Quentin Tarantino is undoubtedly divisive as a filmmaker. He’s courted controversy and criticism while simultaneously helping to redefine postmodern cinema. Despite their myriad influences, his films are all uniquely his, with a distinct pop-culture-infused voice behind their stylish visuals and colorful characters. The director broke onto the indie scene in the ’90s with the violent, verbose heist thriller Reservoir Dogs, which established his singular style right from the beginning. He would follow that debut up with what many would call his signature film, the neo-noir crime anthology Pulp Fiction. The Oscar-winning film not only codified the new category that critics and film majors would define as Tarantino-esque, but also so heavily affected the film world at large that it precipitated dozens of imitators within the newly established subgenre.

While Pulp Fiction may be Tarantino’s quintessential film, it’s not his best. If the filmmaker is to be taken at his word, he only has one more film left in his directorial filmography, rounding it out at an even ten — assuming you count Kill Bill as one whole bloody affair. In terms of directors that have been active in as many decades as Tarantino has, that’s a relatively modest number of films, though it still leaves room for plenty of debate. Any fan of Tarantino’s is likely to have their personal favorite film of his, and it’s even arguable that he’s never directed a bad film. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but to take a cue from the filmmaker himself, who has never been shy about giving a hot take, it is without any humility that the following three films directed by Quentin Tarantino are submitted as better than Pulp Fiction.

3

‘Once Upon a Time in Hollywood’ (2019)

Image via Columbia Pictures

Tarantino’s potentially penultimate film is this immensely entertaining hangout of Hollywood revisionist history. Once Upon a Time in Hollywood transports viewers back in time to a transitional period amid the shift from the classic studio regime to the rise of New Hollywood, where a fading TV Western star and his longtime stuntman companion must reckon with a landscape they don’t quite recognize anymore. The chemistry between Leonardo DiCaprio and Brad Pitt, both of whom we’re reteaming with Tarantino from their separate films, is electric, and while they take up the majority of the marquee, it’s Margot Robbie as Sharon Tate who is the film’s heart and soul. For a Tarantino film, Once Upon a Time in Hollywood is surprisingly wistful, nostalgically longing for a bygone era of Hollywood and tenderly mourning the loss of Tate to the disciples of Charles Manson. It showcases the empathetic side of Tarantino, which he had engaged with less and less as his films had dived deeper and deeper into genre and exploitation.

In 1969, Rick Dalton (DiCaprio), the former star of a once-popular Western series, is now relegated to guest stints as a villain on other stars’ shows. He commiserates with his faithful stuntman pal Cliff Booth (Pitt), who has a sordid history that has left him just as washed up. As they cruise and booze together, the film treats viewers to a stunning recreation of the era, one that is also filled with impending doom, as we also spend time with movie star Tate and catch glimpses of the members of the Manson Family. The Spahn Ranch sequence is one of Tarantino’s finest, a masterclass in tension that is a microcosm of the film’s entire purpose. The more familiar finale, where Booth and Dalton intervene with history and make bloody mincemeat of the Manson Family members sent to target Tate’s home, is bloody hilarious. However, it’s in the film’s final moments that it makes its fairy tale intentions clear. It isn’t Tarantino’s Spaghetti Western vision of Hollywood; it’s his love letter to it.

2

‘Inglourious Basterds’ (2009)

Tarantino first dabbled in historical revisionism by having his Inglourious Basterds violently murder Adolf Hitler. While this film doesn’t have the aching sentimentality that Once Upon a Time in Hollywood does, it is a rip-roaring action-adventure war epic that features what are undoubtedly some of Tarantino’s best scenes ever and his greatest villain. From the first moment Christoph Waltz steps on screen in the film’s absolutely nerve-jangling opening to when he leaves it screaming as a swastika is carved into his forehead, it is abundantly clear with affectionate repetition that Tarantino has found his greatest acting collaborator since Samuel L. Jackson. In the conflict that arises between Waltz and the titular Basterds, Tarantino delivers his most entertaining, most immaculately crafted war film.

The Basterds are an all-Jewish group of commandos led by the Tennessee-tinged Aldo Raine (Pitt), who intends to have his men engage in cruel and unusual warfare against the Nazis, drawing the ire of Hitler himself. While they wage war, SS officer Hans Landa (Waltz) is hunting Jewish refugees across Nazi-occupied France. The paths of Landa and the Basterds cross at a fateful film premiere hosted by a cinema operated by Shosanna (Mélanie Laurent), whose family was brutally murdered by Landa and who has plans of vengeance all her own. Throw in a Mexican standoff in a tavern and an explosive finale, and Inglourious Basterds stands tall alongside its action-war progenitors. The final shot of the film infamously has Raine, after having carved his aforementioned swastika into Landa, declare that it’s his masterpiece, before smash-cutting to Tarantino’s writer-director credit. The intention is clear, and it’s hard to disagree.

1

‘Jackie Brown’ (1997)

Image via Lionsgate

Advertisement

Jackie Brown is Tarantino’s most underrated film, but as the direct follow-up to Pulp Fiction, it had a long shadow cast over it. The film is far more subtle and subdued in comparison, but also leagues more mature and measured. The differences are what likely led many to write it off as minor Tarantino, but time has shown it to be his greatest cinematic achievement. As an adaptation of the Elmore Leonard novel Rum Punch, the film is fairly faithful to the text, but Tarantino’s signature is still all over it, in the dialogue and the casting. Giving ’70s blaxploitation icon Pam Grier her greatest acting showcase, alongside fellow undervalued thespian Robert Forster, the film is anchored by their sincere love story, while the marriage of Leonard and Tarantino’s criminal prose proves as effective as that of any filmmaker and author. Jackie Brown is both the best Elmore Leonard movie and the best Quentin Tarantino movie.

Jackie Brown (Grier) is a middle-aged flight attendant who moonlights as a smuggler for gunrunner Ordell Robbie (Samuel L. Jackson). When she gets pinched by the ATF, she has to play all the angles in order to keep herself out of jail and alive. Conspiring with bail bondsman Max Cherry (Forster), Jackie makes plans to get out from under the threat of Ordell and the ATF, and walk away with half a million dollars clean. The twisty crime plot is vintage Leonard, while the characters all sound distinctly Tarantino. It’s not the pulpy plot or punchy dialogue that leaves the most lasting impression, though; it’s the budding romance between Brown and Cherry. Grier and Forster are consummate pros, and they play off each other beautifully, while Tarantino shows a patience and restraint in their scenes only glimpsed in his prior two movies, and which became exceedingly rare in his future films. It’s pointless to wonder whether Tarantino’s career would have taken a different turn had Jackie Brown been more warmly received, and it’s unlikely the director will return to any criminal world crafted by Leonard for his final film, but audiences would be so lucky to get it.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer is an iconic pop culture landmark that continues to find new generations of fans today, nearly three decades after it first premiered. Starring Sarah Michelle Gellar as Buffy Summers, the titular Slayer, the show follows her attempts to balance battling the forces of darkness with leading a normal life in high school (and later college). The series premiered on The WB on March 10, 1997, over 29 years ago, with the two-part broadcast of the episodes “Welcome to Hellmouth” and “The Harvest.” In them, we see Buffy and her mom, Joyce (Kristine Sutherland), move from Los Angeles to Sunnydale, where she makes new friends, stumbles onto a vampiric conspiracy, and learns that the town is situated on a Hellmouth, a magical portal that’s the source of Sunnydale’s high concentration of supernatural occurrences.

While the show has become a bit controversial in recent years due to allegations of workplace harassment by creator Joss Whedon, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was a major critical and commercial success during its original run, and it remains a beloved favorite among fans around the world. That said, there’s no denying that the show hasn’t entirely aged well in the 29 years since its premiere, and as a result, any time you rewatch Buffy’s very first episode, you can’t help but notice some serious flaws. With that in mind, here’s a look at some of the harsh realities of rewatching Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s first episode, 29 years later.

1

The Actors Hadn’t Settled Into the Characters Yet

Image via The WB

Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s biggest strength is its characters, particularly the supporting cast. “Welcome to Hellmouth” is where Buffy and the audience meet some of the key players: her friends Willow (Alyson Hannigan) and Xander (Nicholas Brendon), her Watcher, Giles (Anthony Stewart Head), and her eventual love interest, Angel (David Boreanaz).

Now, while their performances in these roles in the first episode are effective and successfully establish their characterizations and dynamics, they’re not quite as great as what we eventually see in later episodes. That extends to Sarah Michelle Gellar’s performance as Buffy as well, which, while charming, doesn’t feel very real in a lot of the scenes. This is at least partly to be blamed on the fact that it was very early days for the production, leading to an overreliance on archetypes that may have been right for its time, but are undeniably dated now. Speaking of which…

2

It’s Extremely ‘90s (And Not Always in a Good Way)

Image via Warner Bros. 

Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s seven-season run extended well into the early 2000s, but it is best known as an iconically ’90s show. Most of the time, that’s a good thing, as the series perfectly captures the culture, stylings, language, and sense of humor of its decade. However, as we mentioned above, the narrative and character dynamics that make those features come alive were still being set up in “Welcome to Hellmouth,” and the result is an episode with far too many flat ’90s stereotypes in place of characters.

This might not be a particularly big problem for fans who grew up in the ’90s and/or watched the series during its initial broadcast, but it can make it feel too dated for some younger viewers. For those audiences, scenes like Buffy’s first meeting with Xander and Cordelia Chase (Charisma Carpenter) bullying Willow would mostly seem far too tropey and possibly even offensive. It’s just the passage of time, really, but there’s no ignoring it.

3

The Effects Are Dated

Image via 20th Century Fox

Another issue that you can chalk up to time, “Welcome to Hellmouth” uses pretty low-budget effects that feel visibly dated today. While that’s excusable to a certain extent, it’s not like the episode was exactly a VFX highlight when it first premiered. As the pilot episode, it was made with a very tight budget, and though the effects were seen as mostly adequate when it first came out in 1997, they weren’t particularly impressive back then either.

The show’s production quality did improve significantly starting with Season 2, but the first season’s effects are undeniably cheesy. What actually impressed critics of the time about the pilot episode, however, was the writing, which felt genuinely fresh and innovative for its time. That said…

4

The Writing Feels a Lot More Two-Dimensional Now

Image via The WB

Advertisement

This ties back to the problem we mentioned earlier with the characterizations feeling too flat and stereotypical. In its later seasons, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was truly one of the best-written shows on television, with layered and well-thought-out character arcs. Compared to that, the first episode feels a lot more clunky.

Again, it’s not exactly bad for its time. The “High School as Hell” concept is brilliantly executed, and the first scene in particular, where we see a boy and a girl break into the school to fool around, only for the girl to be revealed as the vampire, was quite subversive in the ’90s. But again, that was the ’90s; in the 2020s, audiences have already seen scenes like that a million times over, to the point where it feels cliché.

5

The Action Isn’t as Polished

Image via The WB

Advertisement

Like the visual effects, this is another aspect of Buffy the Vampire Slayer that improved with later seasons, but the first episode’s stage-fighting looks and feels like stage-fighting. This isn’t just because it’s dated; rather, once again, the low budget can largely be blamed. Buffy’s fight with Darla (Julie Benz), for example, looks quite cheesy, but thankfully, the camera cuts away before we see much of it.

The action in “Welcome to Hellmouth” is quite stilted, even for its time, but again, the fight choreography does get a lot more creative and polished as the show progresses. The early days of any series can involve some growing pains, and to be fair, the action isn’t even the biggest one.

6

Dialogue Was a Work in Progress

Image via The WB

Advertisement

Looking back at Buffy the Vampire Slayer​​​​​​’s history, the dialogue is one of the best remembered aspects of the show, with tons of quotable lines that are still used by fans in everyday conversation. It’s honestly quite shocking that the first episode’s dialogue isn’t nearly as good as you may remember. The sense of humor is definitely there, sassy and sardonic, but a lot of the quips don’t land, and it clearly took some time for the writers to get it right.

It’s not just that the jokes aren’t great; far too much of the dialogue is wasted on signaling intelligence without actually being intelligent; others are too dependent on stereotypes, and still more feel forced rather than natural. It’s ironic considering Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s particular style of language, aka Buffy speak, went on to become commonly adopted slang among teens and younger adults. But the lines in the first episode are just not it.

7

Life in Sunnydale Sounds Terrifying

Advertisement

In the early days, Buffy the Vampire Slayer was firmly rooted in its light teen horror foundations, and it’s only much later that the show got into more mature and well-thought-out storytelling. That means there’s a lot of handwaving of plot holes, which fall apart on closer examination. For example, “Welcome to Hellmouth” and its second part, “The Harvest,” firmly establish that the people of Sunnydale are magically oblivious to the supernatural occurrences happening around them.

This is convenient for a show with a procedural format, but can you imagine how terrifying that would be? In the very first scene, we see a boy being killed, and his death barely makes a mark on the people around him. Even in later episodes and seasons, the regular people of Sunnydale are treated as NPCs who live and die with no real impact, which would be an existentially terrifying idea in anything but a ’90s teen show.

Everything said and done, however, these flaws don’t really ruin the experience of the series, and they definitely don’t take away from Buffy the Vampire Slayer’s enduring legacy. Sure, the show might have taken its time to become the iconic world we know and love, but most of those growing pains are just a product of its time. And as for the rest, they’re more than forgivable when you consider the overall entertainment, joy, and creativity that the series delivers over the course of its acclaimed run.

Advertisement

Advertisement

Release Date

1997 – 2003

Advertisement

Network

The WB

Showrunner

Advertisement

Joss Whedon

Directors

Joss Whedon

Advertisement

Writers

Joss Whedon

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

There are so many Stephen King adaptations now that it’s easy for even the good ones to get lost in the shuffle. Between blockbuster films, miniseries, and streaming originals, King’s name has become almost its own genre. But while many adaptations focus on recreating his monsters or most famous plots, one series quietly succeeded by doing something much harder: understanding why his horror works in the first place.

When Castle Rock premiered on Hulu in 2018, it didn’t adapt a single novel. Instead, it built an original story using King’s fictional Maine setting and the mythology surrounding places like Shawshank Prison. What makes it stand out isn’t just its connections to King lore, but how effectively it captures the emotional and psychological horror that defines his best stories. Rather than relying on constant shocks or elaborate mythology, Castle Rock succeeds because it understands something many modern horror shows forget: the scariest thing in a King story usually isn’t the monster. It’s the damage people were already carrying before the monster arrived.

‘Castle Rock’ Makes Its Setting Feel Like the Real Villain

Image via Hulu

One of King’s greatest strengths has always been his ability to make a place feel alive, and not in a comforting way. Towns like Derry and Castle Rock feel infected by history, tragedy, and cycles of violence stretching back decades. From the moment Henry Deaver (André Holland) returns to his hometown after a mysterious inmate at Shawshank asks specifically for him, the show builds dread through atmosphere rather than spectacle. Nothing feels safe. Every location carries emotional weight, whether it’s Henry’s childhood home, the prison looming over the town, or streets filled with people who remember things he would rather forget.

What makes this approach effective is restraint. The series doesn’t rush to explain what’s wrong with Castle Rock. Instead, it allows unease to build through character interactions and small details. Conversations feel loaded with past conflicts, relationships feel strained by things left unsaid, and even before the supernatural elements fully emerge, the town already feels broken. Even Bill Skarsgård’s mysterious prisoner, known only as The Kid, isn’t treated like a traditional horror villain. He’s frightening, but the real tension comes from how his presence affects everyone else. As suspicion spreads, people begin acting in ways that suggest the town itself might be amplifying the worst parts of them. That’s King storytelling. Evil isn’t always an invading force; sometimes it feels like something a place has been quietly cultivating for years.

Related

Stephen King’s Supernatural Small-Town Series Is Finally Available To Watch for Free 10 Years Later

Rewatching this horror series feels like returning to a place you didn’t realize you missed.

Advertisement

The Show’s Best Horror Comes From Emotional Trauma

What elevates Castle Rock above many horror shows is how grounded it keeps its characters. Everyone feels shaped by personal history rather than just plot mechanics. Henry’s return isn’t just about solving a mystery, it’s about confronting a childhood filled with suspicion and unanswered questions. Melanie Lynskey’s Molly Strand could have been a simple psychic trope, but the show instead frames her sensitivity as something exhausting and isolating. This focus on emotional realism gives the horror real weight. The characters are reacting through layers of grief, guilt, addiction, and fear they were already dealing with.

No episode demonstrates this better than Season 1’s standout installment, “The Queen,” centered on Sissy Spacek’s Ruth Deaver. Instead of relying on traditional horror structure, the episode places viewers inside Ruth’s fractured experience of dementia. Time shifts unpredictably, memories bleed into the present, and moments of clarity disappear without warning. The horror comes from watching someone struggle to trust their own mind. It’s a perfect example of what Castle Rock does differently. Instead of using trauma as backstory, it makes trauma part of the horror itself. The fear doesn’t just come from what might happen, but from what has already happened and how it continues to shape these people.

‘Castle Rock’ Proves Horror Doesn’t Need All the Answers

Image via Hulu

Another reason Castle Rock remains underrated is one of its biggest strengths: it refuses to overexplain its mysteries. Modern genre television often feels pressured to answer everything. Viewers expect detailed explanations of how every supernatural element works. But King’s best stories often leave room for interpretation, and Castle Rock follows that tradition. The show understands that not knowing is often more disturbing than certainty. This helps the series avoid a common trap where mystery eventually turns into exposition. Instead of building toward a clean explanation, Castle Rock builds toward emotional consequences. The question becomes less about what is happening and more about what it’s doing to the people involved.

That ambiguity helps the series linger after it ends. Rather than feeling like a puzzle solved, it feels like a story that continues beyond the final episode. That’s why Castle Rock remains one of the most interesting King television projects of the past decade. Not because it references his work, but because it understands his philosophy. His horror isn’t just about monsters: it’s about how fear reshapes people and how sometimes the most disturbing realization is that the darkness may have been there all along.

Advertisement

Release Date

Advertisement

2018 – 2019-00-00

Showrunner

Dustin Thomason

Advertisement

Directors

Dustin Thomason

Advertisement

Writers

Dustin Thomason

Advertisement

Advertisement

Advertisement

If your skin isn’t quite giving ‘spring-ready’ yet, same! Winter has a way of leaving behind dryness, dullness and texture that just won’t smooth out, no matter how much lotion you layer on. The good news? A simple swap in your routine can make all the difference — and it starts with a quality body cream.

Enter Augustinus Bader’s Geranium Rose Body Cream, a multi-award-winning formula that takes your body care routine from basic to downright luxurious. Powered by the brand’s signature TFC8 (Trigger Factor Complex) technology, it helps support skin renewal over time for smoother, firmer, more radiant results. It also doesn’t hurt that the brand is backed by a bunch of celebrities, including Jennifer Aniston and Margot Robbie, who are longtime fans of its iconic Rich Cream.

Get The Geranium Rose Body Cream for $200 at Augustinus Bader!

Unlike your typical lotion, this formula doesn’t just sit on the surface, and you can feel a difference almost immediately. The rich, ultra-conditioning texture melts into skin, helping improve elasticity while visibly smoothing the look of cellulite and stretch marks over time. Instead of that temporary ‘just moisturized’ effect, you get a more refined, even-looking finish that actually lasts.

It’s also working overtime behind the scenes. The deeply hydrating formula locks in moisture for a plump, bounce-back feel while supporting a stronger, healthier-looking skin barrier with consistent use. Over time, skin feels softer, looks more supple and takes on that subtle, lit-from-within glow that doesn’t require layering on oils or shimmer.

And then there’s the sensorial element that makes this cream feel like more than just another step in your routine. The geranium and rose blend is fresh, soft, calming and just noticeable enough to feel elevated. It turns a quick post-shower step into something you actually look forward to, and layers beautifully with your favorite body oil or fragrance.

If you’re showing a little more skin this season (as in, swapping knits for breezy dresses, skirts and lighter layers), this rose body cream is the upgrade that makes everything look better. While it rings in at $200, the combination of visible results, celeb fanbase and that elevated, spa-like experience makes it feel like a worth-it splurge.

Get The Geranium Rose Body Cream for $200 at Augustinus Bader!

Melissa Gilbert is breaking her silence regarding the multiple child sex abuse charges against her husband Timothy Busfield in an upcoming interview, where the long-time actress doubles down on her support for him following his January arrest.

Gilbert has maintained her husband’s innocence throughout his arrest, detainment, release pending trial, and ultimate indictment for allegedly abusing two minor boys while directing Fox’s “The Cleaning Lady.”

Melissa Gilbert Voices Unwavering Support For Husband Timothy Busfield In Upcoming ‘GMA’ Interview

On Monday, April 6, ABC will air Gilbert’s sit-down interview with George Stephanopoulos on “Good Morning America,” but a first-look exclusive from PEOPLE shows the “Little House on the Prairie” star coming to husband Busfield’s defense.

“This has been the most traumatizing experience of our lives,” Gilbert tells Stephanopoulos before noting how Busfield’s arrest has forever changed their lives.

“Our life as we knew it is done,” she admits. “We are grieving what we had — all of our plans, all of our dreams, all of our ideas, all of our projects.”

“For Tim, it’s done,” Gilbert continues in the clip, as she stands firm in her defense of him. “He’s canceled. Even if he’s exonerated, he will always be that guy. [He’s] the last person in the world who would hurt a child. And believe me, if I thought for a second that Tim Busfield hurt a child, he’d have a lot more to worry about than prison.”

Gilbert is accompanied in the interview alongside Busfield’s attorney Larry Stein.

Gilbert Previously Addressed Her Supporters On Social Media In February 2026 Following Busfield’s Indictment

The actress marked her return to her company, Modern Prairie, with a video posted to Instagram on February 16, where she thanked her fans.

“As many of you know, I stepped away for a little while to focus on my family,” Gilbert said. “It was time I needed — time to be present, to tend to what matters most and to gather my strength in a season that has not been easy.”

“Family is everything to me, and during this incredibly difficult time, I leaned into that truth fully,” she continued before thanking her supporters.

“But something else carried me too: You did. This extraordinary community at Modern Prairie, you wrapped me in love. Even when I was quiet, I felt your prayers, I felt your encouragement, I felt your steady presence,” Gilbert continued.

She also stressed that returning to the company does not mean that she is taking her family’s legal troubles lightly.

“Coming back to work does not change my commitment or my resolve to the journey that lies ahead for my family — that remains steadfast, that remains my heart,” Gilbert said.

“But it is important for me to step back into this work. It strengthens my mindset, it gives me purpose, it reminds me of who I am beyond hard days,” she added.

The Actress Was One Of Multiple Celebrities Who Wrote Letter Of Support Prior To Busfield’s Jail Release

During the court proceedings to determine whether or not Busfield would be released from jail, Gilbert was visibly emotional as she sat alongside family members at the hearing.

Once the judge announced his decision to release Busfield from custody with restrictions, the actress was seen clasping her hands together and saying, “Thank you, God.”

Ahead of the hearing, Gilbert and some of Busfield’s former co-stars all wrote letters of support for him, with her written declaration pleading with the judge to protect him while in custody.

“I know Tim better and more intimately than anything in his life ever has,” Gilbert’s letter read, while emphasizing that he has the “strongest moral compass of any human I have ever known…He starts every day with kindness and compassion.”

“Please, please, take care of my sweet husband. As he is my protector, I am his, but I cannot protect him now, and I think that, more than anything else, is what is truly breaking my heart. I am relying on you to protect him for me,” she continued.

Timothy Busfield’s Trial Date Has Been Confirmed

According to PEOPLE, on March 11, via his criminal defense attorney Amber Fayerberg, it was confirmed that Timothy Busfield will formally stand trial beginning in May 2027. 

The court proceedings are reportedly set to last for three weeks and will be held in the Albuquerque, New Mexico, courtroom of Judge Joseph Montano.

Busfield has been out of jail since January pending trial, and is currently back home with his wife, actress Melissa Gilbert, who has publicly defended him since the allegations were revealed.

The ‘Thirtysomething’ Star Was Indicted On Multiple Felony Count In January 2026

Busfield was indicted by the Bernalillo County District Attorney Sam Bregman on four counts of criminal sexual contact of a child, which are all classified as third-degree felonies.

“As with all criminal proceedings, Mr. Busfield is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty in a court of law,” Bregman said via statement following the indictment announcement. “This case will proceed through the judicial process and is expected to move forward to trial.”

“The Bernalillo County District Attorney’s Office remains committed to doing everything possible to protect children and ensure justice for victims across New Mexico,” the statement added.

By Jennifer Asencio
| Published 27 seconds ago

Recently, animator Barry Caldwell died, less than a week before the newest trailer for the live-action version of one of his many well-known projects: He-Man and the Masters of the Universe. It is perhaps ironic that the trailer should so closely follow his death, as it is a reminder of his impact on our culture.

And boy, does the trailer have impact. Movies based on or around toy lines or video games tend to be transparent cash grabs and thus really horrible, with a few notable exceptions. Street Fighter leaned into its camp and both Silent Hill and Resident Evil managed to capture the survival horror of their settings quite well. Even the Sonic the Hedgehog movies embrace their cartoonishness to stand out as halfway decent adaptations. Meanwhile, repeated attempts to make a good Super Mario Brothers movie haven’t always won over fans, and the Jem movie, based on another Hasbro line, failed entirely by abandoning its source material.

Masters of the Universe appears as though it may not only join the ranks of the successful adaptations but potentially surpass them. The trailer shows us not only an Adam on a dreary Earth, but the consequences of both his exile and return. Sent away by his parents as Skeletor ravages Eternia, he works in an office but is a sci-fi nerd who is always conscious of his roots.

To top it off, he is the prince of the land he was sent away from, so his return has consequence to its people. Reunited with the Sword of Power, he is picked up by canon character Teela and brought back to an Eternia that has been ravaged and razed. His parents are prisoners, and it looks like his populace is a little skeptical of him. He knows that the weight of saving his planet rests on his shoulders. Is he ready to take on the challenge of defeating Skeletor and his evil minions?

Top-Tier Worldbuilding

The trailer treats us to magical transformations and really exciting fights with Adam in full He-Man form, answering that question rather quickly and giving us what we want to see in a He-Man movie: the titular hero fighting the terrifying sorcerer and his witchy sidekick, Evilyn in the fantasy setting it was written in, not here on Earth, which we see every time we open our eyes. This is augmented by the science fiction technology that was also a huge part of the fantasy setting, including space ships, laser guns, and mechanized weapons.

Even ravaged, Eternia looks awesome, with the CGI well-rendered and not cartoony, like an Avatar movie. We see all the sites: Castle Greyskull, the home of He-Man ally Sorceress, the lair of Skeletor, the sweeping capitol, and various vistas of Eternia’s mountains, plains, and forests. While there may be scenes on Earth, it feels like this is a story of Adam’s homecoming, and therefore it embraces Eternia as surely as Adam is its prince.

The characters are also largely spot-on. Cringer, Adam’s companion and steed whose alter ego is Battle Cat when the prince is He-Man, looks a lot better than he did in the original trailer, and makes a comical appearance in lieu of the MGM Lion in the production credit (MGM and Amazon produced the movie).

Teela looks exactly right, especially once she is in full costume with her hair swept up in her crown. Even Duncan Man-at-Arms, who is played by Idris Elba in a casting move that has caused some complaints, is in perfect costume, and Elba does justice to the grizzled warrior as he gives Adam advice about being a man.

A Trailer That Will Channel Your Inner Barbarian

The only one of the heroes from the cartoon that I haven’t seen in the trailers yet is the floating tiny wizard Orko, who as the comic relief of the show. Given how much attention has been given to the rest of the production, I suspect we may yet see him. After all, there are many special effects creatures in the trailer, including an alien Adam can’t identify. Even Sorceress appears, but you’ll only spot her if you’re “eagle-eyed” (hint, hint!).

Jared Leto is buried under a lot of makeup as Skeletor, giving the monstrous dictator a menacing look that is only more enticing in this new trailer. Unlike his cartoon counterpart or his portrayal by Frank Langella in the 1987 campy live action version with Dolph Lundgren, Jared Leto’s Skeletor is a frightening presence on the screen, his glowing red eyes evidence of his evil. Speaking of evil, Alison Brie as Evilyn is dressed to kill, even if she doesn’t quite look the part as much as Meg Foster did in 1987.

I went from being a bit unsure about the direction the movie was taking to being very excited about it because of this trailer. The other trailer made some hints that it was either embracing the “modern audience” or skewering it with the masculinity inherent in a character named “He-Man” (whose mundane identity’s name also means “man”), but with shots of He-Man in his full barbarian-style garb, it is clear that the movie isn’t shying away from its hero. It is actually starting to look like a real live-action version of the cartoon we grew up with in the 80s, and it looks like it’s not just a cynical artifact cashing in on nostalgia, but a truly great tribute to a memorable character and his world.

Masters of the Universe will be released in theaters on June 5, 2026. Take The Power and mark the date!

By Robert Scucci
| Published 1 hour ago

Have you ever watched Memento and thought to yourself, “I wish there was a crappier version of this film that makes no sense?” Well, your search is over, because 2014’s Before I Go to Sleep is streaming on Netflix. It’s billed as a psychological thriller, and technically it is, but it completely falls apart under scrutiny if you watch it for more than five seconds and have an IQ higher than the average goldfish.

It’s not the talent involved either. Before I Go to Sleep is adequately acted, and it looks fine. There are even some pretty neat flashback sequences. There’s nothing wrong with the cinematography, but the cast and crew alone can’t save a screenplay like this. You can’t act your way out of a premise so profoundly stupid that it requires four ibuprofen and a cool, dark room to recover from. The movie’s about amnesia, but unfortunately, I remember watching it, so I might as well talk about it.

Like Memento But Without The Drama, Mystery, Tension, Or Smart Hooks

Here’s the story that Before I Go to Sleep tries to tell. Christine Lucas (Nicole Kidman) has amnesia. Every day, her husband Ben (Colin Firth) gives her a 50 First Dates crash course on her identity, their relationship, her injury, and her memory loss. Meanwhile, another man named Mike Nasch (Mark Strong), who claims to be her psychologist, calls her daily to remind her that she’s keeping a record of her thoughts on a camera hidden in a shoebox in her closet. Every day, Christine wakes up, forgets what happened the day before, and repeats the cycle.

Christine has been living like this for 14 years. It’s only when the movie begins that all of this suddenly becomes a problem. She starts remembering her old friend Claire (Ann-Marie Duff), who gives her a crash course on what her life has been like since the accident. Through these increasingly preposterous encounters, Christine learns that she had a son with Ben. She also learns that Ben divorced her at some point, yet she’s still living with him. On top of that, Mike may not be entirely truthful, even though he’s the one who encouraged her to document everything in the first place. Smells like red herring to me. 

Falls Apart During The First Act

What’s most perplexing about Before I Go to Sleep is how long Christine has been living like this without any meaningful intervention. She has no recollection of anything before her accident each time she wakes up. She should never be left alone to her own devices because she has a severe cognitive disability. The friends she reconnects with are way too casual about everything, as if hearing from someone out of the blue years after their traumatic brain injury is totally normal.

I understand that someone like Claire may have had repeated encounters with Christine and is playing along to avoid upsetting her, but that’s not what’s being implied here. Everything is far too convenient, with all signs pointing to the fact that somebody is up to something, which we learn through Christine’s flashbacks. The problem is that these flashbacks aren’t reliable, and they’re clearly being influenced by manipulative sources.

If you’re wondering who the manipulative source is, try the one living with her who has clearly been controlling the narrative from the opening scene onward. I’d say spoiler alert, but if you’ve seen even a couple psychological thrillers, you’ll know exactly how this ends before the opening credits finish rolling.

Nicole Kidman, Colin Firth, and Mark Strong do about as well as they can with what they’re given. But if I’m being honest, you’re better off huffing paint, watching 50 First Dates and Memento on two separate screens, and trying to piece them together every time you regain consciousness. It’s basically the same experience.

As of this writing, Before I Go to Sleep is streaming on Netflix.

By Jennifer Asencio
| Updated 45 seconds ago

The wait is over. After years of anticipation, Backrooms is finally here. The first trailer was dropped on March 31, 2026, and the surreal dimension audiences were introduced to in the amateur web series is finally coming into its own. The A24 production was directed by none other than Kane Pixels himself, Kane Parsons.

When Parsons filmed his masterpiece web series, he was a 17-year-old high school student with an experimental eye behind the camera. The Backrooms (Found Footage) follows a young filmmaker as he wanders into another dimension consisting of a labyrinth of rooms in a yellow-walled institutional setting. His work was noticed by Atomic Monster, the studio of horror great James Wan, director of The Conjuring movies and the Insidious franchise. Parsons still isn’t old enough to pop champagne at his movie’s premiere, but his maturity as a director is sure to excite fans of the web series.

Lost In Labyrinth

In the trailer for Backrooms, Chiwetel Ejiofor, known for playing Baron Mondo in the Doctor Strange movies, stars as Clark, an employee in a furniture showroom who one night finds a strange opening in the store’s basement. He passes through the opening and finds the very same dimension that is Parsons’s trademark, yellow walls and all. As he wanders around a little, strange events happen.

This makes him determined to study this strange alternate universe. He recruits some friends and gathers some camera gear, and the group begins its exploration. However, there is a young lady he speaks to that seems to be either a friend or a therapist, and when she stumbles upon the rooms without Clark’s knowledge, she may never come back.

At least, this is what I have gathered from watching the trailer. The script, written by Parsons and Will Soodik, has been kept under wraps since the movie was first announced. It appears to take place in the past (prior rumors said the 1990s), and IMDb doesn’t have a lot of information beyond the name of Ejiofor’s character and some production credits.

What we have been shown is exciting because it draws upon almost everything fans loved about the web series. It will feature found footage in the form of the explorations of Clark and his friends. The vast office complex that makes up the setting is adorned with surreal imagery like strangely stacked furniture and objects sunken into walls. Some of the characters show up in radiation gear. Somehow, between the yellow walls and the varying sizes of the rooms, passages, and hallways, the titular setting is both massive and claustrophobic at once, making it very unsettling.

A Deeply Unsettling Exploration

The whole movie seems to echo the trajectory of Parsons’s career so far: an eagerness to explore combined with an optimism for what Clark might find, while presenting a frightening and solitary menace for anyone who dares enter alone. Parsons began with that eagerness and is now getting to explore the world of cinema that he entered when he posted the original anthology on YouTube, with all the optimism of a kid who got his first directing contract before he even graduated high school.

If Backrooms maintains the tone set by Kane Pixels, it could draw new fans. If it manages to use the resources offered to Parsons by support from a professional studio, it could turn a teenager’s vision into the hottest new horror franchise. The trailer hints that it at least accomplishes the tone. Now to see if it can exceed expectations.

Get lost in Backrooms, in theaters on May 29, 2026.