- “Get Out” Star Betty Gabriel and “Nuremberg” Director James Vanderbilt to Attend Ebertfest 2026 (April 17, 2026)
Chaz Ebert and Festival Director Nate Kohn are thrilled to announce the addition of two more Special Guests at Ebertfest 2026: The Last Dance, it’s 27th and final edition, in Champaign, Illinois, today, April 17th, and tomorrow, April 18th. At today’s screening of Jordan Peele‘s Oscar-winning “Get Out” we are fortunate to have actress Betty Gabriel, in attendance for the post-screening Q&A. Gabriel’s spellbinding performance stands as one of the film’s many highlights, and is among the numerous impressive achievements in her career, which includes roles on TV shows such as “Westworld,” “Good Girls Revolt” and “Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan” as well as films including “Upgrade,” “It Lives Inside” and “Novocaine.”
We are also pleased to be welcoming talented writer/director James Vanderbilt, with his epic “Nuremberg.” He will be participating in a post-screening Q&A with Sony Pictures Classics Co-Founder and Co-President Michael Barker (whose films have graced the Ebertfest screens for many years.) Mr. Vanderbilt’s directorial debut, 2015’s “Truth,” starred Robert Redford as “60 Minutes” anchor Dan Rather, while his script for David Fincher’s 2007 film “Zodiac” received rave reviews. Other notable credits in his remarkable career include penning the screenplays for “The Amazing Spider-Man,” “White House Down” and 2022’s successful “Scream” reboot.
Presented by Century Law Firm, this milestone year marks a poignant farewell to one of the most beloved film festivals in the country, celebrating a legacy rooted in empathy, storytelling, and the communal power of cinema. Ebertfest will kick off at 9am on April 17th with Libby Ewing’s Tribeca prize-winner, “Charliebird,” with its star and writer, Samantha Smart, in attendance. The film will be presented in partnership with the Alliance for Inclusion and Respect, and follows a music therapist who forms an unexpected bond with a young patient, unlocking the buried grief of her past in a journey of connection, loss, and healing.
The festival’s second scheduled screening at 11:25am will be James Vanderbilt’s acclaimed ensemble piece, “Nuremberg,” starring Russell Crowe, Rami Malek, Leo Woodall, John Slattery, and Mark O’Brien, with Richard E. Grant and Michael Shannon. Set as the Nuremberg trials are about to begin, the film follows a U.S. Army psychiatrist who becomes locked in a gripping psychological confrontation with accused Nazi war criminal Hermann Göring, delivering a tense and timely examination of justice, power, and moral reckoning.
Following a break for lunch will be Luke Boyce and Michael Moreci’s new documentary on Roger Ebert, “The Last Movie Critic,” at 3:30pm. Through the voices of filmmakers Ebert championed and the words he left behind, it explores how one man’s deep and abiding love for cinema became a gift to audiences everywhere, serving as a celebration of movies, empathy, and the belief that what we watch together can make us more human. Jennifer Shelby served as an Executive Producer on projects, while Chaz Ebert, Nate Kohn, and Brett Hays are among the producers. The picture is a production of Shatterglass Films, for which Boyce and Hays have documented Ebertfest and interviewed its guests for over a decade.
One of 2025’s beloved crowd-pleasers, “Bob Trevino Likes It,” will screen at 5:10pm with its writer/director Tracie Laymon and star French Stewart in attendance. Inspired by a true story, the film follows Lily Trevino (Barbie Ferreira), a young woman navigating abandonment and emotional isolation, who forms an unexpected and transformative friendship with a stranger (John Leguizamo) online.
After a dinner break, Friday will conclude with an 8:50pm screening of Jordan Peele’s galvanizing modern classic, “Get Out.” Winner of the Best Original Screenplay Oscar, the 2017 film follows Chris (Daniel Kaluuya) as he accompanies his girlfriend Rose (Allison Williams) for a weekend visit to meet her parents (Bradley Whitford and Catherine Keener), only to uncover a series of increasingly disturbing revelations that lead to a shocking and horrifying truth. The film also features memorable turns by Lil Rel Howery, Caleb Landry Jones and the evening’s special guest, Betty Gabriel, who will participate in a Q&A with Fulbright Scholar Dr. Douglas Arnell Williams afterward.
Moviegoers who catch the first show on April 18th are in for a serious treat: a 9am screening of Buster Keaton’s 100-year-old uproarious masterpiece, “The General,” with its score performed live by The Anvil Orchestra. One of the most revered comedies of the silent era, the film follows Southern railroad engineer Johnny Gray, who must pursue Union soldiers after his train—and his beloved Annabelle Lee—are taken during the Civil War, leading to a series of inventive and daring comedic set pieces. Renowned organist Dr. Steven Ball will also be bringing his own live signature musical interludes between each screening this year.
One of Roger’s favorite filmmakers, Gregory Nava, will return to Ebertfest for a 10:25pm screening of his marvelous 1995 film, “My Family (Mi Familia).” Starring Jimmy Smits, Esai Morales, Jennifer Lopez, Edward James Olmos, and Constance Marie, the film tells the story of a second-generation Mexican immigrant who narrates his family history, beginning with the journey of his father, Jose, across Mexico to Los Angeles where he meets Maria and starts a family. Each subsequent generation contends with political and social hardships, ranging from illegal deportations in the 1940s to racial tensions and gang conflicts in the 1960s and 1970s. Yet through it all, the family remains strong, bound together by resilience, love, and shared history.
Following a lunch break that will offer festival goers the opportunity to sample Mexican dishes courtesy of Mo’s Burritos, a live theatrical production will take place at 2:30pm on the Virginia’s stage. Under the direction of Katlin Schneider, Windy City actors Stephen Winchell and Zack Mast will channel the titular roles in Siskel/Ebert, a hilarious recreation of the critics’ infamous 1987 episode of their groundbreaking show, in which they debated the merits of such titles as “Full Metal Jacket,” “Benji the Hunted” and “Spaceballs.”
Acting icons John Goodman and Judy Greer will then take the stage at 3:40pm, along with co-directors Edd Benda and Stephen Helstad, as they present their dark comedy, “Chili Finger,” which earned raves following its recent premiere at SXSW. Shot in and around Ebert’s hometown, the film centers on Greer’s character as she discovers a severed finger in her chili, which prompts her to blackmail a fast-food chain, only to attract dangerous attention. Rounding out the impressive cast are Sean Astin, Bryan Cranston, and Madeline Wise.
The subsequent dinner break (which is guaranteed to include no severed limbs) will lead to the final film of Ebertfest, a 7:25pm screening of 1995’s euphoric “The American President,” directed by the late Rob Reiner. Starring Michael Douglas and Annette Bening, and written by Aaron Sorkin, the film remains a defining work of modern American cinema, blending idealism, romance, and political discourse with uncommon warmth and intelligence. The screening will serve as a centerpiece of this year’s festival, celebrating Reiner’s enduring influence and his alignment with the thoughtful, audience-centered filmmaking championed by the festival’s late co-founder, Roger Ebert.
“We are especially honored to recognize Rob Reiner this year,” said Chaz Ebert. “I had the pleasure of inviting Rob to Ebertfest last year, and while he wasn’t able to attend at the time, he shared how much he was looking forward to joining us in the future. To now celebrate his extraordinary body of work and his deep commitment to storytelling feels incredibly meaningful. We are also proud to honor Robert Redford for his immeasurable contributions to independent filmmaking; his vision helped create a path for generations of filmmakers to tell bold, personal stories.”
Ebertfest 2026: The Last Dance is dedicated to the memory of both Reiner and Redford, two towering figures in the film industry whom both Roger and Chaz greatly admired. Of Redford, Roger wrote, “His Sundance Institute is a workshop where veterans work with young directors, writers and actors, improving films that often get made and praised. No single person has done more for the independent film movement.” Chaz served on the Sundance Jury and also started a program taking Ebert Fellows to the Sundance Film Festival. This evolved into Sundance’s program giving more chances to Film Critics of color to fully participate in the festival.
Roger’s four-star review of Reiner’s “The American President,” began by noting, “It is hard to make a good love story, harder to make a good comedy and harder still to make an intelligent film about politics. Rob Reiner’s ‘The American President’ cheerfully does all three, and is a great entertainment – one of those films, like ‘Forrest Gump’ or ‘Apollo 13,’ that however briefly unites the audience in a reprise of the American dream.”
The majority of individual seating tickets for Ebertfest 2026 are $20, plus an additional processing fee of $3. Select titles are $10 plus an additional processing fee of $2. A Reserved 1-Day Festival Pass is available for $75.00 plus a $6.00 processing fee. An Individual Reserved Seating Festival Pass, which includes admission to all films, is $150 plus a $9.00 processing fee per pass. Get tickets here.
Ebertfest was founded in 1999 by Roger and Chaz Ebert, with Professor Nate Kohn as Festival Director. Roger Ebert was a Pulitzer Prize-winning film critic for the Chicago Sun-Times, University of Illinois journalism alumnus, and Urbana native. Chaz Ebert is also the author of the indie bestseller It’s Time to Give A FECK: Elevating Humanity through Forgiveness, Empathy, Compassion, and Kindness. Ebertfest is hosted by Chaz Ebert and Nate Kohn.
To become a supporting Festival Sponsor please contact Sonia Evans – sonia@ebertdigital.com.
For additional information, please visit https://ebertfest.com/ and follow us on social media:
Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/Ebertfest/
Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/ebertfest/
- The Best Version of the Thing: Steven Soderbergh on “The Christophers” (April 17, 2026)
A lo-fi heist film bolstered by dynamic and intimate camera work, director Steven Soderbergh’s “The Christophers” delights in simply seeing two people go to war. Sir Ian McKellen plays Julian Sklar, a master painter contemplating his legacy after failing to complete a series of famed portraits (the titular Christophers). His opportunistic children, Barnaby (James Corden) and Sallie (Jessica Gunning), hire master forger and closeted artist, Lori Butler (Michaela Coel), to act as Julian’s housekeeper and complete the Christophers so that they can be “discovered” upon Julian’s passing. Lori is employed by Julian easily enough, but what neither of them expects is that their cat-and-mouse game becomes the launchpad for deeper conversations about the process of making art and who gets to own our work after we pass. It often feels as though Soderbergh and screenwriter Ed Solomon are using the bickering and moments of sincerity between these characters as mouthpieces for their own musings.
For Soderbergh, one conviction he’s sure of is that, as much as people may want to imitate the style of some of his greatest hits, he hopes that a big part of his legacy can be the way in which he made his films. “Honestly, if you were to say, ‘You get to pick between your influence being the way that you work or the work itself,’ I wouldn’t hesitate to go, ‘Please be influenced by the way that I work.’ I would be happier if they took the methodology as opposed to the result,” he shared.
Soderbergh spoke with RogerEbert.com about how some of the most striking sequences in the film were born of trying to solve problems, how he resists easy itemization and characterization, and how he sees a core part of his artistry as stress-testing the new technologies at his disposal.
This conversation has been edited and condensed for clarity.
Whether it is the “Oceans” films or “Logan Lucky,” you revel in depicting characters in the throes of process and problem-solving. Was there a “problem” you were trying to solve while making “The Christophers?”
The challenge was to keep it visually interesting without being distracting and coming from a place of insecurity. I kept reminding myself, “We have good text, we have great actors, you don’t have to tart this thing up.” I would say the most noticeable gimmick that I employed, which I hope is something the audience feels more than they know explicitly, is that as soon as you cross the threshold into Julian’s house, everything is through a handheld camera lens.
Whenever we’re outside the house, we’re in “studio mode” or in sequences where Julian is not present. That was the largest directorial concept it needed. It’s not a very overt thing, but psychologically for the viewer, it creates the same sense of instability that Lori steps into Julian’s house. Ultimately, the challenge was simply to stay on point with that approach and avoid any trickery.
Speaking of trickery, it was only in reading other interviews that I learned that the interiors and exteriors for the house were different locations.
That was the goal. The other aspect was that, while I was making the film and reviewing cut material, I’d make minor recalibrations a couple of times a week. That “interview” scene with Lori was shot twice. We shot it the first time on a Friday, and over the weekend I talked to Ed and said, “Let’s do that again.” When we first shot it, the day had been structured in such a way that we’d shot all these other sequences except for that one. It was about three o’clock in the afternoon when we started shooting that, and it was a bit too late in the day to start a scene of that length and significance. I wanted it to be fresher.
Ed shared at Lincoln Center that the scene cutaway to Lori putting her face in her hands amid Julian’s monologue came from going through the scene again.
Yeah, I wanted to go back and make more explicit both of her wondering what she’s gotten herself into. It’s also the dropping of the mask for a moment for the audience’s benefit. That way, we see that she is really putting on a performance, just like Julian. Julian has a performative personality, which is why it’s so fun to see Ian playing that part, but that addition is an example of the kind of real-time calibration where, with my collaborators, we’re extracting everything in the scene to emphasize.
You’ve offered the work of John Schlesinger, particularly “Sunday Bloody Sunday” and Peter Yates’ 1983 film “The Dresser” as some launch pad for influences. I’m curious how those manifested in “The Christophers.”
Those are both extremely well-directed movies, but not in a flashy way or in a way that a regular audience would notice. Anyone who makes films would be struck by the sense of craft and by the way the performances are front and center. They’re also examples of egoless direction; you can tell Yates and Schlesinger’s attitude is like “This isn’t about me. I want you to think about the characters.” So those films serve as good touchstones to remind me to stay on course.
There’s been a lot of discussion about how the audience has to be engaged, and therefore, that things need to be happening all the time. Scene to scene in “The Christophers,” there is a lot happening. You keep getting new information that makes you reassess what you’ve watched up to that point. On a narrative, emotional, and philosophical level, it’s a very active film; it just happens to be contained. I saw my role as a director to highlight the activity already there, the way Schlesinger and Yates did in those two films.
That’s interesting because I’ve heard Ian talk about how, in the way you carried the camera, you were very much like another character that he was acutely aware of. He described how, as he moved, he’d witness you react in real time, as if you were discovering the shot in that moment. Do you see yourself that way, as a third “presence” amidst this two-hander?
Well, I love that he felt that close and that the intimacy that I was trying to create with them. I have this little thing I call the butt dolly—which was built for “The Knick”—and it’s basically a cushioned stool with six roller wheels that allow me, moment to moment, to adjust to anything the actors are doing. I think you could ask both of them, but I never ask them to hit a mark. I never said “Don’t go there” because I don’t want to break the spell of what they’re doing. I’m always trying to eliminate anything that might invade their little bubble of performance. Ultimately, I don’t want them to think about me or anybody else on set.
It’s not lost on me that Michaela is the sole person of color dealing with the spoiled and selfish white elites. Were there ever any discussions between you and Ed about the racial dynamics taking on a more central part of this story?
It was kind of built into the setup. On one layer, you have older artists going against younger artists. I think seeing this older white guy and this person of color, I felt the audience would already be aware of the other dynamics at play. You see how Julian lives, you see how she lives … you get it. Ultimately, the issues they’re grappling with are more philosophical and would exist regardless of race or even age. It’s about power and how that intertwines with being an artist. At one point, Ed and I did talk about whether there should be something more explicit about that contrast between the two characters, and Michaela was one of the people who just felt like, “I don’t think you need to say that.”
Looking at your career as a whole, you’ve shared how you never want to make the same movie twice. Yet recently, you’ve reflected on this notion that “I’ve never done anything first.” How are you reconciling those ideas?
I’ve come to the point where I’m trying to articulate some of these ideas only because I think it’s important for a creative person to know who they are and what they are. Early in my career in the mid ’90s, I was trying to figure out what kind of filmmaker I was, and I came to several realizations, one of which was that, while I have written, I am not a writer by my definition. I am also a synthesist, not an originator. There’s a real freedom in that because it allows me to shapeshift, as opposed to having a style that I apply to each film and therefore seek out material that fits with that style. I can just go to the material I’m interested in and then determine what kind of filmmaker I want to be to present it in its best form. So, for me, it allows for endless reinvention, which keeps things lively.
Assessing how you’re doing objectively is important and difficult. I think it’s important to know how you’re doing and to have some sense of how successful your work is, creatively, on its own terms. I don’t think it’s a bad or a dangerous thing for me to look back on things that I’ve done and say, “I think certain things are better than other things” and to see if I can extract from the things that I think either don’t work at all or don’t work as well as they should and carry those right lessons into my future work. I’m not sure if it’s possible to be objective at all about your own work, but I do believe that there’s a way of working and a process that you can engage with or establish that gives you the best possible chance of an objectively good creative outcome. That’s what I’m stress testing all the time: the process that I can control.
One line that resonates with me was when Julian was lamenting that upon his death, his life would be immediately “itemized,” that he would become “Julian Sklar … the spreadsheet.” It’s made me reflect on how people try to itemize us to make sense of our presence and passing. I know you’ve tried to resist easy characterization, but has working on this film made you reflect or make some peace with the ways people might try to make “Steven Soderbergh the spreadsheet.”
Luckily, and I think it was because of the way I was raised, I don’t imbue objects with the kind of emotions and meanings that I think some people do. As a result, the good part is that it also kind of leads to me not being bothered by setbacks, criticism, or anything like that. It doesn’t throw me off because I’m more focused. I’m able to control. I’m very good at letting go of what I can’t control. At the same time, I do think everybody who makes things hopes that they will be seen, first of all, and then thought of as living on in the minds of others.
What you’re saying is making me think about the recent news that even under the new leadership regime at Lucasfilm, “The Hunt for Ben Solo” won’t be moving forward. Despite putting in years of your life into making it, you seem to have mastered the art of making peace with setbacks like that. I imagine it’s difficult not to hold your art so preciously.
I have zero regrets about my time working on that project because that was time in the creative gym. I’ve just sort of reframed it for myself, in thinking the goal here was to get a great script, and we did that. So the rest of it, once you’ve reached that point, those other parts were things I couldn’t control. I can only shape things up until a certain point. I’m not going to burn calories on anything other than what’s coming.
I know you wanted to capture their performances more naturally, but I love the organic embellishments they would bring to a given moment. Ian’s little “Wee!” and his dances come to mind. Were those directed, or was that the result of his freestyle?
There are lots of things that come to mind when I think about that scene. We showed everything leading up to Julian walking over, picking up the canvas, and getting paint on his hands. We cut, then, when we started up again, we saw him put everything on the easel, all the way to the end, of him excoriating Lori and her leaving. That was going to be a take; we had two cameras running, and we did four or five versions of it with me changing the angles each time to give myself coverage and options. I did a first assembly of it using a lot of those different angles, and as Ed and I looked at it, we agreed that the first take was just the best take. With all the other angles, I had to be careful not to show the canvas. The film was best served by the very first take, and that was a moment where, rather than try to control some of Ian’s movements to get the desired effect, I just went with what felt right.
I also think about the ways you shot the Art Fight sequences; were there different approaches you considered for portraying that scene before landing on showcasing the actors from the back?
That was a solution to a problem: those scenes were all supposed to be fifteen years earlier. We had two choices: we could do a VFX de-aging thing, which is not cheap, or we could just try to wing it without that and see if there’s a way, through performance and costuming, to kind of make people believe it’s fifteen years ago. That felt kind of sub-optimal. As I was watching the scene being rehearsed and imagining these versions, I thought, well, I know one way to solve this: shoot the scene from the back of their heads.
So that was a practical decision, but it also makes you think about what’s being said differently than if we shot that scene straight on. As a viewer, you provide the emotion that you imagine is being displayed. It’s a more active image.
I’m curious if you can share more about the lessons about adaptation you’ve learned through the years. You’ve previously described yourself as trying to be a “cockroach” in the industry, and I’m wondering how you discern the line between adaptability and rootedness.
Everything flows from the best possible result for the viewer, period. I worked back from that. I think what I owe the audience is the best version of the thing. So I want to know about all available tools to get the best results. It’s a complex issue we’re all facing, not just in the creative space but in the broader sociopolitical landscape of what technology is doing to us. It’s something I think about a lot. I think sometimes people’s legitimate anxiety and displeasure about technology in the non-creative space bleed into and infect the conversation at large. For me, disengagement is not an option.
I want to know, as fast as we can, what place all this technology is going to have for us. We’re right at the beginning in a lot of ways. I have no clue what level of integration we’ll be looking at. The only way to find out is to sort of experiment. It’s an open question as to what the ultimate value or use of certain technologies will be. And the more people that engage with it, the faster we’ll figure that out. When the general perception is that somebody has, quote unquote, gone too far, I’m like, “Well, that’s good news.” Sometimes you need to know where the line is.
“The Christophers” is in select theaters via NEON.
- ‘The Last Dance’ Ends a Beautiful, Impactful Run for the Long-time Roger Ebert Film Festival (April 16, 2026)
Born and raised in Urbana-Champaign, Roger Ebert left his mark everywhere—as a sportswriter for The News-Gazette when he was 15, at Urbana High School as Senior Class President and co-editor of The Echo student newspaper, and, at the time of the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, on to the University of Illinois and The Daily Illini, where Ebert later became the Editor-in-Chief. He then went to work at the Chicago Sun-Times, became the paper’s film critic and was honored with a Pulitzer Prize for Criticism—the first for film—in 1975, achieving national and international recognition.
Yet when he, along with wife Chaz Ebert and Nate Kohn, brought The Roger Ebert Overlooked Film Festival (now affectionately known as Ebertfest) to the Virginia Theatre in Champaign in 1999, little did anyone know at the time what a truly indelible impact there would be on the film world, but particularly on his hometown in the middle of the corn and bean fields of east-central Illinois. Acclaimed actors, writers, directors, producers, film critics and movie lovers would continue to gather in Champaign-Urbana for a handful of days every year, except in 2020 when it was cancelled because of coronavirus pandemic (COVID-19), for 26 years—long after even Ebert himself lasted on this earth, sadly. They would interact with local, everyday people, and spark conversations of mutual interest in art, storytelling, the human condition and life itself.
This festival that they built transformed our community for the better.
And now, the last of the festivals—“The Last Dance”—is being held April 17-18 at the time-honored Virginia Theatre and will provide a fitting end to a beautiful run.
The memories, and the lessons, will remain—just as the statue of Ebert will remain, offering his signature thumbs-up from a movie theater seat in front of the Virginia—to remind us of the life-altering power and cultivated empathy of film by immersing viewers in both familiar and unfamiliar perspectives.
As Ebert once said, “Of all the arts, movies are the most powerful aid to empathy, and good ones make us into better people.”
Would that we all continue to see many good movies.
I saw a lot of them through the years at Ebertfest—not just the overlooked—and many with Ebert’s own skilled, critical perspective in mind as the movies were screened. I’ve also appreciated the panels and audience questions, learning from each festival as they would transform into a classroom. After experiencing the movies and the panels and the audience Q-and-As as one united community, there are the breaks—the entr’actes—between screenings to meet friends, old and new, from the area and from around the country and the world. They provided an opportunity to take part in an improvisational public square, enjoying the company of different people and learning about different lives and perspectives.
Like many who have volunteered, worked or attended every Ebertfest since the beginning, I am rather nostalgic and hate to see the end of Ebertfest. It’s hard to believe that it was 27 years ago when I saw “Shiloh,” starring Scott Wilson, whom I later hosted along with his wife, Heavenly, when they came back with another film. And it was bittersweet when I saw Heavenly again a few years later, this time along with Polish actress Maja Komorowska (and her grandson, Jerzy Tyszkiewicz, as her translator) who came to Ebertfest for the Scott Wilson film she was in, “A Year of the Quiet Sun,” after he had passed away.
But I guess over the course of 27 years, we are all bound to experience pain and loss, as well as the joy. That is part of life. And this year, I will remember it all with gratitude—not only the people, like Roger Ebert, Scott Wilson, Kris Kristofferson, Kaylie Jones, Paul Cox, Dusty Kohl, Norman Lear, and many others, but also the fun, the stories and, of course, the movies.
This year’s final lineup of films and guests will no doubt be special. Chaz Ebert and Nate Kohn have continued Roger’s legacy with love and honor.
May this “Last Dance” finale for Ebertfest, that Roger Ebert graciously brought to our community, be a celebratory, full-house, lovefest thank-you from all of us.
- Netflix’s “Beef” Returns with a Season as Twisted and Hysterical as the First (April 16, 2026)
2023’s “Beef” was so good that a limited series turned into an anthology with creator Lee Sung Jin hoping to avoid the sophomore slump with another twisted, unpredictable tale of anger and class with entirely new characters. The multiple Emmy-winning original told the tale of a pair of fractured people whose chance encounter sent ripples across both their lives. The second season of “Beef” expands its net to entangle two couples at very different stages of love and life, again thrust together by an angry outburst. Once again, the writing is as good as anything on television as Lee’s gift for dialogue and storytelling shines through all eight episodes, a series that so thoroughly avoids the common drag of Netflix bloat that its pace should be studied by anyone who gets a contract with the streaming giant. One of this era’s best ensembles digs into the witty repartee and complex characters provided by Lee’s writers room, leaving you wondering who is to blame and who to root for. The answers are everybody. And nobody.
Oscar Isaac plays Josh Martin, a general manager of a country club who is wealthy by anyone’s standards, but he’s found himself in a world of the uber-rich, people who bet thousands on single hands of poker with Michael Phelps. Josh doesn’t have anywhere near that kind of money, which makes it harder to swim with those sharks, and the stress caused by a bed-and-breakfast project he’s been working on with his wife Lindsay (Carey Mulligan) has been actively eating away at their relationship. Surrounded by signs of the life he never had as a musician in his man cave, Josh fights an OnlyFans addiction while Lindsay is even more active in her infidelity, texting old flames before blocking them out of regret and flirting with the handsome tennis pro at the club. She very clearly resents and probably has grown to hate Josh.
Beef. (L to R) Charles Melton as Austin Davis, Carey Mulligan as Lindsay Crane-Martin, Oscar Isaac as Josh Martin, Cailee Spaeny as Ashley Miller in episode 202 of Beef. Cr. Courtesy of Netflix © 2026
And she doesn’t hesitate to tell him all of this in the premiere’s inciting incident, a no-holds-barred fight in which Josh and Lindsay seem to be heading to divorce if they don’t kill each other first. As the two reach an angry climax in which it looks one might actually hurt the other, they look outside to see one of Josh’s employees, a drink cart girl from the club named Ashley (Cailee Spaeny). She’s been watching with her puppy dog of a fiancée Austin (Charles Melton). And they weren’t just watching. They were recording.
Ashley and Austin, an aspiring personal trainer, seem like decent, ordinary people. They regret invading the privacy of the Martins—they were there to return the wallet that Josh left at the club—but everything changes when they realize they have been presented with an opportunity. What will Josh and Lindsay do to keep that violent secret buried? Even in the middle of an active blackmail, Ashley and Austin try to hold onto their humanity. She just wants a better job at the club; he eventually wants some opportunities as a trainer. And then “Beef” takes the first of many fascinating twists as Josh and Lindsay seem less infuriated by their blackmailers and more inspired. After all, they’re owed a few things by a broken system, too.
Beef. (L to R) Charles Melton as Austin Davis, Seoyeon Jang as Eunice in episode 203 of Beef. Cr. Courtesy of Netflix © 2026
“We’re not bad people, they are.” This line is at the core of the thematic foundation of “Beef.” No one ever thinks the morally questionable behavior in which they are partaking makes them bad. They find ways out of that kind of logic, usually by pointing at someone who’s even worse. And this season has a lot of fun playing with the varied morality on the rungs of the economic ladder. Josh/Lindsay may be rich compared to Austin/Ashley, but they’re nothing when contrasted against the new owner of Josh’s country club, Chairwoman Park (Youn Yuh-jung, who won an Oscar for “Minari”), or her famous plastic surgeon husband Dr. Kim (Song Kang-ho of “Parasite”). At its core, “Beef” is about three couples who make increasingly bad decisions that are influenced by their place on the most important spectrum in this world: the wealth one.
Just the second episode alone is a masterpiece of desperation: a character study of people who think they have discovered loopholes in a broken system who will eventually learn that they are actually nooses. It’s here where Lee’s writers and ensemble really dig into these characters to reveal the nuance of their performances. Melton avoids “dumb guy” stereotypes by understanding that Austin genuinely wants to be decent, even as he starts to feel tempted by Chairwoman Park’s gorgeous assistant Eunice (Seoyeon Jang). Isaac avoids the sweaty desperation that could have turned Josh into a caricature, always playing the realism of the predicament in front of him. He understands a character who has talked his way out of many business problems and, in the process, talked his way into a life he hates. Mulligan, Youn, and Song are all predictably great.
However, if the season has an MVP it’s Cailee Spaeny, who gets to use some acting tools she had yet to employ. In films like “Priscilla” and “Alien Romulus,” she’s often very heavy as a performer, leaning into serious notes that fit those roles, but she’s buoyant and very funny here, getting us to immediately like Ashley, and then testing that likability with some truly horrible decisions. It is easily one of the best performances of the year, the peak of its best ensemble.
Beef. (L to R) Carey Mulligan as Lindsay Crane-Martin, Oscar Isaac as Josh Martin in episode 208 of Beef. Cr. Courtesy of Netflix © 2026
The endgame of the second season of “Beef” relies on an incredible amount of coincidences like a quickly repeated conversation from a party and an overheard one on a plane, but the writing has done so much strong work by this point that these devices can be forgiven. It’s really a show that works on so many levels, from individual jokes that reflect a sense of humor that understands the pop culture world of 2026 to the bigger issues of wealth inequity, gender disparity, and even the generation gap.
There’s a refined simplicity to the first season of “Beef” in its inciting incident of a middle finger in a parking lot that is a bit missed in a second outing that’s less immediately relatable, but that feeling fades away as one grasps the ambition of the entire piece. If people saw themselves in the protagonists of the first “Beef,” you can see the world in this one, a study of how wealth divides our society, but can also unite people like Austin, Ashley, Josh, and Lindsay through their shared truth: They’re all broken.
Whole season screened for review. Now on Netflix.
- MGM+’s Cult Hit “From” Wanders Through Frustrating Yet Addictive Fourth Season (April 15, 2026)
Since its launch on what-was-Epix (now MGM+) back in 2022, “From” has scratched an itch for TV viewers who miss the twisting sci-fi tales of not just “LOST” but its many imitators. Often directed by that show’s legendary director, Jack Bender, and starring Harold Perrineau in a role that doesn’t feel that different from Michael on the ABC hit, “From” tells another tale of people trapped in an impossible situation, one that seems to be feeding off their own back stories and primal fears. Even the score sometimes sounds the same.
Also similar to “LOST,” a creeping sense that the writers of this show are asking more questions than they’re answering has seeped into the narrative over the last couple of seasons. A program that once felt like it was confidently building a world and a history now often feels like it’s making things up as it goes along. There are still bursts of engaging sci-fi television, and the ridiculous twists that often force each episode into a cliffhanger make it consistently watchable, but I get increasingly doubtful that anyone has any idea where this is going.
“Are you seriously ok with him taking magic mushrooms that he found in a haunted forest?” One almost has to admire how much “From” is the only show on TV that could predictably have a question like that one in one of its screenplays. If you’re totally unfamiliar, a quick primer of the very basics of a show that has become extremely un-basic over four seasons: Perrineau leads the ensemble as Boyd Stevens, the leader of a group of survivors in what looks like small-town America but is secretly a sort of purgatory that people can drive into but never leave. And then the creatures come out at night.
Harold Perrineau as Boyd Stevens
The premiere back in 2022 also introduced us to the Matthews family: Mom Tabitha (Catalina Sandino Moreno), Dad Jim (Eion Bailey), Daughter Julie (Hannah Cheramy), and Son Ethan (Simon Webster). To start the show, the newcomers to the town were basically our window into this world and its rules, learning about things like the talismans that ward off evil and the back stories of the other residents like Boyd’s deputy Kenny (Ricky He), Boyd’s son Ellis (Corteon Moore) & his girlfriend Fatima (Pegah Ghafoori), a maternal leader named Donna (Elizabeth Saunders), another newcomer named Jade (David Alpay), and a couple of the town’s more disturbed residents: Victor (Scott McCord) and Sarah (Avery Konrad). Since then, more residents have become stuck in the world of “From”; a few have died; and Tabitha even left and came back with Victor’s father, Henry (Robert Joy). Don’t ask. It’s complicated.
How complicated? In “LOST” terms, we’ve reached the time-travel and island-moving sections of the narrative. At the end of last season, Julie discovered that she has an ability to move through the “story,” crossing realities and timelines, but she’s not really sure how to do it. Jade and Tabitha learned they have a connection to the history of the region that has brought them back there over and over again, a discovery that was repaid with one of the most powerful villains of the piece ripping out poor Jim’s throat.
Hannah Cheramy as Julie Matthews, Simon Webster as Ethan Matthews
That action ripples through most of the new season as Julie and Ethan both set out to reverse what happened to their father: Julie through her newfound ability, and Ethan through the power of a place where death is more of a nebulous idea than a reality. Meanwhile, Jade and Boyd are both empowered and terrified by Jim’s death, knowing that it happened because they’re getting closer to the truth about this place, and possibly even a way to leave it.
Of course, “From” drops in new residents in the form of a pastor and his daughter, Sofia (Julia Doyle), but they are definitely not what they first seem in a way that the show has asked us not to spoil. Suffice to say that Doyle brings new energy to a season that really needs it.
Since about the beginning of season three, when the writers worked their way out of the cliffhanger that saw Julie possibly escape, there’s been a lack of direction that has led to too much repetition. “From” often feels like it has two new questions for every answer, which can only last for so long. It doesn’t help that this season seems to lack the stakes of the last few. One of the most daring things about “From” has been that, like “LOST,” no one is safe. Killing Shaun Majumder’s Father Khatri early in the show’s run was a stunner, and, yes, losing Jim was major, but I’m not convinced that’s going to last. There needed to be more momentum in season four, and that could have come with a more defined threat.
Ricky He as Kenny Liu, Harold Perrineau as Boyd Stevens
The truth is that “From” isn’t about definition, something that alternates between being a weakness and a strength. For the latter, Perrineau is particularly good at playing an ordinary guy stuck in an extraordinary situation. He’s smartly not always a hero, understanding that the show works best if we believe Boyd’s confusing journey, and we always do. It’s not really the fault of the ensemble as much as it is the writing, but too many of the supporting characters have become pawns on this board. Moreno is always solid, but He, Moore, Ghafoori, and Saunders (at least until episode six) are underwritten this year.
Despite feeling like the writers’ room has as many ideas where all of this is going as the fictional Boyd, “From” often remains remarkably watchable through the lack of direction. A friend once told me that the main reason he binged “LOST” was that every episode ended with someone saying, “Look at that over there!” and he had to know how that cliffhanger would be resolved. “From” has a very similar energy: Every time the writing gets frustrating on a critical level, the sheer momentum of the piece keeps you engaged.
I also have a feeling that the last four episodes of the season that weren’t sent to press will finally give us some answers and raise those slight stakes. There will probably be a body count and a deepening of the show’s mythology. And probably a cliffhanger or two, too.
Six episodes screened for review. Premieres on MGM+ on Sunday, April 19th.
