Spider-Man: Brand New Day (2026)

Directed by: Destin Daniel Cretton Written by: Chris McKenna & Erik Sommers (based on the Marvel comic by Stan Lee & Steve Ditko) Starring: Tom Holland, Zendaya, Sadie Sink, Jacob Batalon, Jon Bernthal, Michael Mando, Mark Ruffalo, Liza Colón-Zayas, Florence Pugh IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt22084616/

Episode Summary

In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave discuss Spider-Man: Brand New Day (2026), a soft-reboot superhero film that finds Peter Parker fighting crime full-time in a New York that no longer remembers he exists.

The discussion explores whether the film's quieter, more introspective first act successfully re-energizes a fatigued genre, the wisdom of internalizing Spider-Man's central struggle as his own spider-DNA begins to take over ("spider puberty"), and a plot the hosts agree is overstuffed with characters and motivations. Along the way: Jon Bernthal's softened Punisher, Sadie Sink's tangential villain, an unnecessary Hulk, and some of the most aggressive BMW product placement either host can remember. Reference points include Sam Raimi, The Empire Strikes Back, and the boring-superhero cautionary tales of Superman Returns and Man of Steel.

On-air verdicts: Dave — 4/5. Michael — 3/5. (Dave really enjoyed it; Michael landed mixed — "10% greatness, 90% mid" — praising the third act while faulting the loaded first two.)

Thematic Discussion

Spider-Man: Brand New Day explores loneliness, and the idea that community is vulnerability.

The film suggests that even with superhuman strength, no one gets through isolation alone — that reaching out, being earnest, and letting people back in is the actual work, and the only real cure. Peter erased himself from everyone he loved to keep them safe; the film argues that choice was the wound, not the protection. Both hosts landed on the thematic point being earned: the melancholy is felt, the reconnection with Ned and MJ is left meaningfully ambiguous rather than reset, and Sadie Sink's character works as a dark-mirror counterpoint — the same loss, but a person who pushes everyone away instead.

Timestamps Time Segment 00:00 Intro & setup 02:59 The soft reboot: smart move or gimmick? 07:28 Jon Bernthal's Punisher 10:55 The cast: Ned, the villains, a Benedict Wong tangent 14:36 Technical analysis: look, sound, pacing & product placement 24:02 An overstuffed plot and thin villain motivation 25:43 Director context: Raimi, Empire, and Cretton's roots 27:27 Spoiler-free verdicts 35:18 Spoiler section begins 35:29 Thematic deep dive: loneliness & connection as vulnerability 39:16 Is the ending earned? The Ned handshake debate 43:51 Set design, Jean Grey as counterpoint, "I'm both" 48:34 The banya scene: playing with vulnerability 53:41 Closing thoughts & what's next Films & Directors Mentioned

• Sam Raimi / the Raimi Spider-Man films
• The Empire Strikes Back
• Destin Daniel Cretton — Short Term 12, Just Mercy, Shang-Chi
• Superman Returns, Man of Steel, Godzilla (the "boring superhero" cautionary tales)
• Bryan Singer — X-Men, X2, Apt Pupil
• Supergirl, Fantastic Four
• Iron Man & Watchmen (iconic mask removals)
• Doctor Strange (Benedict Wong)
• Baby Driver, The Odyssey, Weapons, Marco Polo, Breaking Bad, Stranger Things

Contact

Web: https://mindframesfilm.com Facebook: Mindframes Network: Now Playing Network Email: [email protected]

The Odyssey (2026)

Directed by: Christopher Nolan Written by: Christopher Nolan Starring: Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Tom Holland, Robert Pattinson, Charlize Theron, Samantha Morton, Zendaya, Lupita Nyong'o, Elliot Page, John Leguizamo, Benny Safdie, Jon Bernthal, Himesh Patel, Mia Goth, Bill Irwin, Travis Scott IMDB: [IMDB LINK]

Episode Summary

In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave discuss The Odyssey (2026), Christopher Nolan's three-hour adaptation of Homer — a $250 million epic and the first narrative feature shot entirely on IMAX 70mm.

The discussion covers Nolan as an auteur and whether the "never made a bad movie" claim holds up, the practical-effects approach to the Cyclops and Circe, the deliberately cold Northern palette imposed on the Mediterranean, Ludwig Göransson's score, and an ensemble so large the hosts concede they can't get to everyone. After the ratings, the spoiler section turns to the film's central choice: the Olympian gods have been removed while the monsters remain, and what that does to Odysseus' moral agency.

Comparisons range across Nolan's own filmography, Troy, The Northman, and the sword-and-sandal epics of the 1950s and '60s.

Reviews

Michael: 4.5 / 5 — came out thinking four, and it has only grown in his esteem since. Praises the baseline of visual and musical quality, Damon working better as a lead than expected, and a supporting cast that carries every stop on the journey. Docks it for a cast so crowded it distracts, and for an ending too in love with its own moralism.

Dave: 4.5 / 5 — would watch it again in a heartbeat. Calls it a film that grabs hold of empire, heroism, reverence, and humility all at once, and rates the separation of gods from monsters as pitch perfect. His one dent in the fender: the film plays a little episodic, a series of very large encounters rather than a single build.

Thematic Discussion

The Odyssey removes the Olympians but keeps the monsters. Circe, the Sirens, and the Cyclops are all simply part of the natural world here; it's Athena and Zeus who stay shadowy and inferred. Michael's reading is that this absence exists to hand moral agency back to Odysseus — if the gods were visibly steering, his guilt over the Trojan Horse wouldn't be his to carry.

That guilt is framed through xenia, the Greek code of hospitality. Odysseus offered a gift that turned out to be murder, and comes to believe that breaking that norm is what set his civilization's collapse in motion. The hosts draw the parallel to the erosion of political and social norms in contemporary America, and to the film's closing turn — the Bronze Age is ending because of the Sea Peoples, and the Greeks realize they are the Sea Peoples.

The episode's central disagreement is over Athena. Dave reads her as constructed: she wears the face of a priestess Odysseus watched his own men murder in her temple, and the film is showing how humans build gods out of guilt and the sense that something is sacred. Michael pushes back that the film sustains a genuine ambiguity — the idea that gods appear in human form is planted repeatedly, and the priestess is decapitated at the exact moment Athena's statue is, which leaves open that Odysseus may believe they killed a god. He points to the same ambiguity in the Cyclops' cry to Poseidon, which some of the crew claim to hear and neither Odysseus nor the audience does.

Neither host resolves it, and both prefer it that way. Michael's position is that the ambiguity is the answer rather than the absence of one — something underpins their world that they don't fully see and are damaging anyway, whether that's Zeus and Poseidon or simply decency and the value of human life. Dave, arriving from a position of religious faith, says he likes that Odysseus has to live in the same uncertain world the rest of us do.

The structural evidence they land on: Homer ends with a deus ex machina, Athena descending to stop the cycle of revenge. Nolan cuts it. Nobody intervenes, so Odysseus abdicates, gives the throne to Telemachus, and sails west with Penelope — a change that hands the ending's moral weight entirely to the man.

Timestamps Time Segment 00:00 Intro & setup 05:08 Nolan's filmography — is he an auteur? 08:51 Practical filmmaking and visual style 09:37 IMAX 70mm and the limits of the format 14:40 Hoyte van Hoytema 17:16 Why the Mediterranean looks cold 19:39 Ludwig Göransson's score 25:20 Travis Scott, the bard, and the casting discourse 28:56 The ensemble 39:39 Reviews & ratings 49:56 Spoiler section begins 52:18 Xenia and the collapse of norms 54:50 The gods and moral agency 56:12 The Athena reveal 1:01:46 The case for ambiguity 1:05:03 "We're the Sea Peoples" 1:09:02 The ending Nolan changed 1:19:36 Final interpretation debate — are the gods there? 1:26:49 Closing thoughts Films & Directors Mentioned

• Memento — Christopher Nolan
• Inception — Christopher Nolan
• The Prestige — Christopher Nolan
• Interstellar — Christopher Nolan
• Dunkirk — Christopher Nolan
• Tenet — Christopher Nolan
• Oppenheimer — Christopher Nolan
• Troy
• The Northman
• Dune
• Saving Private Ryan
• Fruitvale Station — Ryan Coogler
• Creed — Ryan Coogler
• Black Panther — Ryan Coogler
• Sinners — Ryan Coogler
• Minority Report
• The Whale
• Anemone
• Disclosure Day — Steven Spielberg
• Barbie
• Michael
• John Ford and Monument Valley
• Hans Zimmer
• The sword-and-sandal epics of the 1950s and '60s

Contact

Web: https://mindframesfilm.com Facebook: Mindframes Network: Now Playing Network Email: [email protected]

Mindframes Show Notes Episode 121 — Disclosure Day (2026)

Directed by: Steven Spielberg Written by: David Koepp Starring: Emily Blunt, Josh O'Connor, Colin Firth, Colman Domingo, Eve Hewson, Wyatt Russell IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt15047880/

Special guest: Tarek Fayoumi (movieswithtarek.com), director of the Chicago Independent Film Critics.

Episode Summary

In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave — joined by returning guest Tarek Fayoumi — discuss Disclosure Day (2026), Steven Spielberg's return to the alien genre and his first big sci-fi swing since War of the Worlds.

The conversation works through Spielberg's recurring obsessions (renegade heroes, shadowy government forces, ordinary people swept into something enormous), Janusz Kamiński's return to the diffused-light, lens-flare look, and John Williams' 30th collaboration with the director — before splitting hard over whether the film's hopeful thesis actually lands. Comparisons run from Close Encounters of the Third Kind, E.T., and War of the Worlds to Contact, Minority Report, and Coppola's Megalopolis as a fellow "late master with something to say."

Verdicts split three ways: Michael 2.5/5, Dave 3/5, Tarek 4/4.

Thematic Discussion

Disclosure Day asks whether an undeniable, truthful image can still unite people in a cynical age — Brian Tallerico's "undeniable image" framing, run through the show's central question: not is there proof? but does proof still work on us?

Michael argues the truthful image isn't wounded but dead — a shared reality the film is nostalgic for, but one that no longer functions when people deny what they're shown. Dave counters that the film's real hope is empathy and human-to-human connection replacing the broken image, while conceding Spielberg doesn't earn that buy-in the way his early work did. The film ends not on a revelation but on Margaret turning to the camera, saying "Listen," and cutting to black — proof getting humanity to the threshold, with faith and empathy left to carry it the rest of the way.

Timestamps

Note: recording was split into two files; Part 2 times below assume the parts run continuously (Part 2 offset by ~50:03). Verify against the stitched audio.

Time Segment 00:15 Intro & setup; welcoming guest Tarek Fayoumi 02:33 Spielberg as a director — recurring themes 03:21 Premise & the Wardex setup (spoiler-free) 08:43 Return to the alien genre vs. his recent dramas 10:01 Cinematography — Kamiński, lens flares, the "awe" look 28:12 John Williams' 30th collaboration; film & score preservation 31:17 Spoiler-free reviews begin 31:47 Michael's review (2.5/5) 38:47 Dave's review (3/5) 43:02 Tarek's review (4/4) ~45:10 Spoiler section begins ~45:42 The alien reveal & the decades of "disclosure" footage ~55:27 Thematic debate: empathy vs. the image ~56:08 "The truthful image is dead" — Michael's core position ~60:17 The ending: "Listen" and the cut to black ~74:31 Closing thoughts — can we still believe in a unifying image? ~74:56 Next episode tease Films & Directors Mentioned

• Close Encounters of the Third Kind (Steven Spielberg)
• E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (Steven Spielberg)
• War of the Worlds (Steven Spielberg)
• A.I. Artificial Intelligence (Steven Spielberg)
• Minority Report (Steven Spielberg)
• Jaws (Steven Spielberg)
• Schindler's List / Saving Private Ryan (Steven Spielberg)
• The Terminal / Catch Me If You Can (Steven Spielberg)
• The Fabelmans / West Side Story (Steven Spielberg)
• Jurassic Park / Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull (David Koepp & Spielberg)
• Contact (Robert Zemeckis / Carl Sagan)
• Explorers (Joe Dante)
• 2001: A Space Odyssey (Stanley Kubrick)
• Megalopolis (Francis Ford Coppola)
• Super 8 (J.J. Abrams)
• Watching the Skies (Norwegian sci-fi)
• Poltergeist / Gremlins (Spielberg-produced, 1980s)
• The Outer Limits — "The Architects of Fear"

Contact

Web: https://mindframesfilm.com Facebook: Mindframes Network: Now Playing Network Email: [email protected]

Mindframes Show Notes Obsession (2026)

Directed by: Curry Barker Written by: Curry Barker Starring: Michael Johnston, Inde Navarrette, Cooper Tomlinson, Megan Lawless, Andy Richter IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt37287335/

Episode Summary

In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave dig into Obsession (2026), Curry Barker's micro-budget feature debut that turned into one of the biggest horror phenomenons in years — a $750K film bought for $15 million out of TIFF that went on to gross well over $148 million worldwide, growing at the box office in consecutive weekends rather than declining.

The discussion explores the film's monkey's-paw premise, its working-class Gen Z setting, the moral architecture of Bear's wish, and the central question of whether Bear is the film's actual villain — while comparing the film to Weapons, Pearl, Get Out, The Witch, and Isaac Asimov's Foundation and Empire.

Thematic Discussion

Obsession explores consent and agency — what happens when desire is granted without consent.

The film suggests that Bear doesn't earn or deserve Nikki's love; he eliminates her will and replaces it with his own. As Curry Barker has put it, "love is earned, not demanded," and "any time you wish for something, it's probably going to be selfish." The true engine of the horror isn't the curse twisting the wish — it's that the wish works exactly as asked.

On-air verdict — Is Bear the villain? Both hosts landed on no. He's flawed, selfish, and prolongs the harm once he knows better, but he's the story's antagonist rather than its villain — if anyone is the "real" villain, it's the cursed object itself. Michael's framing: not every flawed person is a villain, and the film is more interesting because its characters are layered rather than purely good or evil.

On-air verdict — the ending. Dave correctly intuited that Nikki originally killed herself in an earlier draft — that actually was Barker's original Romeo-and-Juliet mutual-suicide ending, before his playwright father pushed him toward the survival cut used in the final film. Michael argued the survival ending is more thematically persuasive: if the theme is one person's coercion of another's agency, the resolution should be Nikki's, not a mutual destruction that treats the harm as shared. Bear's selfishness has to die for Nikki to live.

A live reference worth flagging for listeners: Michael cited Naomi Serpell's New Yorker piece "The New Literalism" (March 2025) as a framework for questioning how intentionally — and how literally — modern horror handles its themes of trauma and control.

⏱️ Timestamps Time Segment 00:01 Intro & setup 00:03 Director background — Curry Barker, box office story 00:09 Cinematography & cast discussion 00:30 Reviews & ratings 00:41 ⚠️ Spoiler section begins — "What would you wish for?" 00:44 Thematic discussion: consent and agency 00:45 Is Bear the villain? 01:01 The ending — survival vs. the original Romeo & Juliet cut 01:13 The New Literalism / intentionality debate 01:22 Closing thoughts & next episode 🎞️ Films & Directors Mentioned

• Weapons / Barbarian (Zach Cregger)
• Pearl (Ti West / Mia Goth) — Barker has cited this as a major influence
• Get Out (Jordan Peele)
• The Witch (Robert Eggers)
• Backrooms (Kane Parsons)
• Hurry Up Tomorrow (Jenna Ortega)
• Isaac Asimov's Foundation and Empire

📬 Contact

🌐 https://mindframesfilm.com 📘 Facebook: Mindframes 🎧 Now Playing Network ✉️ [email protected]

Backrooms (2026)

Directed by: Kane Parsons Written by: Will Sudick Starring: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Renate Reinsve, Mark Duplass, Finn Bennett, Lukita Maxwell IMDB: Backrooms (2026)

Episode Summary

In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave discuss Backrooms (2026), an A24 horror film directed by 20-year-old YouTube filmmaker and wunderkind Kane Parsons — believed to be the youngest person to ever direct a widely released feature film.

The discussion covers the film's expansion of the internet liminal space phenomenon into a feature-length narrative, its Tarkovsky-esque atmosphere, and the remarkable work of cinematographer Jeremy Cox and production designer Danny Vermette in bringing 30,000 square feet of meticulously constructed sets to life. The conversation digs deep into why liminal spaces resonate so powerfully with contemporary audiences — and with Gen Z in particular — framing the backrooms not just as a horror setting but as a cultural symptom of a society in uneasy transition.

Both hosts award the film five stars, with Michael calling it the best film he's seen this year.

🧠 Thematic Discussion

Backrooms explores the psychology of liminal space — transitional, empty environments that feel familiar yet deeply wrong — and uses them as an externalization of Clark's inability to move on from divorce, grief, and unresolved anger.

The film suggests that the backrooms are not merely a supernatural threat, but a space that reflects what we bring into it. Clark, living inside his furniture store rather than moving forward with his life, is already inhabiting a kind of liminal space before he ever finds the portal. The backrooms literalize his psychological stasis. The key scene where Mary stops being a detached therapist and tells Clark plainly that the problem is not where he is but that he refuses to move — functions as the film's emotional thesis.

More broadly, the episode argues that our collective fascination with liminal spaces is less allegory or conscious metaphor and more a psychological aesthetic symptom: these spaces — fluorescent-lit, carpeted, emptied of purpose — resonate because they look like the places our society is abandoning, and feel like the threshold we are all standing on. The backrooms are what happens when transitional space becomes permanent home.

⏱️ Timestamps Time Segment 00:00 Intro & welcome ~02:00 Introducing Backrooms and Kane Parsons ~04:00 Plot overview & synopsis ~05:30 The liminal space / backrooms internet phenomenon ~07:30 Cast discussion — Chiwetel Ejiofor, Renate Reinsve, Mark Duplass, Finn Bennett, Lukita Maxwell ~15:30 Technical analysis — sound design, cinematography, production design ~26:00 ⚠️ Spoiler-free reviews — Michael & Dave both award 5 stars ~35:00 ⚠️ SPOILER SECTION BEGINS ~35:00 Defining liminal spaces — film history, David Lynch, The Shining, Stalker, Annihilation ~43:00 Why liminal spaces scare us — uncanny valley, psychological resonance ~49:00 Why now? Cultural anxiety, societal transition, the doom-scrolling generation ~54:00 Clark's arc — psychological stasis, avoidance, the backrooms as mirror ~60:00 Mary's arc — confronting pain as the path out ~62:00 The scientists / MRI company — and fears for Backrooms 2 ~68:00 A24, Neon, Cannes, and closing tangents ~70:00 Closing thoughts & contact info 🎞️ Films & Directors Mentioned

• Stalker (1979) — Andrei Tarkovsky
• Solaris (1972) — Andrei Tarkovsky
• Annihilation (2018) — Alex Garland
• Men (2022) — Alex Garland
• The Shining (1980) — Stanley Kubrick
• Skinamarink (2022) — Kyle Edward Ball
• Exit 8 — referenced as liminal space film
• Lost Highway (1997) — David Lynch
• Mulholland Drive (2001) — David Lynch
• Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me / Twin Peaks (series) — David Lynch
• Long Legs (2024) — Oz Perkins
• The Monkey (2025) — Oz Perkins
• Keeper — Oz Perkins
• The Black Coat's Daughter / February (2015) — Oz Perkins
• Hocum — referenced for comparison (sound design and scare level)
• Presence (2025) — referenced for scare level comparison
• Life of Chuck (2024) — referenced
• Creep (2014) — Mark Duplass
• 12 Years a Slave (2013) — referenced re: Chiwetel Ejiofor
• Sentimental Value (2025) — referenced re: Renate Reinsve
• Worst Person in the World (2021) — referenced re: Renate Reinsve
• Fjord (2026) — referenced; won Palme d'Or at Cannes
• Boys Go to Jupiter (2025) — referenced re: young filmmakers
• Pearl (2022) / X / MaXXXine — Ti West trilogy, referenced re: A24 sequels
• Talk to Me 2 — referenced re: A24 sequels
• Scary Stories to Tell in the Dark (2019) — André Øvredal
• The Autopsy of Jane Doe (2016) — André Øvredal
• Voyage of the Demeter (2023) — André Øvredal

📬 Contact

🌐 https://mindframesfilm.com 📘 Facebook: Mindframes Movies 🎧 Now Playing Network — nowplayingpodcast.net ✉️ [email protected]

Mindframes Show Notes I Love Boosters (2026) — Episode 118

Directed by: Boots Riley Written by: Boots Riley Starring: Keke Palmer, Naomi Ackie, Taylour Paige, Poppy Liu, Eiza González, LaKeith Stanfield, Will Poulter, Don Cheadle, Demi Moore Cinematography: Natasha Braier Costume Design: Shirley Kurata Score: Tune-Yards Distributor: Neon IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt30827810/

Episode Summary

In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave discuss I Love Boosters (2026) — the sophomore feature from writer-director Boots Riley (Sorry to Bother You). And they didn't just watch it: Boots Riley was at their screening, making this a particularly special episode.

The film follows the Velvet Gang, a crew of professional shoplifters — or "boosters" — led by Corvette (Keke Palmer), who steal high-end fashion and redistribute it to their community at affordable prices, calling it "fashion-forward philanthropy." Their target: Christie Smith (Demi Moore), a cutthroat fashion maven who has stolen Corvette's own designs and passed them off as her own.

Michael and Dave dig into Riley's political vision and whether the film preaches or persuades, Keke Palmer's career-best performance, the stunning visual craft from cinematographer Natasha Braier and costume designer Shirley Kurata, and the film's surrealist escalation into sci-fi territory. The spoiler section tackles the film's central question head-on: can style — and collective action — actually be a revolutionary act?

Michael gives the film 4 stars. Dave gives it 4.5 stars.

🧠 Thematic Discussion

I Love Boosters is a Robin Hood story on the surface, but underneath it's a film about who gets to own beauty, creativity, and style — and who gets locked out.

The villain Christie Smith isn't just a rich corporate tyrant. She's a creative thief: she literally steals Corvette's designs and passes them off as her vision. And the fashion brand Metro operates on the logic of planned obsolescence — last season's color is this season's shame — a system the film directly compares to Apple.

The boosters respond not by rejecting fashion, but by redistributing it. They love clothes. Corvette loves making things. The film argues that the problem isn't beauty or style — it's that the mechanisms of capitalism have turned both into instruments of exclusion and control.

By the end, it's collective action — not individual heroism — that carries the day. The Velvet Gang, workers inside the company, and protesters in China all have to come together. The teleportation device, Michael argues, is less a narrative shortcut and more a statement of hope: you never know how things are going to accelerate, so don't stop believing the impossible is possible. Maybe the film itself is the teleporter.

Dave's read: the whimsy isn't just sugar coating the medicine. The wonder is the medicine. Corvette doesn't become cynical. She keeps making art in a broken world. And that refusal to give up is the film's most radical argument.

⏱️ Timestamps Time Segment 00:00:19 Intro & film overview — premise, genre, first impressions 00:00:55 Director discussion — Boots Riley's career, Sorry to Bother You, I'm a Virgo; Riley's politics 00:10:01 "This is a very, very funny, weird movie" — pivoting from politics to the experience 00:11:10 Cast discussion — Keke Palmer as Corvette; the film's female-centered story 00:12:33 Supporting cast — Naomi Ackie, Taylour Paige, Will Poulter, Don Cheadle, LaKeith Stanfield 00:14:26 Demi Moore — stunt casting or not? Christie Smith vs. The Substance 00:16:39 Cinematography — Natasha Braier, Zola, The Neon Demon, custom lenses, color palette 00:20:35 Production design — the tilting building, deliberate lo-fi effects, the chicken shack hideout 00:24:35 Costume design — Shirley Kurata (Everything Everywhere All at Once); fashion as political argument 00:29:36 ⭐ Spoiler-free reviews — Michael: 4 stars / Dave: 4.5 stars 00:41:49 ⚠️ SPOILER SECTION — comparison to One Battle After Another; Christie Smith vs. the "Trump surrogate" villain 00:44:38 Thematic deep dive — fashion as class warfare; planned obsolescence; Apple logic; Corvette's Robin Hood motive 00:46:40 Dave on physical media collecting — the empty fashion show of steel books and embossed slipcovers 00:53:05 The big reveal — Christie stole Corvette's design; creative extraction as the film's true villain 00:53:56 The teleportation machine — deus ex machina, or something else? China, collective struggle, worldwide solidarity 01:01:47 The ending — optimistic or bittersweet? Does Boots believe his own hope? 01:06:24 Closing thoughts & next episode tease ⭐ Ratings

Michael: 4 / 5 stars Funny, visually original, Keke Palmer is extraordinary. The third-act plot device lands awkwardly but the politics work because they're felt rather than lectured. Possibly gains a half star on rewatch.

Dave: 4.5 / 5 stars A better film than Sorry to Bother You in key ways. The whimsy is the point, not just the wrapper. The most important kind of film for right now.

🎞️ Films & Directors Mentioned

• Sorry to Bother You (2018) — Boots Riley
• I'm a Virgo (2023 series) — Boots Riley
• Zola (2020) — Janicza Bravo (also shot by Natasha Braier)
• The Neon Demon (2016) — Nicolas Winding Refn (also shot by Natasha Braier)
• Everything Everywhere All at Once (2022) — costumes by Shirley Kurata
• The Substance (2024) — Coralie Fargeat (Demi Moore)
• Nope (2022) — Jordan Peele (Keke Palmer)
• One Battle After Another (2025) — compared/contrasted with Boosters on political filmmaking
• The Mandalorian & Grogu (2026) — mentioned as next episode consideration
• The Stranger (Camus adaptation) — mentioned as potential future episode
• Obsession — mentioned as potential future episode
• Caligula (1979) — brief tangent; Dave once interviewed Malcolm McDowell

📬 Contact

🌐 https://mindframesfilm.com 📘 Facebook: Mindframes 🎧 Now Playing Network ✉️ [email protected]

🎬 Mindframes Show Notes Hokum (2026)

Directed by: Damian McCarthy Written by: Damian McCarthy Starring: Adam Scott IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt35628972/

Episode Summary

In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave discuss Hokum (2026), a slow-burn Irish folk horror film from Damian McCarthy centered on a cynical horror writer who travels to a haunted inn to scatter his parents' ashes—only to uncover hidden violence, buried grief, and a terrifying supernatural presence lurking within the hotel.

The discussion explores the film's atmospheric craftsmanship, old-school suspense techniques, creature design, and overwhelming sense of dread. Along the way, the hosts compare Hokum to films like The Shining, Hereditary, The Witch, and Barbarian, while debating whether the film's emotional revelations are genuinely effective or too indebted to familiar Stephen King-style trauma storytelling.

🧠 Thematic Discussion

Hokum explores the relationship between hidden spaces and hidden emotional wounds. The film presents grief as something buried, locked away, and left unresolved until it begins to poison both individuals and communities.

Through the haunted architecture of the inn and Om's suppressed guilt surrounding his parents, the film suggests that what we refuse to confront eventually manifests externally—whether psychologically, socially, or supernaturally.

⏱️ Timestamps Time Segment 00:00 Intro & setup 00:35 Film premise + synopsis 01:20 Damian McCarthy discussion 04:10 Adam Scott performance discussion 10:15 Atmosphere & cinematography 14:20 Use of space, darkness, and suspense 17:30 Sound design analysis 19:40 Creature design discussion 22:10 Stephen King influences 26:00 Michael's criticism of exposition 30:00 "Old-school suspense" discussion 34:10 Dave's review (★★★★☆) 39:00 Michael's review (★★★½☆) 41:30 ⚠️ Spoiler section begins 42:00 The witch interpretation debate 45:10 Om's grief and trauma reveal 49:20 The hidden room & Fiona mystery 53:00 The hotel as metaphorical space 56:15 Discussion of suicide & repression 01:00:40 Theme breakdown: hidden truths 01:05:00 Final interpretation debate 01:08:30 Closing thoughts 🎞️ Films & Directors Mentioned

• The Shining

• Hereditary

• The Witch

• Barbarian

• Heretic

• The Monkey

• Men

• Caveat

• Oddity

• Stephen King

• Alfred Hitchcock

• Ari Aster

📬 Contact

🌐 https://mindframesfilm.com 📘 Facebook: Mindframes 🎧 Now Playing Network ✉️ [email protected]

Mindframes Show Notes Normal (2026)

Directed by: Ben Wheatley Written by: Derek Kolstad Starring: Bob Odenkirk, Lena Headey, Henry Winkler IMDB: https://www.imdb.com/title/tt31195136/

Episode Summary

In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave break down Normal (2026), a genre-blending action thriller from Ben Wheatley starring Bob Odenkirk as a temporary small-town sheriff uncovering a hidden criminal system beneath a seemingly quiet Minnesota town.

The discussion explores the film's strengths—particularly its sharp, inventive action sequences—while wrestling with its weaker character development and underdeveloped thematic ambitions. Along the way, the hosts compare Normal to films like No Country for Old Men, Fargo, and Hot Fuzz, asking whether the film earns its ideas about morality, violence, and the illusion of "normality."

Thematic Discussion

Normal presents the idea that "normality" is not peace or order, but a fragile illusion maintained by hidden systems of violence and compromise. The film suggests that communities—and individuals—often accept morally compromised structures in exchange for stability, even when those systems are corrupt. However, while the idea is compelling, the film struggles to fully develop or emotionally ground this thesis, leaving it more implied than earned.

⏱️ Timestamps Time Segment 00:00 Intro & setup 00:25 Film overview + premise 02:14 Ben Wheatley career discussion 05:39 Derek Kolstad influence & action style 08:05 Cast discussion (Odenkirk, Headey, Winkler) 11:20 Odenkirk as "underestimated man" archetype 13:30 Character depth debate (Michael vs Dave) 16:30 "Should this have been a miniseries?" 18:45 Action vs drama effectiveness 20:00 Michael's review (★★★☆☆) 24:30 Dave's review (★★★☆☆) 29:30 Comparisons: No Country, Fargo, Hot Fuzz 36:30 ⚠️ Spoiler section begins 36:40 Reveal: the town's Yakuza deal 38:30 Debate: Is the central mystery… boring? 40:25 Moral ambiguity discussion 46:30 Thematic breakdown: what is "normal"? 50:45 Civil War comparison (hidden violence) 54:00 Final interpretation debate 58:00 Closing thoughts

📬 Contact

🌐 https://mindframesfilm.com 📘 Facebook: Mindframes 🎧 Now Playing Network ✉️ [email protected]

The Drama (2026)

Directed by: Christopher Borgli Starring: Zendaya, Robert Pattinson, Alana Haim, Mamadou Athie Episode: 115

🎬 Episode Summary

In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave explore The Drama (2026), a psychologically charged romantic drama directed by Christopher Borgli. The film follows an engaged couple whose relationship is destabilized during a wedding tasting dinner when a seemingly harmless party game—confessing the worst thing you've ever done—reveals a deeply disturbing secret.

What begins as an offbeat romantic setup quickly spirals into a tense moral examination of identity, forgiveness, and whether people can truly escape their past. Anchored by powerful performances from Zendaya and Robert Pattinson, the film blends discomfort, dark humor, and emotional intensity into a uniquely unsettling experience.

🧠 Thematic Discussion (3-Sentence Core)

Are we defined by our worst thoughts, or only by the actions we take? The film challenges the audience to confront whether intent—especially unacted intent—carries moral weight equal to real harm. Ultimately, The Drama refuses to answer this question directly, instead forcing viewers to sit in discomfort and decide for themselves.

⏱️ Timestamps Time Segment 00:00 Intro – Welcome to Mindframes 00:40 Film Overview & Director Context 02:00 Borgli's Style: Discomfort, Identity, Moral Unease 03:30 Plot Setup – Wedding Dinner & Confession Game 06:30 Theme Introduction – Worst Thoughts vs Actions 07:15 Cinematography & Set Design Discussion 09:00 Performances – Zendaya & Pattinson 12:00 Editing, Close-ups, and Framing 17:50 Dave's Review (4.5/5) 21:00 Michael's Review (4/5) 33:45 Spoiler Warning 34:30 Full Plot Breakdown 36:00 The Secret Revealed 40:00 Moral Debate Begins 47:00 Thought vs Action Ethics 52:00 Generational & Cultural Context 1:00:00 Character Analysis (Rachel, Charlie, Emma) 1:05:00 Subplots (DJ, coworker incident) 1:08:00 Ending Analysis (Diner Scene) 1:10:30 Final Debate: What Defines Us? 1:20:00 Closing Thoughts & Humor 📬 Contact & Links

• 🌐 Website: https://mindframesfilm.com

• 📘 Facebook: Mindframes Film

• 🎧 Network: Now Playing Network

• 📧 Email: [email protected]

Mindframes Show Notes: Sirat (2025) Film Credits

Title: Sirat Director: Olivier Laxe Country: Spain / Morocco Starring: Non-professional cast Festival Run: Fantastic Fest, Cannes recognition (director) IMDb: (Add link once available)

Episode Summary

In this episode of Mindframes, Michael and Dave explore Sirat, a visually striking and spiritually immersive journey through the Moroccan desert. Following a father and son searching for a missing daughter, the film evolves from a grounded quest into something far more abstract and existential. The hosts unpack how the film uses rave culture, community, and physical endurance to explore themes of transcendence, identity, and surrender. What begins as a search becomes a stripping away—of purpose, of control, and ultimately of self.

Thematic Discussion

Sirat presents life as an uncontrollable path that strips away identity through suffering, leaving individuals either isolated or transformed. Through the physical and communal ritual of rave culture, the film suggests transcendence is achieved not through control, but through surrender and shared experience. Ultimately, the film asks whether meaning is found in purposeful striving—or in accepting the dissolution of self into something greater.

⏱️ Timestamps Time Segment Notes 00:00:50 Intro Welcome + show premise 00:02:25 Film Intro Summary of Sirat and setup 00:04:00 Initial Reactions Positive impressions, Oscar discussion 00:04:24 Director Background Olivier Laxe and artistic intent 00:06:07 Cinematography Use of desert, light, and scale 00:14:20 Rave vs Desert Movement, rhythm, and thematic parallels 00:20:00 Community Emergence Formation of the traveling group 00:21:47 Spoiler-Free Reviews Michael and Dave's takes 00:25:36 Dave's Review Film as trance-like experience 00:29:46 Malick Comparison Scale of humanity (small vs monumental) 00:32:00 Community Discussion Marginalized groups and belonging 00:35:22 Theme Setup "Sirat" as path / bridge metaphor 00:40:07 Breakdown of Order Loss of structure and purpose 00:43:41 Suffering as Process Identity stripped through hardship 00:45:30 Meaning vs Meaninglessness Is the journey purposeful? 00:46:36 Rave as Spiritual Experience Faith, ritual, and embodiment 00:52:07 Religion & Physical Ritual Parallels to prayer and transcendence 00:55:59 Letting Go of Self Passive acceptance vs active control 01:02:17 Community vs Individual Tension between self and group 01:08:44 Final Sequence Setup Minefield and end of journey 01:10:12 Ending Analysis Death, surrender, transcendence 📬 Contact & Links

🌐 Website: https://mindframesfilm.com 📘 Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/mindframesfilm 🎧 Network: https://www.nowplayingnetwork.net 📧 Email: [email protected]