Jack Ryan is a character whose creation felt like a novelty, as he was highly distinct among the other heroes that emerged in the 1980s. Based on the first novel in Tom Clancy’s popular series of “Ryanverse” novels, The Hunt for Red October introduced Ryan as a fiercely intelligent, deeply honorable CIA agent who later became the lead character in several films, portrayed by acclaimed actors such as Alec Baldwin, Harrison Ford, Ben Affleck, and Chris Pine. However, modern interpretations struggled to remain relevant because Clancy’s politics were grounded in the Cold War, and espionage looked much different in a post-9/11 era. Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan is a great adaptation because it retains the spirit of the author’s original stories yet applies Clancy’s approach to modern issues.

‘Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan’ Isn’t a Traditional Origin Story

As was the case with the original films, Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan turned the character into an unlikely hero because he was an analyst, not someone with any fieldwork experience. John Krasinski’s version of Ryan is the CIA’s sharpest expert on international relations and initially teams up with station chief James Greer (Wendell Pierce) to track down a series of irregular bank transfers linked to Middle Eastern terrorists. It would have been easy to pick out different international groups and make them each a “villain of the week,” but Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan doesn’t have the same reverence for American exceptionalism as some of its predecessors did. The most interesting update the series made to the source material is its depiction of Ryan as someone deeply conflicted about his work with the CIA; while he knows that institutional corruption clouds all his actions, it also provides him with an opportunity to do some good.

Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan doesn’t need to delve deeply into Ryan’s backstory because he begins to pick up skills and develop his worldview as he gains more experience. Krasinski’s performance works because he embodies the best traits of his predecessors; he has the quiet intelligence of Baldwin, the moral impeccability of Ford, the sense of humor of Affleck, and even the undeniable charisma of Pine. Krasinski’s Ryan ends up getting into a lot more of the action than the character ever did in the original Clancy books, and it’s not just because a fast-paced television series needed a star who would be willing to do their own stunts. In a modern world where decisions are made from behind a desk or in a secret meeting, Ryan is best able to assess a situation by being there personally. Most international conflicts are a lot more complicated than they are framed as being by Western media, and Ryan frequently comes to the defense of marginalized groups who have been scapegoated.

Although Krasinski’s performance is what helped to bring the show into existence, Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan isn’t just a star vehicle, as it does a great job of developing some of the supporting figures in the “Ryanverse.” Pierce’s performance as Greer is interesting because he has a deeper connection to America’s intelligence community and must fight a different battle to ensure that Ryan’s investigations don’t cause international incidents. Michael Kelly is also a great addition to the show as Mike November, a complex character who left the CIA for ethical reasons to become a private contractor. Since Ryan, Greer, and November have distinct perspectives on justice, the show reaches its peak when the characters work as a triumvirate.

‘Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan’ Is a Modern Spy Thriller

Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan feels most indebted to its cinematic predecessors because each season feels like a standalone adventure, even if it isn’t directly based on one of Clancy’s books. Season 1 explored a terrorist threat to the United States, while also showing the efforts by peaceful Muslims to take down the extremists within their culture; Season 2 looked at the combustible situation in Venezuela in an intelligent way that actually preceded developments in the real world. Season 3 was perhaps the show’s most politically outspoken installment because it called out the failure of democratic nations to stop Russia from amassing significant military power and becoming a dictatorship, while Season 4 ventured even further by showing how vulnerable the United States was to internal threats.

Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan managed to develop Ryan into the type of character who would fit into the later installments in the novel series, and the franchise continued with the sequel Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan: Ghost War, which set the stage for further adventures. Beyond helping to reintroduce Clancy’s writing to a new generation of fans, Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan was highly influential on the subgenre of military and espionage-themed action shows that Prime Video would begin churning out, including Reacher, Cross, The Terminal List, and Citadel. Although it’s likely that Krasinski will reprise his role as Ryan in some other project in the near future, Tom Clancy’s Jack Ryan has played a significant role in redefining the franchise’s legacy.

Love Island USA‘s Beatriz Hatz made some revelations about her dating history — including the significant age difference between her and her ex.

During the Monday, June 8, episode of the Peacock series, Beatriz, now 25, spoke with Gabriel Vasconcelos about the relationships she had in the past and mentioned an ex-boyfriend, saying, “I had two adult relationships. I dated this guy for three years but we would break up and get back together. It wasn’t healthy. He was a lot older than me.”

Gabriel asked the exact difference and Beatriz mentioned a 20-year age gap. In response, Gabriel said he had an ex who was 18 years older than him.

Beatriz isn’t the only one to share a surprising story in the villa. Earlier in the week, the Islanders had to read out sex facts and figure out which of them it was about. One of the revelations was that an Islander slept with someone in their 50s.

Related: ‘Love Island USA’ Season 8 Couples: Who Is Still Together? Who Broke Up?

Love Island USA is all about coupling up — so which Islanders are currently together and which have already called it quits in the villa? Peacock’s popular dating show returned in June 2026 with contestants Aniya Harvey, Beatriz Hatz, Bryce Alakai Dettloff, KC Chandler, Mackenzie “Kenzie” Annis, Melanie Moreno, Sincere Rhea, Sean Reifel, Trinity Tatum […]

“I was out and I was having a good time with my friends. She started talking to me and she was hot as f*** for her age,” Gabriel, who is 26 years old, said about his encounter with the 52-year-old. “We had a good night together. She had a lot of experience.”

Gabriel’s sexual history was then joked about when narrator Iain Stirling compared him to a “reverse Leonardo DiCaprio” due to the actor’s dating history. In addition to Gabriel and Beatriz, season 8 of Love Island USA features Aniya Harvey, Bryce Alakai Dettloff, KC Chandler, Mackenzie “Kenzie” Annis, Melanie Moreno, Sincere Rhea, Sean Reifel, Trinity, Corbin Mims, Kayda Bosse and Zach Georgiou.

The Peacock show was also meant to feature Vasana Montgomery, who was cut from season 8 of Love Island USA after resurfaced social media posts showed her using a slur. Vasana was removed from the show before she got a chance to enter the villa. Both clips were leaked from her private social media, which meant producers weren’t privy to the posts while casting the season.

“I want to address a couple videos from my teen years that have recently resurfaced,” she wrote via her Instagram Story this month. “In those videos, I used a racial slur. I am embarrassed and disappointed by my words.”

Vasana noted that she wanted to take accountability for her actions.

“I take full responsibility for what I said and understand why it has hurt and upset people,” she continued. “Since then, I have grown a lot as a person and taken the time to educate myself, listen, learn, and better understand the impact that language can have.”

Thank You!

You have successfully subscribed.

She added, “That growth does not erase my mistake, and 1am not asking anyone to excuse it. I believe people should be held accountable for their actions, but I also believe in growth, learning, and becoming better. To anyone I hurt or disappointed, I am truly sorry.”

New episodes of Love Island USA are released six days a week — except for Wednesdays — on Peacock.

Join Us Weekly and Bracketology.tv in our first-ever Love Island USA fantasy league! This is your chance to predict who you think will win Season 8 and rank the Islanders weekly based on how confident you are that they will survive the next elimination. You will be playing against our editors, get access to exclusive content and have the chance to win fun prizes. Sign up for free today!

By Chris Snellgrove
| Published 12 seconds ago

Right now, there’s a lot of buzz about Hollywood box office earnings. Some movies thought to be surefire hits are floundering, like The Mandalorian & Grogu: despite being the first Star Wars film in seven years, it had the poorest opening weekend of any live-action film in the franchise. When you factor in the costs of marketing, it’s possible it still won’t make enough (reportedly, at least $500 million) to break even. Meanwhile, the horror genre is cleaning up: with Backrooms, 20-year-old Kane Parsons became the youngest director to reach number one at the box office. Meanwhile, Obsession has earned over $224 million and was made for only $750,000. 

With these movies making so many headlines, you might have overlooked another movie making surprising box office history. The Super Mario Galaxy Movie just quietly became the first film of 2026 to make over a billion dollars. This was the sequel to The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which went on to earn a jaw-dropping $1.4 billion. The sequel may yet hit that mark, and it’s already proven to be the most successful film of the year. That’s good news for superfans of this plucky plumber. But it’s bad news for everyone else, because the success of this subpar sequel ensures that cinematic slop is here to stay.

(Good) Mario Is Missing

To get this started, I need to rip the band-aid off with a harsh truth: The Super Mario Galaxy Movie is bad. Like, really, really bad. On Rotten Tomatoes, it currently has a critical score of 42 percent. Generally speaking, critics griped about everything feeling weightless and meaningless in this movie, and that the threadbare story was practically tacked onto the animation as an afterthought. This is significantly lower than The Super Mario Bros. Movie, which had a critical score of 59 percent. Fans were also disappointed: while the first film had a fan rating of 95 percent, the second one had a lower rating of 88 percent.

Why does the success of The Super Mario Galaxy Movie bum me out? For one thing, it always sucks to see crappy movies rake in money left and right because it’s a reminder that genuinely good films usually suffer at the box office. For example, Masters of the Universe was an attempt to revive He-Man (Mario’s fellow traveler from the ‘80s) for modern moviegoers. It’s a movie that critics liked better than either of the Mario films (it has a 67 percent critical rating on Rotten Tomatoes), but it earned less than $30 million in its opening weekend. Considering that its budget was $170 million, chances are high that this fan-favorite film won’t be getting a sequel.

A Failed Cinematic Universe

That’s a shame because, while He-Man isn’t exactly a new property, it’s a revival of a franchise that hasn’t had a film in nearly 40 years. Accordingly, it felt like a fresh-but-faithful labor of love from truly passionate creators. Now that The Super Mario Galaxy Movie has earned over $1 billion worldwide, we’re almost certainly going to get more movies exactly like it: rushed sequels that lack all of the charm and originality of the earlier movie. Obsession and Backrooms may be proving the viability of original, low-budget horror movies, but studios chasing billion-dollar box office are going to crank out their own sequel slop as bad (or worse) than The Super Mario Galaxy Movie.

While the success of this subpar movie is bad enough for other IPs, it’s arguably even worse for its own. While not perfect, The Super Mario Bros. Movie laid the groundwork for an entire cinematic universe with its cool characters, engaging plot, and memeworthy moments (like Jack Black’s demented “Peaches” song). By comparison, The Super Mario Galaxy Movie has tired characters (with the exception of Star Fox), a paint-by-numbers plot, and few memorable moments. Worse, the few memorable moments we do get are tied to forgettable action sequences. Be honest, now: if this is how bad the second Mario movie is, can you imagine how awful the third and fourth ones will be?

Slop In, Slop Out

It’s hard to say without sounding like an old man yelling at clouds (to be fair, one of those clouds was throwing spiky dudes at me), but The Super Mario Galaxy Movie is symbolic of everything wrong with Hollywood. It’s not a terrible movie, but it just never even comes close to its full potential. Nonetheless, it made so much money that the studio (and countless other studios chasing fortune and glory) will put in as little effort as possible into more crappy sequels than anything original. Why should they put in any more effort, though? We vote with our dollars, and when people pay top dollar for low-tier slop, they just get more of the same.

Slop in, slop out. Sorry, movie lovers: thanks to The Super Mario Galaxy Movie, your good films are in another castle!

Before Netflix had Wednesday Addams (Jenna Ortega) going viral for her dark, gothic dance in Wednesday, Archie Comics had already given the world a character with the same vibes, and Netflix’s live-action took her to the next level. Although that series got cancelled on Netflix, the character is now making a fresh return with a new release this year.

The return comes because Archie Comics is celebrating its 85th anniversary, and the publisher is releasing a new line of comics from October through November. The last time fans heard from the character played by Kiernan Shipka was back when Netflix dragged the character into candlelight, covens, blood rituals, infernal politics, and Greendale horror. That version ended on Netflix in 2020 after four seasons, and the cancellation left fans with the usual bitter feeling that the world still had more story to tell.

Now, Sabrina officially returns in Sabrina the Teenage Witch #1, launching from Oni Press and Archie Comics in October 2026 as part of a new line that also includes Archie #1 in September and Archie in Hell #1 in November. Sabrina Spellman has been away from the mainstream spotlight since Netflix’s Chilling Adventures of Sabrina ended in 2020. The new comic book is written by Corinna Bechko with art by Kano, and early details place Sabrina back in teenage-witch territory, where she’s balancing high school, Halloween, Salem, and her newly discovered magical birthright.

Audiences Have Always Been Exposed to Different Versions of Sabrina​​​​​​

Sabrina Spellman has had one of the strangest second lives in modern teen fantasy. For one generation, she was the sunny sitcom (Sabrina the Teenage Witch) witch, played by Melissa Joan Hart, with a talking black cat, two aunts, school crushes, and spells that usually ended in sitcom cleanup. Then, Chilling Adventures of Sabrina turned the Archie Comics icon into a darker fantasy heroine for viewers who wanted their coming-of-age stories with demons in the walls.

Since then, Sabrina’s place inside the Archie universe has been present, but not as cleanly defined as it was during the Netflix run. The comics side has had its own horror material, scattered specials, and different attempts to keep the character active, but there has not been one obvious “this is Sabrina’s next big era” moment for fans to latch onto. That is why Archie’s 85th-anniversary celebration feels like the cleanest reset point in years.

Sabrina the Teenage Witch from Archie Comics and Oni Press officially returns in October 2026, followed by Archie in September and Archie in Hell in November. Stay tuned to Collider for more updates.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Release Date

2018 – 2020-00-00

Advertisement

Showrunner

Roberto Aguirre-Sacasa

Directors

Advertisement

Rob Seidenglanz, Alex Pillai, Kevin Rodney Sullivan

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

By Chris Snellgrove
| Published 22 seconds ago

Right now, Starfleet Academy is in a very weird place. The show was canceled almost immediately after Season 1 ended, and the most likely reason is that it just didn’t have enough viewers to justify a renewal. However, Season 2 has already been filmed, meaning that we are (unless the network Batgirls the thing) likely to see more adventures of these controversial cadets. That means that Paramount can’t really say anything definitive about why the show ended for fear of diminishing the audience even further. For that same reason, none of the powers that be at Star Trek can say anything even remotely critical about it.

Or can they? Recently, Strange New Worlds showrunners Akiva Goldsman and Henry Alonso gave an interview explaining what fans could look forward to with this show’s fourth season. This mostly concerned character development and just how much work went into the dreaded muppet episode. However, they also went out of their way to emphasize how this season wasn’t going to have its own “Big Bad.” Goldsman elaborated that this meant nothing like the Gorn or the Vezda, but these guys were never Big Bads in the traditional sense of the term. Call me a conspiracy theorist, but this sounded like a different reassurance altogether: that SNW would be nothing like Starfleet Academy!

Big Bad Or Just A Big Bite?

In a recent interview with Polygon, Strange New Worlds showrunner Akiva Goldsman said that Strange New Worlds Season 4 is going to have more of an episodic, Original Series style of storytelling. That means no “Big Bad” whose story would take multiple episodes to complete, like the Gorn in the first two seasons and the Vezda in Season 3. However, these guys weren’t Big Bads as we know the term. The Gorn made a couple of scary appearances in Season 1 and were part of a Season 2 cliffhanger, but they weren’t an ongoing concern. Similarly, the Vezda appeared in only two Season 3 episodes, where they showed the ability to possess various bodies.  

Both the Gorn and the Vezda are faceless bad guys. Like, the Gorn are presented as Star Trek’s version of the xenomorphs, and they are scary because they are unknowable. The Vezda, meanwhile, are quite literally faceless, having to take over others’ bodies to give themselves a properly corporeal form. The term “Big Bad” was coined by Buffy the Vampire Slayer writers to refer to the dominant villain of each season. Big Bads included demons like Mayor Wilkins, former allies like Angelus and Dark Willow, occasional gods like Glory, and so on. These villains usually had at least half a season of development and served as big personalities for our heroes to consistently bounce off of.

Star Trek’s Latest Big Bad

What does this have to do with Starfleet Academy? Strange New Worlds didn’t have Buffy-style Big Bads: the Gorn and the Vezda were minor parts of their respective seasons, and they aren’t exactly villains for our heroes to bounce off of. The Gorn don’t talk, and the Vezda can only hop into others’ bodies to spout vaguely threatening comments about evil. But there was a recent Star Trek show with a larger-than-life villain whose oversized personality dominated the entire season. In Starfleet Academy, Paul Giamatti’s Nus Braka appears in half of Season 1, including an explosive entrance in the first episode and an extremely memorable bow in the last episode.

Nus Braka cast a long shadow over Starfleet Academy’s entire first season. He’s part of Caleb’s dark origin story and has an outsized effect on the cadet’s development. He outwits the cadets and their mentors, managing to blow up a Starfleet vessel and steal classified research with which he used to threaten the entire Federation. While I personally thought Giamatti gave a great performance, the fact remains that if you don’t like his character, you’re probably not going to like the show because he’s just in it so much.

Big Bads? Zero. Muppets? One

That brings us back to Akiva Goldsman’s comments to Polygon about Strange New Worlds Season 4 having no Big Bads. Because the show never really had proper, Buffy-style Big Bads, my theory is that the showrunner was quietly distancing his own show from Starfleet Academy. His comment is a way of saying that SNW didn’t go all-in on a single villain, so you don’t have to worry about an overused enemy driving you away. That is, of course, part of the show’s episodic charm: as with earlier shows like The Original Series and The Next Generation, the sheer variety of stories means that even if you hate one episode, you may love the next.

So, call me a conspiracy theorist if you must (just don’t make me wear one of those neck bugs from “Conspiracy”), but Akiva Goldsman’s comments about no Big Bads in Strange New Worlds Season 4 seem like a coded way of saying “don’t worry, it won’t be like Starfleet Academy.” That might upset some fans who would prefer more solidarity between shows and showrunners. But to anyone who hated SFA (especially if they hated it because of Nus Braka), this might be just enough reassurance for them to tune into Strange New Worlds when it premieres July 23rd on Paramount+.

Since a good many crime movies have a “crime doesn’t pay” thing going on (especially those made some time ago), it’s not exactly the happiest of genres. Even crime movies that focus on good people can showcase bad things happening to them, and then the really effective ones can also make you feel bad for people who themselves are doing bad things.

There’s a real variety here, and so even if all these movies stand out for being particularly bleak, they are downbeat for a wide range of reasons. They’re all among the heaviest crime movies ever made, and there will be an attempt not to go into too much detail, as far as spoilers are concerned. Knowing something is heavier than might be expected could be a spoiler, sure, but there will be an avoidance of too many details, especially regarding stuff that happens toward the end of these movies.

10

‘No Country for Old Men’ (2007)

Image via Miramax Films

The plot of No Country for Old Men concerns the aftermath of a drug deal gone wrong, with a man discovering the site and a large quantity of cash left abandoned there. Things get complicated because there’s also a ruthless assassin out to collect the money, and then an older sheriff is also following – and trying to solve – the whole messy case, but is continually at least one or two steps behind the assassin.

Technically, No Country for Old Men is a Western, or more specifically, a neo-Western. Either way, it ranks among the most distressing and anxiety-inducing Westerns of all time, and since it involves criminal characters and then has at least one prominent character on the right side of the law, it also fits quite neatly into the crime genre. However you want to classify it, the whole film is kind of a nightmare, albeit a very compelling one that’s nightmarish without technically belonging to the horror genre (but hey, there’s never been any rule that says a movie has to be a work of horror to feel frightening).

9

‘Se7en’ (1995)

Image via New Line Cinema

Se7en is one of the best crime/thriller movies of the 1990s, and also a top-tier one as far as films that focus on a hunt for a serial killer are concerned. That’s almost another sub-genre in itself, with Se7en sticking out from the pack because its central killer is someone who’s basing all their murders on the seven deadly sins, and then also standing out further because of how grim it’s willing to get.

The entire film is thematically dark while also being visually dark and despondent, with a good deal of dread early on that increases in severity and intensity – infamously so – right near the film’s end. Se7en gets a lot of things right, and even if you don’t really like feel-bad movies, it’s still one worth checking out at some point, since it’s incredibly well-made on top of being, at times, incredibly morbid.

8

‘Uncut Gems’ (2019)

Image via A24

“Fun” might not be a very good word to use to describe Uncut Gems, yet it is probably the most traditionally entertaining movie here. Granted, you have to be okay with feeling on edge for most of its runtime, since Uncut Gems is notoriously stressful, albeit willing to balance all the anxiety with some very dark comedy (in that sense, Adam Sandler is well-utilized, since he gets some opportunities to be funny in a somewhat unusual manner here).

Basically, the whole film is about a man who gets himself in continually worsening trouble with various shady individuals, but he brings it on himself, since he’s chasing an unattainable high, and doing so involves gambling, hustling, and borrowing risky amounts of money. Uncut Gems is as much of an ordeal as its reputation suggests, yet it is darkly entertaining at times, and impressively breathless, too.

7

‘You Were Never Really Here’ (2017)

Image via Amazon Studios

You could possibly call You Were Never Really Here a thriller of sorts if you really wanted to, though it’s certainly on the slow side of things, as far as that genre goes. Maybe it’s more of a psychological thriller/drama film, and then there’s also a noticeable crime element here, since it’s about a mercenary unraveling mentally while taking on a network of human traffickers, all in pursuit of rescuing a young girl.

The comparisons to Taxi Driver were fairly made, which is another crime movie of sorts about a troubled man who is something of a vigilante, and an exceptionally troubled one at that. You Were Never Really Here is also notable for clocking in at just an hour-and-a-half in length, but it’s fair to assume it’s the kind of thing that’ll stick with you long after it (rather quickly) comes to a close.

6

‘The Godfather Part II’ (1974)

Image via Paramount Pictures

Trying to find a problem with The Godfather (1972) is difficult, since it’s a pretty much perfect gangster movie and all. Maybe there’s a romanticization of the mafia, to some extent, which could very slightly/gently rub people a way that’s, if not quite wrong, then isn’t exactly right, but it’s a stretch. If that was a flaw, though, or if you feel it was a flaw, then The Godfather Part II goes a fair way in “correcting” it.

This is a much darker film, since there were a few more characters with redeeming qualities in the first movie, and they’re either dead by the time The Godfather Part II starts, or they’re in the process of shedding the redeeming qualities they might once have had (oh hi, Michael). There were tragic scenes in The Godfather for sure, but The Godfather Part II is where the whole saga becomes an outright – and unapologetic – tragedy in the classical sense.

5

‘Once Upon a Time in America’ (1984)

Image via Warner Bros.

Advertisement

Another epic-length crime movie, Once Upon a Time in America condenses what could well have been a trilogy into one massive film. The sense of it being a little like a trilogy comes from the fact that it’s about three distinctive time periods, with the characters being explored as children, then as relatively young adults, and then some of them (those who survive) in old age. If told chronologically, it would make sense for three films – or three acts – to focus on each respective stage.

With Once Upon a Time in America, though, things aren’t told in a strictly chronological manner, which makes things extra interesting in ways that become more apparent as the film goes on. Also, all three stages of life depicted here are heavy in their own ways, with childhood tragedies, young adult depravities, and then old age regret making most of the movie difficult to watch and deeply troubling, just for varied reasons. It is still an incredible film, but you have to be in the right mood, and also prepared to sit with challenging stuff for almost four hours (or even a little longer, if you’re watching the longest cut of Once Upon a Time in America).

4

‘The Irishman’ (2019)

Image via Netflix

Advertisement

Martin Scorsese’s gangster movies made prior to 2019 certainly had their heavy moments (Casino demonstrates this particularly well), but none were quite as despair-filled as The Irishman. This one does something similar to Once Upon a Time in America, and also stars Robert De Niro (Joe Pesci is in both, too), but there’s an emphasis on old age in The Irishman, befitting the fact that its director and many of its stars were in their 70s while making the film.

The film spans many years, but drives home death as something that hangs over everyone to a particularly great extent, given the violent lifestyles they’re wrapped up in. The Irishman is one of the most effective movies about mortality of the century so far, and is uniquely heavy-going in large part thanks to the age of many important people involved in its production. If you’re not quite as old, then you can at least imagine the film hitting even harder once you are.

3

‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ (2023)

Yet for as somber as The Irishman was, Killers of the Flower Moon – which was Scorsese’s first film post-The Irishman – might’ve had it beat, in terms of sheer sadness and despair. This epic movie’s centered on a series of crimes committed against the Osage people during the 1920s, all done because the land they were on turned out to be rich in oil, and various other people wanted to do whatever they could to obtain the wealth that comes with, you know, having a lot of oil.

There Will Be Blood is more of a drama than a crime film, but deals with a somewhat similar thing, though Killers of the Flower Moon has it happening on an even greater scale, and with more death and (arguably) harder-to-watch devastation, too. Like The Irishman, it makes you feel down for a lengthy amount of time, too, since both epics clock in at just under three-and-a-half hours each.

2

‘Dancer in the Dark’ (2000)

Image via Fine Line Features

Dancer in the Dark is a movie about a crime, and the ensuing trial, but it’s also a musical at the same time… one of the bleakest of all time, too. The main character is a woman named Selma (played by Björk), and she’s going blind while trying to earn enough money to get her son an operation that’ll prevent him from also going blind as he gets older. The musical elements come about because she’s a fan of musicals, and she daydreams her way through fantastical musical numbers to cope with the hardships of her life.

Those hardships are initially bleak, and then everything gets a lot bleaker once Dancer in the Dark eventually reveals itself as a crime movie, on top of being a musical. It’s a uniquely devastating film, and perhaps one of the rawest of the past few decades, not to mention one of those movies that’s easy to recommend people watch once, but much harder to recommend anyone revisit… the one time is probably enough.

1

‘Angst’ (1983)

Image via Les Films Jacques Leitienne

Like Se7en, Angst is about a serial killer, but unlike Se7en – and a bunch of movies concerning serial killers – Angst is not about detectives trying to hunt down and stop a serial killer. The man who does the killing here is the central character, and Angst follows him as he targets a family, invades their home, and then carries out a series of crimes against them in horrific detail.

It runs the risk of feeling like exploitation, but there’s too much by way of genuinely great filmmaking craft to make Angst feel exploitative in a detrimental way. The film’s just brutal and uncompromising, succeeding in depicting the absolute terror that would be felt, if one were targeted by a violent home invader. It’s also all in the presentation and sheer effort toward feeling grounded and believable that makes Angst uniquely mortifying, and perhaps even the heaviest crime-related movie ever made.

Advertisement

Angst

Release Date

Advertisement

January 1, 1983

Runtime

75 Minutes

Advertisement

Director

Gerald Kargl

Writers

Advertisement

Gerald Kargl, Zbigniew Rybczyński

Advertisement

• 
• 

  Robert Hunger-Bühler

  Psychopath (voice)

  Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Meghan Markle’s royal wedding looked like something out of a fairytale, but according to a new book, the signs that her life inside the monarchy would unravel may have been there all along. In “Divide & Rule,” author Catherine Mayer argues Meghan’s eventual exit from royal life was not entirely shocking in hindsight, but rather the result of a deep cultural mismatch between the Duchess of Sussex and the institution she married into.

The former “Suits” actress entered the Royal Family in 2018 alongside Prince Harry, with many hoping the marriage would modernize the monarchy. As the family’s first biracial member and an outspoken feminist, Meghan appeared to symbolize change.

But Mayer suggests the very traits that initially made Meghan seem like a breath of fresh air may have also made royal life impossible to sustain. “How did the dream crumble?” Mayer asks, arguing that Meghan’s differences ultimately “would count against her.”

Markle Was ‘Too Different’ For Palace Life, Author Suggests

According to Mayer, one of the biggest signs Meghan may have struggled as a royal was simply who she already was before she met Harry. Unlike other women who married into the monarchy, Meghan had spent years building her own career, public image, and platform.

Long before becoming the Duchess of Sussex, Meghan openly shared opinions on lifestyle, fashion, politics, and activism through her now-defunct blog, The Tig. Mayer argues that Meghan’s personality, ambitious, independent, and outspoken, never naturally aligned with the traditional expectations placed on senior royals. The author even points to Meghan’s admiration for “She-Ra, Princess of Power” as an early sign she valued independence and agency.

Before meeting Harry, Meghan once identified with the fictional heroine because she represented strength and self-determination, qualities Mayer suggests were difficult to reconcile with palace expectations. Even after announcing her engagement, Meghan made clear she did not view joining the monarchy as giving up who she was.

“I don’t see it as giving anything up. I just see it as a change. It’s a new chapter, right?” Meghan said during her engagement interview. At the time, the comments sounded hopeful. In hindsight, Mayer suggests they may have foreshadowed the friction to come.

California Culture And Palace Life Were Never A Natural Match

Mayer also argues Meghan’s California upbringing may have made palace culture especially difficult to navigate. The book describes California as a place where emotional openness, ambition, self-expression, and even public vulnerability are embraced, a sharp contrast to the famously reserved traditions of the British monarchy.

That disconnect reportedly surfaced in subtle but revealing moments. Meghan previously recalled feeling surprised by Prince William and Princess Kate’s reaction to her casual nature. “They came over for dinner, I remember I was in ripped jeans, and I was barefoot,” Meghan once shared. “I was a hugger. I’ve always been a hugger. I didn’t realize that is really jarring for a lot of Brits.”

According to Mayer, interactions like these underscored Meghan’s difficulty adapting to what the author describes as “Planet Windsor,” the rigid, highly structured world of royal protocol.

Prince Harry Compared Royal Life To ‘An Unending Truman Show’

Complicating matters further, even Harry has acknowledged how difficult royal life can be for outsiders to understand. In the Sussexes’ Netflix series, the Duke of Sussex described royal life as “this surreal state, this unending Truman Show.”

Harry also highlighted just how unusual palace customs can feel to someone entering the family from the outside. “How do you explain that you bow to your grandmother?” he previously mused.

According to Mayer, no amount of Googling or preparation could have fully prepared Meghan for the reality of royal life, one involving relentless scrutiny, limited privacy, palace aides, and strict traditions.

Why Meghan Markle Could Never Be The ‘Perfect Royal’

The book ultimately argues that Meghan was never likely to succeed by following the same path as Princess Kate. While Catherine, Princess of Wales, is described as someone who perfected the traditional royal role, Mayer suggests Meghan never could have comfortably embraced the same level of restraint, even if she wanted to.

Instead, Meghan continued to value emotional openness and authenticity, something that became increasingly clear during a 2019 royal tour of South Africa. When asked how she was coping, Meghan candidly admitted the experience had taken a toll. “Thank you for asking, because not many people have asked if I’m OK,” she said at the time. “It’s not enough to just survive something, right? Like, that’s not the point of life. You’ve got to thrive, you’ve got to feel happy.”

For Mayer, moments like those revealed the deeper divide at the center of Meghan’s royal story, a California-born public figure trying to navigate an institution built on tradition, restraint, and silence.

In hindsight, the fairytale may have always been heading toward a very different ending.

When Mindhunter debuted on Netflix in 2017, it became an immediate hit. For two seasons, David Fincher‘s psychological thriller followed two FBI agents tracking down the worst killers. Mindhunter ended much too soon in 2019, but if you’re searching for something similar and missed out on it the first time around, check out HBO‘s The Outsider. The 2020 miniseries is an adaptation of Stephen King‘s novel of the same name. It follows two detective-types as well, played to perfection by Ben Mendelsohn and Cynthia Erivo, as they come face to face with a different, even more terrifying kind of killer. Produced, co-directed, and co-starring Jason Bateman, The Outsider only needed one season to tell its shocking story.

‘The Outsider’ Is Stephen King’s Take on a Police Procedural

Stephen King’s novel, The Outsider, was published in 2018. On the surface, both the book and the 10-episode miniseries begin like so many other mysteries. A young boy is found murdered, and irrefutable physical evidence leads the police to a coach in town named Terrence Maitland (Bateman). There’s only one problem. Maitland has an airtight alibi which puts him several towns away when the murder occurred. He can’t be the killer, even though fingerprints and DNA samples say otherwise. How can this possibly be?

Enter Stephen King’s mind to take it in a direction that only he can. Investigating the murder are by-the-book detective Ralph Anderson (Mendelsohn) and an unusual private investigator named Holly Gibney (Erivo). The Holly character has appeared in several King books and their adaptations, including Mr. Mercedes. Here, she and Detective Anderson will follow the trail in a search for truth, but what they find will shock them to the bone.

Ben Mendehlson and Cynthia Erivo Encounter an Impossible Monster in ‘The Outsider’

Holly Gibney is not your traditional crime solver. She’s quiet and socially awkward, and carries an air of sadness. What Holly does have is an incredible amount of intelligence. She can figure out things others can’t. This contrast immediately makes her someone to pay attention to. Ralph Anderson is her exact opposite in many ways. He’s the older, grizzled veteran who does things a different way, but like Holly, Ralph carries a heavy weight of sadness. The HBO series goes much bleaker than the novel by making Ralph the father of a child who died of cancer. To add to the layers, his son was also once coached by Terry Maitland.

The Outsider moves from a typical murder mystery to supernatural horror due to its real villain. It’s not giving anything away to reveal that Terry isn’t the real killer, a fact which should be impossible because it’s not only characters who see Terry in the wrong, but the audience as well. The camera doesn’t lie with scenes such as Maitland covered in blood in one place while somehow being miles away in the next scene. Without getting into spoiler territory, The Outsider takes its time unraveling its mystery. Rather than a horror story filled with jump scares, gore, and shocks at every turn, the miniseries is a bleak, slow burn that is more interested in getting to know its characters first before showing the monster. The audience feels for these people, including Terry. Only then can the true terror have any impact, becoming Mindhunter with the restraints of real life ripped away.

‘The Outsider’ Premiered to Phenomenal Reviews

Image Via HBO

Like Mindhunter, The Outsider is expertly written, with most of the episodes penned by series creator Richard Price. He’s not only one of the writing masterminds behind The Wire, but he is an Academy Award-nominated screenwriter, having worked on Martin Scorsese‘s The Color of Money. Price captures the darkness, fear, and paranoia overtaking the residents of Cherokee City, Georgia. He’s not the only one. Bateman is given the tall task of introducing the audience to The Outsider by directing the first two episodes. It’s a job he is more than capable of. The actor has been directing off and on for decades, including movies such as Bad Words, and winning an Emmy for his talents helming Ozark. Like with his popular Netflix series, Bateman showcases the grittiness of a small town and how an invading force gets under the skin of its protagonists. His acting chops are no joke either. The Hollywood A-lister puts the audience on the fence with Terry. Because it’s Bateman and Terry has been shown to have an alibi, the viewer wants to trust him, but there’s also something dark about him that’s impossible to shake. Bateman earned an Outstanding Guest Actor Emmy nomination for his efforts.

Stephen King TV adaptations have been hit-and-miss over the decades. For every IT: Welcome to Derry, there’s an Under the Dome or The Tommyknockers, which miss the mark. There are no worries with The Outsider, which debuted to a stellar 91% Tomatometer on Rotten Tomatoes. Although not perfect, as it arguably lasts a few episodes too long, the characters, especially Ralph and Holly, keep the attention focused even as the plot starts to wane at points. It’s worth it to stick through the meandering middle to reach the frightening end, when the thing responsible for all of this hell shows what it can do.

Even the master of horror himself was a fan, posting on Twitter, “THE OUTSIDER is one of the best adaptations of my work. Hope you’ll watch it.” Collider agreed, putting it as the number one Stephen King TV show ahead of titles such as The Stand and Castle Rock. Six years later, it still hits as hard and is required viewing for fans of Mindhunter, Seven, Zodiac, The Killing, and True Detective. If you haven’t seen it, check out what all the hype is about. The Outsider will hook you and not let go.

Perhaps no other director working today has done more to keep the Western alive than James Mangold. Although he’s hopped from genre to genre throughout his career, the spirit of the Western is present in films as varied as Cop Land, Walk the Line, and Logan. So it’s surprising that he’s only directed one proper cowboy movie: 2007’s 3:10 to Yuma, a remake of a 1957 adventure yarn adapted from a short story by Elmore Leonard. It seems appropriate that Mangold would remake a movie from the ’50s, considering his life’s mission seems to be infusing Old Hollywood classicism with New Hollywood sensibilities. And with 3:10 to Yuma, he found the perfect vehicle to express the themes that have been ever-present in his work. The film recently left Peacock, and is now streaming once again on Plex and Philo.

James Mangold’s ‘3:10 to Yuma’ Goes Deeper and Darker Than the Original

The plot of 3:10 to Yuma is a model of simplicity: wounded Civil War veteran Dan Evans (Christian Bale) is struggling to keep his ranch from being sold to the railroad company that wants to use his land for development. Desperate for cash, he agrees to help transport outlaw Ben Wade (Russell Crowe) to the town of Contention, where he will take the 3:10 train to Yuma to await trial. A battle of wills ensues as Ben tries to escape by playing mind games with Dan. Meanwhile, Ben’s gang, led by the bloodthirsty Charlie Prince (Ben Foster), is headed towards Contention to free their boss.

The 1957 original, directed by genre master Delmer Daves, starred Glenn Ford as the outlaw and Van Heflin as the rancher. At a brisk 92 minutes, it’s a tense, psychologically complex B-movie that seems to play out almost in real time in its second half (much like another Western from that era, High Noon). Mangold’s version, which adds an extra half hour to the runtime, takes the bones of Leonard’s story and expands it into a more ambitious action spectacle, extending the journey to Contention, creating some rich supporting characters (including Dallas Roberts and Alan Tudyk as members of Dan’s posse) and taking full advantage of the R-rating to show the gruesome reality of the Old West. He also develops the role of Dan’s eldest son, William (Logan Lerman), who loathes his father and accompanies him on the mission because he doesn’t think the old man is capable of handling Ben on his own.

There are a number of bravura set pieces, from Ben and his gang robbing the stagecoach transporting the railroad’s money (with Peter Fonda as the Pinkerton agent paid to protect it) to the finale, as Dan evades dozens of gunslingers recruited to stop him from getting Ben aboard the train. But what’s most surprising about this remake is how rich and complex the relationship between Dan and Ben is. Even though they’re on opposite sides of the law, the two live by a moral code. Ben might be a thief, but he’s stealing from the railroad company who are using illegal tactics to force Dan off his land. Dan, meanwhile, could very easily save his ranch by taking Ben’s stolen money in exchange for letting him escape, but that would be wrong. In the end, there’s mutual respect between the two, as they’ve each come to respect the other’s strict sense of ethics. The performances by Crowe and Bale — a significant upgrade over Ford and Heflin in terms of movie star charisma — help sell this as each plays into the ways in which either man could be considered the hero or villain of the story. (It also helps that Foster is so good at playing a brutal henchman, making his boss seem tame by comparison.)

Ben Foster Gives an Underrated, Rock-Star Performance

Image via Lionsgate

When speaking to Vulture about his role in 3:10 to Yuma, Ben Foster provided some behind-the-scenes color to the story about his character’s tan leather jacket. He and the wardrobe designer were looking at photos of historical outlaws, and they concluded that the outlaws were the rock-stars of their era. Thus, in a bleached tan jacket with shiny brass buttons, worn by a character named Charlie Prince, was born the regal and deranged inspiration for his performance.

Foster’s character building provides another insight into the rough-and-tumble outlaw world Mangold is exploring in the remake. The flamboyance that he brings to the role can be seen especially in moments of violence. In a scene where the outlaw attempts to get his boss back from the townsfolk assisting with this custody, Charlie gleefully rides through the main square shouting: “This town’s gonna burn.” The rock-star arrogance he brings to the role again comes out when Charlie introduces himself to the Pinkerton agent they are about to rob, drawling “I assume you’ve heard of me?”

An especially poignant moment is the final gun fight that ensues when rancher Dan is trying to escape through town as the team of outlaws awaits them. As Dan leads Ben down a back alley, the surrounding gunmen are alerted, and the trigger-happy outlaws begin shooting wildly in their direction. Foster’s performance as he realizes the danger his boss is in plays across his features as he shouts wildly for the surrounding gunslingers to aim for the rancher and “not the black hat.” As his words have no effect, he springs into action and rapidly takes down the nearby gunmen. It’s a masterful moment where the idea of “black hat vs. white hat” morality is ambiguous as Charlie suddenly enters the fray and momentarily saves Dan from the other outlaws, but only in the hopes that he can kill him himself while freeing his boss.

Foster told Vulture that on each new set an actor needs to “learn how to act again,” as you become open to embodying this new person. He paraphrased Neil Young’s famous quip that songwriters need to “get out of the way” of the song to describe this entry into a new character, saying he wants only to get out of the character’s way. With his performance in 3:10 to Yuma, Foster clearly got out of Charlie’s way and the film was all the better for it.

‘3:10 to Yuma’ Is James Mangold at His Very Best

Although his filmography encompasses titles like Girl, Interrupted and Kate & Leopold, Mangold has always been drawn to stories centered on men standing apart from society, using a variety of genres to explore issues of masculinity, male bonding, and individuality. Perhaps no other film of his has better expressed these themes than 3:10 to Yuma, which centers on two loners with distinctive views on manhood who eventually come to respect each other. While he would explore similar terrain in his 2019 racing drama Ford v. Ferrari, 3:10 to Yuma is even more effective because it belongs to a genre that has always lent itself to interrogations of male archetypes.

One of the dramatic threads in 3:10 to Yuma is Dan’s struggles to earn William’s respect. Having lost his foot in the war and unable to provide for his family, Dan feels constantly emasculated, and his son reinforces this by sneering at his attempts to prove himself. Throughout their trip to Contention, William is put in the middle of Ben and Dan’s warring views on masculinity — tough and violent on the one hand, quiet and noble on the other. As the journey progresses, and the rest of the crew are either killed or scared away, Dan’s mission to get Ben on the 3:10 train has less to do with the money and more to do with regaining his self-respect. By the end, through watching his father, William has learned what it means to be a man, and so has Ben.

Advertisement

Release Date

September 6, 2007

Advertisement

Runtime

122 minutes

Writers

Advertisement

Halsted Welles, Michael Brandt, Derek Haas, Elmore Leonard

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement