- SXSW 2026: Brian, Basic, Seekers of Infinite Love (March 20, 2026)
A previous dispatch from this year’s SXSW highlighted how so many of the horror films here seem to be almost existential in their questioning who we want to be in the 2020s as technology continues to redefine the human condition. The funny thing is that several of the comedies this year also contain existential foundations regarding how we define ourselves whether it’s through high school popularity, online drama, or even joining a cult. They all have elements that can feel a bit sitcom-y although two of them overcome those foundations to find something truthful and funny, while the third can never get over what its broad sense of humor does to flatten its characters.
The best of the bunch, although just barely, is Will Ropp’s clever “Brian,” a film that I like for more than just its awesome name. Written by Mike Scollins, “Brian” is at its best when it digs below the abrasive personality of its titular character, a high school student who pushes past awkward to obnoxious. It’s not unfair to say that it’s a film with echoes of “Napoleon Dynamite,” but it’s willing to ask if these quirky comedy protagonists might also have a notable degree of mental illness. Brian (Ben Wang) seems at first to just be another weird teenager, but there’s something darker under the surface of his outbursts and when Ropp takes Brian’s panic attacks seriously, his film defies some of its coming-of-age tropes. Of course, it helps to have Randall Park to just come in and nail several scene-ending punchlines like a comedy assassin.
Brian is a movie kid we’ve seen before: the most bullied at his high school until he meets a new kid named Justin (Joshua Colley), an outgoing young man who helps bring Brian out of his shell. When Brian isn’t suffering full-on panic attacks (what he calls “freak outs”) at school, he’s pining for one of his teachers (Natalie Morales) or dodging insults from his obnoxious older brother (Sam Song Li). His mother (Edi Patterson) wants to protect Brian, but she also gives him the space to figure out who he wants to be, and he’s decided that, in order to get closer to his teacher crush, he’s going to run for Class President against the pretty boy who has never had opposition before and a vocal feminist who wants to change the school government from within.
Wang understands this character well, rarely giving into traditional comedy tropes of the “bullied nerd.” He humanizes Brian in a way that’s essential to the success of the film, allowing us to care about what happens to a kid who can truly be kind of a jerk. That’s also a positive quality of Ropp’s film in that they don’t get overly sentimental in their presentation of Brian or his arc. By refusing easy outs, “Brian” feels more like a character study than your average teen comedy. We may not all be able to see ourselves in the quirky Brian, but it’s the film’s desire to be specific instead of some idea of universal that makes it work. Brian doesn’t have an easy life, but neither do a lot of teenagers. Heck, most adults, too.
At its core, Chelsea Devantez’s “Basic” is also about people figuring out who they are through the emotionally fraught world of social media and ex-partners. It turns that high school isn’t the only place where popularity and identity lead to irrational behavior. In this case, it’s the story of a woman who becomes obsessed with her boyfriend’s ex-girlfriend, thinking that her perfect online persona is a challenge to her own happiness. Of course, there’s more to her than meets the Instagram.
Ashley Park is excellent as Gloria, a woman who wonders why her boyfriend Nick (Taylor John Smith) doesn’t post any photos of them online. After all, he posted non-stop when he dated the gorgeous Kaylinn (Leighton Meester), and so Gloria is constantly seeing photos of Nick in a happy relationship with someone else. It doesn’t help that Kaylinn has resurfaced in their online life, commenting on one of Nick’s photos. What does she want? Gloria decides to turn her cyberstalking into the real thing and tracks down Kaylinn, only to realize that jealousy goes both ways.
The best elements of “Basic” illuminate how so much of our online lives are a lie. We can only see part of the picture when we look at happy couples on our social feeds, and we make assumptions about how much better other people have it than we do, forgetting that everyone shapes their online lives to give a desired effect. Park and Meester are excellent, finding different comic rhythms that truly allows “Basic” to become more than its title. The first half can feel a little thin, and the whole thing relies way too much on voiceover, but that falls away with Meester and Park’s comic chemistry as two very different women who discover their common ground.
The characters in Victoria Strouse’s “Seekers of Infinite Love” are also trying to find common ground, but none of it feels true enough to register beyond their thin characters in a sitcom plot. A new entry in one of my least favorite subgenres—comedies about families who have to go on a road trip to learn to be decent to each other—“Seekers” stars some incredibly talented people, but they get lost in a film that doesn’t have actual human behavior. It’s one of those movies in which the characters are pushed around by sitcom beats instead of doing or saying things that feel organic. Some of the laughs come just because this cast is so undeniably talented, but they eventually succumb to a project that never really figured out what it was seeking.
Strouse was smart to cast her film with people who have proven their skill at acerbic comedy, especially the wonderful “Hacks” Emmy winner Hannah Einbinder, who plays Kayla. She arrives at her lawyer brother’s (John Reynolds of “Search Party”) office with her brother (Griffin Gluck of “American Vandal”) only to learn that their sister Scarlett (Justine Lupe) has joined the cult that gives this film its title. Scarlett’s siblings hire an expert in cult extraction (Justin Theroux) to get her back, but Kayla’s fear of flying forces them into a road trip to retrieve Scarlett before a mass suicide makes that impossible.
Clearly, this ensemble knows how to sell a broad comedy that features pit stops at a fat camp and a car chase after a child is kidnapped, but they can’t push through the sitcomish nature of the overall script enough to sell it. We end up knowing almost nothing about these characters other than how they annoy each other (and us), making it difficult to root for them to reach their destination. In a SXSW of comedies about where we’re going, this one gets lost.
- SXSW 2026: Never After Dark, Dreamquil, Drag (March 20, 2026)
My final genre-centered dispatch from SXSW 2026 features three films that mostly take place in single settings, using storytelling devices made famous by everything from J-Horror to “Black Mirror.” They’re a mixed bag of quality, three films that have undeniably interesting premises but vary in how they follow through on those premises. Once again, filmmakers at SXSW seem to wear their influences on their sleeves with these flicks including nods to Hideo Nakata and, believe it or not, Douglas Sirk. You never know what you’re gonna see in Austin.
The best of the three by some margin is Dave Boyle’s effective “Never After Dark,” a nod to Japanese and South Korean horror films like “Ringu” and, most effectively, “A Tale of Two Sisters.” Like much of the horror from that part of the world in the ‘90s and ‘00s, “Never After Dark” is a story about how real-world violence creates ruptures that bring forth supernatural reckonings. It’s one of the better-made films I saw in Austin this year in terms of craft, a work that builds atmosphere and tension to a truly insane final act. Some of the slow burn of the first two acts sizzles a little too slowly, but it gets to something memorably intense, especially for those with a particular aversion to people losing their teeth in horror movies. Ew.
“Shogun” star Moeka Hoshi is excellent as Airi, a traveling medium who we first believe is going to her newest job with her sister in the backseat, only to discover that the sibling isn’t really there, a sort of “Sixth Sense” companion for our protagonist, one that can only be seen in reflections. This sets up Airi as the real deal; she’s no charlatan looking to grift the grieving. After all, she has a ghost for a BFF.
Airi arrives at a remote country home that’s haunted by a grotesquely disfigured man who stalks the property at night. Our medium has techniques for this kind of thing that allow her to “pierce the veil” to determine what the ghosts need, but this one behaves differently. When Airi discovers that the supernatural elements of this story aren’t nearly as deadly as the living ones, “Never After Dark” becomes an intense thriller, using imagery that recalls great horror films without ever feeling like a direct copy.
Hoshi’s deeply present, engaged performance is one of the main reasons “Never After Dark” works so well, but it’s also an undeniably well-made piece of horror filmmaking in terms of craft. Boyle glides his camera up and down the stairs of this perfect setting, one of those old homes that feels haunted even before bloody figures prowl its halls. He knows how to get a lot of mileage out of a figure in the background or, in the final act, sudden violence. It’s a film that may not live entirely up to the best of its influences, but it’s made by someone who clearly understands why those films have become such an important part of horror history.
One of the oddest films of this year’s SXSW is Alex Prager’s “Dreamquil,” an unexpected blend of Sirkian melodrama and something more akin to “The Twilight Zone” or “Black Mirror.” Ultimately, it’s way too thin a script, one that just doesn’t have enough narrative or thematic meat on its bones, even if I admired some of the more unusual swings of its design.
“Dreamquil” unfolds in a probably inevitable future in which the air quality has become so toxic that people exist mostly in virtual reality. If you think your family is driving you crazy now, imagine how it will be when you can’t leave the house anymore. Carol (Elizabeth Banks) and Gary (John C. Reilly) are struggling through a rough patch in their marriage, heightened by the claustrophobia of this vision of the future. They’re presented with a virtual wellness retreat called “Dreamquil,” which will allow Carol to recharge and return committed to her marriage and son. Much to Carol’s surprise, while she was away, Gary brought in an AI version of his wife, someone who does many of the same things as the real Carol … but better.
What would you do if you were replaced by an AI version of yourself? And would you replace your own partner with a version that never complained? These are questions at the core of this “Black Mirror” premise, but Prager doesn’t add enough new to the conversation.
Much better than the shallow script are the design choices that make “Dreamquil” look like a ’50s melodrama with bright colors in costume design and old-fashioned elements to the art direction, too. It’s a visually effective trick that heightens the sense of displacement, and it’s nice to see a film at this year’s fest that takes these elements seriously, given how often I was frustrated by the lack of visual language at SXSW. I just wish it were lifting up a more interesting project.
Speaking of failed potential, there’s Raviv Ullman & Greg Yagolnitzer’s bleak “Drag,” a movie that starts with a clever conceit but devolves into something so brutal and downright mean that it leaves a bad taste in your mouth. Its star remains a wonderfully physical and impressive performer, but she can’t keep this one from living up to its title. It’s a drag, man.
The star is the great Lizzy Caplan, who plays a burglar breaking into a fancy home one night with her reticent sister (Lucy DeVito). Sis is just supposed to be the getaway driver, but she runs into the McMansion when she hears a scream, only to find Caplan’s character immobile in the bathtub after throwing out her back. The only solution here is simple: one sister will have to drag the other out of the house before the owner returns. Little do they know that the man of the house (John Stamos) is a serial killer.
What starts with an almost comical premise, as the relatively short DeVito is forced to physically drag Caplan down the hall and push her down the stairs, becomes something much darker in the second half, and the directors can’t handle the tone switch and don’t really earn the truly depressing ending. Part of the problem is that the jolt of the clever casting of seeing Uncle Jesse go Patrick Bateman wears off when one realizes he’s just not quite right for the part. He’s not believably menacing, which turns “Drag” into an exercise in cruelty without actual stakes. It’s always a joy to see Caplan do her thing, but she should drag whoever convinced her to sign onto this one.
- “The Faithful: Women of the Bible” Doesn’t Match the Grandeur of its Premise (March 20, 2026)
For people of faith who just want to see Bible stories on screen, Fox’s “The Faithful: Women of the Bible” will work. It’s essentially a series of three made-for-TV movies that tell different Old Testament stories from women’s perspectives.
The first film, “The Woman Who Bowed to No One,” which was the only one given to critics, dramatizes the journey of Sarah (Minnie Driver) and Hagar (Natacha Karam). In this version, Abraham (Jeffrey Donovan) is a side character, and Sarah is a force to be reckoned with.
These stories have endured for thousands of years, at least in part, because there’s real meat on them. What must it have felt like for Sarah, desperate to have a child, to recommend that her beloved husband sleep with another woman? And then for Sarah to raise that baby as her own? And for Hagar, who is certainly grateful to have escaped the Pharaoh and find herself with kinder masters in Sarah and Abraham—what did she feel trying to give the baby up but remain near it? What sort of life was that?
THE FAITHFUL: L-R: Minnie Driver and Natacha Karam in “The Woman Who Bowed to No One/The Woman Who Spoke to God” two episode presentation of THE FAITHFUL airing Sunday, March 22 (8:00-10:00 PM ET/PT) on FOX. CR: FOX. © 2026 FOX Media LLC.
These questions echo some of our current conversations around surrogacy, but of course, they go in a different, more faith-specific direction.
And that direction is not inherently bad, but “The Faithful” doesn’t exactly pull it off. Part of the problem is that the show needs more table-setting. Yes, a large portion of its audience will know these stories. But we are also modern media consumers, and we expect shows (or a series of made-for-TV movies) to build the world we step into when we turn on our screens.
“The Faithful” mostly skips all that. So it’s not entirely clear if we’re in our own logical world or one of miracles. Obviously, that’s a problem of adapting this particular subject matter—it’s supposed to be true and holy. Magical realism, if you will. And some adaptations of that genre have worked recently, capturing the thrust of their source material by keeping the magic extraordinary and ordinary.
Productions like Netflix’s “Cien Años de Soledad” and HBO’s “Like Water for Chocolate” work because they are sumptuous. Watching them, it feels like you could step into Macondo or revolutionary Mexico. You can taste these places, smell them. And since they feel so rich, when a curse becomes real, or food literally transmits emotions, that too feels real.
Unfortunately, “The Faithful” doesn’t take that track. Its aesthetic is more of your local nativity play, the kind where kids perform with blankets over their heads, secured with braided ribbons (if they’re lucky).
Surely an IP as important as The Bible deserves a higher budget. Hagar’s wigs are distractingly bad. The costumes are only slightly better than my Vacation Bible School’s productions in the nineties. The voice-of-God effect… is a voiceover.
THE FAITHFUL: L-R: Tom Mison and Alexa Davalos in “The Woman Who Risked Everything” two episode presentation of THE FAITHFUL airing Sunday, March 29 (8:00-10:00 PM ET/PT) on FOX. CR: FOX. © 2026 FOX Media LLC.
It just doesn’t match the grandeur of the project.
And there’s another problem. Sarah’s episode is called “The Woman Who Bowed to No One,” and it opens with a scene in which a young Sarah refuses to bow to the man her parents want her to marry. She rejects him and ends up with Abraham. Which is nice, but is basically every plucky, on-screen heroine of the last 35 years.
Later, it takes actual divine intervention to save Sarah from other men who would have her bow to them. But since we don’t meet anyone else, and the show refuses to do any world building, their reactions ot Sarah make no sense. Why is she so alluring to them? Is she different from other women? How?
This show doesn’t take the time to answer that question, and so Sarah feels ordinary to our 21 century sensibilities even as “The Faithful” insists she’s anything but. And that disconnect creates a barrier to the show’s humanizing aim, keeping us at a distance from these characters rather than allowing us to feel their struggles.
And there are other odd choices that undercut the film’s reason for being. For example, we see Hagar giving birth and the pains that go with it, but we don’t see Sarah’s. Narratively, that’s such a missed opportunity. Hagar’s pregnancy conforms to the natural order, so there’s nothing much interesting in her birthing sequence. Sarah, though, is way past the age when even modern women give birth. So what’s it like to get a baby out at that age? And thousands of years ago at that? For unknown reasons, “The Faithful” doesn’t go there, refusing to get into some of the messy questions a truly feminine retelling of the Bible would ask.
Which is to say, there’s not enough in “The Faithful” to entice viewers who aren’t hungry to see Bible stories on screen. And that’s a shame, because there’s a real idea here to do something more than make background noise for Easter egg hunts. Unfortunately, “The Faithful” seems to think it has a captive audience with its retelling of Sarah and Hagar’s tale, rather than finally giving these complicated women the respect they deserve.
- Prime Video’s “Jury Duty” Acquits Itself Nicely With Its Followup, “Company Retreat” (March 19, 2026)
2023’s “Jury Duty” was one of TV’s most pleasant surprises that year—tucked away on Amazon’s now-defunct ad-supported streamer, Freevee, it was a curious blend of courtroom drama, reality TV, and prank show that positioned an unsuspecting subject (in that season’s case, mild-mannered juror Ronald Gladden) in the middle of a fake scenario (a court case) and surrounded him entirely with actors playing characters. Gags and plot developments were meticulously planned around him, an entire “Truman Show” ecosystem designed purely to befuddle one ordinary man who didn’t know he was in the middle of a semi-improvised sitcom.
For all its flaws, “Jury Duty” worked like gangbusters, so naturally a second season comes quick on its heels. The problem is, you have to start from scratch; Ronald knows the score, and a second court case would just be treading familiar ground. So showrunners Lee Eisenberg and Gene Stupnitsky, veterans of “The Office,” head back to terra firma by setting this season’s scenario not in a courtroom, but a cozy “Company Retreat” for a fictional company. And wouldn’t you know it, it might be better than the first?
The upgrade “Company Retreat” represents is one of refinement, as Eisenberg, Stupnitsky, and director Jake Szymanski (“Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates”) hone in on the elements that made the first season work so well, while jettisoning or downplaying what didn’t. This time, we’re treated to the week-long corporate retreat of Rockin’ Grandma’s Hot Sauce, a fictional family business whose patriarch, Doug (Jerry Hauck), plans to retire and leave the biz to his stoner failson Dougie (Alex Bonifer), who it won’t surprise you to learn just returned from a years-long stint in Jamaica, with all the patois to go with it. (He’s like if Wyatt Koch was also Ras Trent.)
Dougie Jr. (Alex Bonifer), Doug (Jerry Hauck), Anthony
Enter Anthony Norman, our mark, a gregarious young man with a brilliant smile and an eager-to-please nature who’s thrilled to be joining the company as a temporary assistant for the company’s HR head, the deeply corny Kevin (Ryan Perez), who dons a captain’s hat Day One and declares himself “Captain Fun” at the upstate ranch where they’ll be retreating. But when Kevin gets embarrassed by a botched proposal to fellow employee Amy (Emily Pendergast) and flees the ranch, Anthony suddenly gets promoted to Captain Fun. More than a fly on the wall, he’s fully incorporated into this little company family, one awkward interaction at a time, and finds himself in the middle of a David-and-Goliath story to save his scrappy small business from being sold to a soulless corporation (seemingly staffed entirely by redheads).
And this is where “Company Retreat”‘s protagonist sets himself apart from “Jury Duty”‘s funny, but reserved, Ronald: He jumps into the role headfirst. The first season leaned on its out-there cast of characters, led by movie star James Marsden as a preening fictionalized version of himself, to carry their “hero” through the season. And granted, “Company Retreat” has its fair share of endearing oddballs, whether it’s Jim Woods’ warehouse manager Jimmy, who’s got a lot of white guilt in his past to overcome, or Rachel Kaly’s disaffected work-from-home employee Claire, who’ll power through a crab allergy because she just loves it so damn much.
But whether it’s the company setting or just their subject’s innate charisma and extroversion, “Company Retreat” actually manages to make Anthony feel like a protagonist rather than a straight-man outsider. Anthony takes charge, invests deeply in the constructed characters around him, and unwittingly makes himself an integral part of this fake company. He rolls with every curveball the show throws at him, whether it’s a frenzied room-search for a box of stolen Cool Ranch Doritos or a climactic race to stop Doug from signing his company away. (Late in the show, he delivers a rousing speech to save the business that, ironically, you could NOT write. It’s enough to drive you to tears.)
Kate (Erica Hernandez), Claire (Rachel Kaly), PJ (Marc-Sully Saint-Fleur), Kevin (Ryan Perez), Jackie (LaNisa Frederick)
It helps, of course, that the show never feels like it’s poking fun at Anthony directly or making him look the fool. There’s a deep well of empathy running through both seasons of “Jury Duty,” where the subjects are faced with outlandish scenarios and receive them with, frankly, admirable grace. Watch Anthony’s restraint at figuring out that one employee has been drinking from what he thought was a large water bottle but was, in fact, a Fleshlight, or the way he leans in to a group watch of an episode of “Bones” at one employee’s insistence. “I feel like I’m on a TV show, but this is not something that you can just make up,” Anthony says early on; it’s so ridiculous, in fact, that he simply must accept them as reality and navigate it as best he can.
And that, of course, is the thorny dilemma that lies under the “Jury Duty” premise: What are the ethics of deceiving someone this thoroughly for weeks on end? Especially when, unlike last season, this is someone who’s been told he’s been gainfully employed, only to find out the company he thinks he’s saved, and the friends he’s made, were never real? As with Season 1, we get the required rug-pull, and the finale episode where we see all of the logistical legerdomain necessary to pull off the prank, and it’s as impressive as it is heartwarming. The cast all talk to him about feeling a kinship with Anthony, and he admits as much in return. But can you, when it’s all built on a lie?
But it’s easy to put these niggling ethical questions aside when “Jury Duty Presents: Company Retreat” manages to pull off the impossible feat of making lightning strike twice. All while making the subject of its deception look not like a rube, but frankly a saint who brings out the best in everyone around him. And to do that while also delivering some deeply cringe laughs is nothing short of miraculous.
Whole season screened for review. Premieres March 20th on Prime Video.
- A Screenwriter’s Dream—and Nightmare: Drew Goddard on “Project Hail Mary” (March 19, 2026)
Screenwriter Drew Goddard reteamed with “The Martian” author Andy Weir to return to space with “Project Hail Mary.” It stars Ryan Gosling as a teacher-turned astronaut who joins forces with an alien to discover why all the stars except one are dying.
In an interview, Goddard talked about writing dialogue for smart characters, why his favorite scene is one he didn’t write, and what he would ask the alien character if he had the chance.
This interview has been edited for clarity and length.
How do you translate the dense technical and scientific information into a visual medium with a very limited runtime?
Part of that is just the challenge of any adaptation. I learned early that just wordcount-wise, I’ve got about 5 percent of the words in a screenplay that an average novel has. So, you just know going in that you’re going to have to make some tough calls. And so I tend to just focus on what I emotionally connect to in a novel.
Andy’s work is pretty easy because I connect so strongly with his writing. And I start with the soul of the story, which in this case was the story of two individuals coming together from opposite ends of this galaxy to try to save the universe, and I build from there.
There’s a scene with those two individuals in a small space that recalls Neil Simon’s “The Odd Couple.”
We did talk about that! We wanted to embrace the reality of a first-contact situation as much as we could, really play with the small interpersonal details that could happen in a situation like this, and embrace the minutiae of communication, which delighted us.
In some ways, this book is a screenwriter’s nightmare because most of the scenes are between two individuals, one of whom can’t exist in our atmosphere, doesn’t have a face, and speaks in whale songs. You take away all of the methods of communication that would make things simpler for us. Not having eyes is such a huge visual mountain to climb because eyes are so expressive.
Chris Miller and Phil Lord, our directors, and I were all a little scared, but we also realized early that the whole point would be to force our hero, Ryland Grace, to see the world through somebody else’s point of view. It was like forced empathy, as we would describe it.
And as we developed it and made it challenging, the very challenges became the point of the movie.
How did hearing Ryan Gosling deliver some of those lines affect you?
I just described this as a screenwriter’s nightmare. The part of it that’s a screenwriter’s dream is stepping into a Ryan Gosling-led project because he has such a staggering range.
Part of what I loved about the book is that it swings from comedy to drama, from heartbreak to terror. Constantly, we’re switching emotional gears. And not every actor can be comfortable doing that. Whereas Ryan lives in that. You look at his body of work. He is not afraid to go for broad comedy. He’s not afraid to break your heart. He can play terror. He can play suspense. He can play literally anything you want to give him.
Usually, no actors are on the project when I’m writing, but Ryan signed on to the movie before I did. So, for the first time in my career, I was writing without fear. There’s always a part of you when you’re writing for the unknown, where you’re protecting yourself to give you the most options possible. And you end up writing it down the middle.
With Ryan, I knew I didn’t have to do that. I knew I could swing for the fences with every page.
Is it daunting to try to write dialogue for characters who are super smart about science and engineering?
The good news is I have Andy Weir. It’s sort of like my own secret weapon because Andy is much smarter than me. He has much more scientific knowledge than most people I’ve met. So I always knew I wasn’t going to try to outsmart Andy. My job here is actually to capture the way smart people sound. Rather than being smart. That’s sort of freeing.
And I’m comfortable around scientists. I grew up around scientists in Los Alamos, New Mexico, which is Oppenheimer’s town. I’ve just simmered in that broth for a long time. I know what geniuses sound like, and my job is to capture that. And then when I would screw it up, Andy was always there to say, like, “I know what you’re trying to say here, but the smarter way to say it is this way.” So it was very much a collaboration.
The engineering side doesn’t get enough credit. I’m so happy you noticed that, because there’s an engineering mindset where they just don’t take no for an answer. There’s no right or wrong with an engineer. It’s just, “We haven’t figured it out yet.” That is the way they approach any problem. It’s not that they failed to solve it. It’s that they just haven’t solved it yet.
That’s a wonderful way to view both a problem and the world. And you can feel that with Rocky. He is never dissuaded. He’s always coming up with the next thing to try and isn’t afraid of failing at it. And it was exhilarating to live in that space.
You’ve created a non-linear story before, as in “Bad Times at the El Royale.” What does that do for the narrative?
It absolutely was one of the great challenges of the book and the story in general. We jump back in time, sort of between past and present. We played with that a lot, but at the end of the day, the movie largely follows the book’s structure. I do believe the first rule of adaptation is “do no harm,” so if I loved it in the book, I try to make it work in the screenplay.
Part of what I think people will discover as they watch is that they present themselves as sort of standard flashbacks, but as the movie continues, you start to reveal things that are not just the average flashback. They start to reveal things that happen that fundamentally change the present that you’re watching, and that’s part of what made it so exhilarating, honestly. That’s why we decided to keep it that way: we realized, as we got into the last third of the movie, that the juxtaposition between past and present became one thing and led us into really interesting territory.
One scene that was not in the book was the karaoke scene, which adds a lot of poignancy and heart to the story.
It’s a fun thing to be the screenwriter on a movie, and my favorite scene is one I have nothing to do with! But it’s true. We did have a scene, in the flashback, where the potential crew of the Hail Mary is meeting for camaraderie. We call it a calm before the storm scene. In the description, it was “just people are singing karaoke in the background.” We just wanted a chance to show them connecting before things start to go bad.
Chris and Phil started saying, “We should have some of our cast members sing karaoke.” And then that became Ryan hearing Sandra Hüller and saying, “Sandra should sing because she’s an extraordinary singer.” And it really came together in 24 hours before it started being shot. Everyone was sort of gently asking Sandra to please sing, and she picked the song. And now I cannot imagine this movie without that song.
To me, that moment of Sandra singing captures the whole soul of the movie, both what the first half has and what’s to come in the second half. It’s one of those things that if we tried to pick a better song, we wouldn’t have been able to. Sometimes the movie gods just smile on you, and these small things really make the movie transcend. I loved writing [Hüller’s character] Stratt.
Why?
I am a product of women believing in me even when I did not believe in myself. It starts with my mom, who was a schoolteacher for 50 years. It continues through writers like Lucia Berlin, who saw something in me and believed in me, and it continues through studio presidents like Mary Parent, Amy Pascal, and Emma Watts.
I saw a lot of these women in Stratt, Women who are tasked with leading great endeavors and finding a way to do it with compassion, even when the weight of their decisions is greater than any of us could really understand. I think all of that found its way into this movie.
It’s unusual to have a middle school teacher as a hero in a film with a lot of technology and science.
This movie is about teachers saving the universe. I read the book and just immediately fell in love with the idea of a schoolteacher saving the universe. I have a personal connection through my mom, but I just have a deep love for teachers, teaching, and learning. It felt like something that deserves to be celebrated. Quite honestly, I don’t think we can celebrate teachers enough. And if we can do it here with this movie, we have a chance to, at the very least, give them a small piece of the credit they deserve.
When I read the book, I thought to myself, oh, I have to do this. I have to do this for the teachers.
If you had a chance to talk to Rocky, what would you want to ask him?
I would ask him more about his mate. We touch on his mate Adrian, and he lets us know that they’ve been together a very long time, and it’s definitely a side of Rocky I’d like to learn more about, and also about the other Eridians he’s fond of. You can learn a lot about anyone by asking about their loved ones.
- Ciaran Hinds Journeys Across Ireland in 'The Three Urns' Film Trailer (March 21, 2026)
"Maybe we'll meet – up there." "Maybe we'll all meet up there..." Break Out Pictures has debuted an official trailer for a film titled The Three Urns from Ireland, a road trip comedy from two Irish filmmakers. This premiered at the 2026 Dublin Film Festival and opens in Ireland starting in April, though still no word on when it will show up in the US for release. Back in his home country to spread the ashes of his beloved wife, a man races to his destination. In a milk float. Chased by a beautiful French woman in a smart car, plagued with battery issues. Written and directed by filmmaker John-Paul Davidson and Oscar-winning composer Stephen Warbeck, this gentle character piece turns a pilgrimage into a moving search for connection and meaning. The great Irish actor Ciaran Hinds stars as "The Man" back home in Ireland, along with Olga Kurylenko, Lisa Dwan, Stephen Dillane, Stephen Fry, Sinéad Cusack, Ingeborga Dapkunaite. This looks charming and amusing – a good romp through Ireland meeting plenty of kooky characters. Enjoy. // Continue Reading ›
- Review: Lord & Miller's 'Project Hail Mary' is Modern Sci-Fi Perfection (March 20, 2026)
"Grace Rocky Save Stars!!" It's finally here. Rocky and Ryland, space buddies, in a story about saving our worlds. Project Hail Mary is a cinematic adaptation of the bestselling book written by Andy Weir. A full 11 years after we got to experience The Martian with Matt Damon, another Andy Weir adaptation, his words are back on the big screen in this interstellar story about using science and ingenuity and creativity to solve existential problems. Acclaimed directors Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, best known as just "Lord & Miller", are the directors behind this big screen adaptation and they've knocked it out of the park. Project Hail Mary is an intellectual space movie with built-in levity that is design to be more of a character study about what it takes to solve great problems. It's a sci-fi spectacle, for sure, but it's not an epic space action movie. Most of it takes place inside a spaceship, a set they built for real on sound stages, with limited green screen. And the best part about it is Rocky, an alien friend he meets on his mission, who is brought to life by puppetry as a practical character performed for real on set and not something created with CGI later on. I couldn't be happier with Project Hail Mary - it's everything anyone could want from a space movie & more. // Continue Reading ›
- Official Trailer for Zach Galifianakis's 'This Is a Gardening Show' Series (March 20, 2026)
"What we're leaving this next generation, they may have to know this stuff." Yep! Better learn how to grow your own veggies for a better future. 🌱 Netflix has unveiled an official trailer for a calming new series called This Is a Gardening Show, literally a show about gardens, hosted by Zach Galifianakis, Reminds me of the series "Painting with John" on HBO, which is also calm and meditative. This Is A Gardening Show is a refreshing and whimsical take on gardening. Blending lighthearted comedy with a sincere appreciation for humans & nature. "He is genuinely interested in how to grow stuff," states director Brook Linder. "Making this show often felt like Zach's excuse to talk to other gardeners. I kinda think his garden was struggling and he needed help he couldn’t get by walking up to these people in their backyard. You will see a grown man honestly gasp when shown the proper way to plant a seed. This is peak TV." Yep and I cannot wait to watch. Looks wholesome and funny in all the right ways. Now I want to sample some of Zach's homegrown veggies. // Continue Reading ›
- 18th Century Comedy Film 'Savage House' Trailer with Richard E. Grant (March 20, 2026)
"You're an acquired taste, sir." Paramount UK has revealed a fun official trailer for a British kooky comedy called Savage House, the latest film made by filmmaker Peter Glanz, who wrote ad directed this. It's ready for a release in UK cinemas starting in June this summer, but still has no final US release date set yet. While this is very British, I think US audiences will be just as amused. Set in 18th century England during pox outbreak and Jacobite uprising, Sir Chauncey and Lady Savage blindly pursue better life. Their pursuit filled with ironic decadence and bloodshed. A darkly satirical play on class and power. "Duels erupt like sudden thunderstorms, alliances crumble over candlelit dinners, and the Savages’ stately home becomes a stage for absurdity and brutality alike." Staring Richard E. Grant as Sir Chauncey Savage & Claire Foy as Lady Savage, with Bel Powley, Kila Lord Cassidy, Jack Farthing, Richard McCabe, Vicki Pepperdine, and Pip Torrens. This looks bonkers! An all-out wacky comedy like The Favourite – should be a fun time. // Continue Reading ›
- Poker Game Thriller 'The Highest Stakes' Trailer Starring Seth Green (March 19, 2026)
"You're not just playing for money anymore!" Paramount Movies has revealed an official trailer for an indie thriller called The Highest Stakes, set around a high stakes poker game. This is getting dropped direct-to-VOD in April if anyone is curious to find out where it goes. Almost like an Escape Room combined with a poker night - which seems unsettling. Five strangers are invited into a New Orleans hotel for a high-stakes poker game. What begins as a contest for fortune quickly spirals into something very dangerous. As tensions rise & secrets surface, the players realize the stakes aren’t just about money—they’re about survival. In a night of escalating peril, trust becomes a weapon, and every last choice could seal their fate. Starring Seth Green, Kevin Dillon, Charlie Weber, Dylan Walsh, Eloise Lovell Anderson, Chloe Fox, and Dan Bucatinsky. Despite an intriguing concept, this looks like a low-stakes junk movie to skip without worries. // Continue Reading ›
