can tell that it’s fast food made with so much love and passion that I just fell in love with it anyhow. Obvious points out of the way but Dominic Sessa is phenomenal, effortlessly playing Tony in a way that crosses the line between very charming and making you want someone to kick his ass, and the rest of the cast is also very good, although I am still a little tickled by the presence of Antonio Banderas in a Matt Johnson movie.

Speaking of Matt Johnson, this is undoubtedly his best directing work with some of his greatest composition in his whole career, no doubt aided by Michael Bauman’s occasionally beautiful cinematography, which is drastically different from most of Johnson’s other films but also feels a lot more appropriate for it. It’s also surprisingly personal for a biopic about another person. I read an interview with Johnson where he said that he felt like him and watching it, I did feel like Tony did have a lot of similarities and it keep of feels like Johnson is looking back on his past through Tony with both men undoubtedly having been oddly charming, youthful men in their pasts but also at points obnoxious, pretentious and often self-centered. Johnson even subtly brings up his edgelord nature with a rather shocking slur dropped by Leo Woodall’s Sal, who himself feels like what Johnson fears his life would’ve become if he kept up with the uncaring, edgelord persona he had been in his past, a childish narcissist who, intentionally or not, harms the people around him almost as much as he does himself.

And yet, despite the dark undertones of Sal, Tony often is a very light-hearted and playful movie, embracing the summertime party atmosphere of Tony’s experience in a way that made the inevitable ending where Tony has to head back home for college feel bittersweet and the film does a great job of endearing you to its characters enough that its emotional beats feel genuinely earned, which I think puts it miles ahead of a lot of “feel-good” movies like it that sort of just expect you to be moved in a way by moments that don’t feel deserved at all.

Ultimately though, I will have to say, don’t go into this expecting a BlackBerry or NTBTSTM because besides the potential link between Matt with Tony & Sal, there aren’t many other defining Matt Johnson traits (although there is one shot that reminded of the lake scene from The Dirties that’s featured in the new Zapruder Film logo) but if you’re in the mood for a wonderful little serving of warm goodness, Tony is probably going to be the film for you.