The Long Take Review – Details, episodes & analysis

Next year, 2025, will mark the 50th anniversary of Saturday Night Live (SNL), and NBC is planning a big live special in February to celebrate. In the meantime, though, Director Jason Reitman, whose own father, Ivan, had a close connection to the sketch comedy series, has made Saturday Night, out in theaters now. The film careens in “real” time towards the moment the first episode of SNL aired in 1975, and stars Gabriel LaBelle (The Fabelmans) as Lorne Michaels, along with a vast ensemble of exciting young actors playing the original SNL cast and well-loved veterans like J.K. Simmons and Willem Dafoe in supporting roles.

After premiering at the Telluride Film Festival to mixed-positive reviews, Saturday Night has been doing okay but not exceptionally well at the box office. Will that hurt its Oscar chances? Will the film meet the same fate as many seasons of SNL, with everyone too busy debating whether or not it’s good that they forget to appreciate the thing itself?

In this episode of The Long Take Review, P.T., Greg, Antonio, and I dissect our own reactions and value judgments of the “put on a show” psuedo-biopic comedy. We shoutout our favorite performances, share our own personal histories with SNL, and contemplate the film’s use of time and space. After our usual Oscars Watch, we do our own SNL cast member draft! After you listen to the episode, vote in the poll below for who you think won.

We (hastily) go into SPOILER MODE at the 23:19 minute mark. If you’re still not yet sure whether you want to check out the film, pause there! Our SNL Cast Draft, which should also be spoiler free, starts at 1:09:06.

Image Credit: IndieWire

You can listen to The Long Take Review on Substack, Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

All music licensed through Epidemic Sound.

Logo art: Illustration 73265080 © Worldofvector | Dreamstime.com

At a time when so much of public discourse surrounding A.I. swirls in fear and doom, it is rare to find a movie about a robot that does not tap into that sentiment. From Minority Report (2002) to Ex Machina (2014), Hollywood often adopts the position of a canary in the coal mine, trying to warn everyone about our robot overlords. And considering corporate interest in using artificial intelligence to replace human creators, I don’t necessarily blame them for wanting to do that, especially now.

Chris Sanders’ The Wild Robot, however, defies that popular narrative, with a fresh take has been welcomed by critics. Many go so far as to suggest that the film deserves to be nominated not only for Best Animated Feature at the Oscars, but for Best Picture, joining the ranks of the few animated films that have made that jump: Beauty and the Beast (1991), Up (2009), and Toy Story 3 (2010). But how justified is that hype?

In this episode of The Long Take Review, P.T., Greg, Antonio, and I debate how well the film could do (and deserves to do). We also discuss what parts of the film had an emotional impact on us, what the film is trying to say about A.I., how this adaptation differs from its source material, what voice performances stand out, and more.

Before we dive into The Wild Robot, however, we check in to discuss our picks for Vulture’s Movie Fantasy League, in which players must draft 8 movies that were pre-priced based on buzz. Who made a big play for box office numbers? Who went for potential awards attention? Who just went with their heart? Listen to about the first 30 minutes of this episode to find out! Registration for the draft has closed, but if you already registered, you can still join us by emailing moviesleague@vulture.com to say that you’d like “The Long Take Review” to be your “mini-league” before October 14th. We are just one person short of being able to compete for prizes, so please help us out if you can! Plus, our highest-scoring mini-league member will be able to come on the show and discuss a film of their choice.

The Movie Fantasy League talk ends at 30:46 when we start the Short Take on The Wild Robot. We later go into SPOILER MODE at the 42:24 minute mark. If you’re still not yet sure whether you want to check out the film, pause there!

Image Credit: Vulture

You can listen to The Long Take Review on Substack, Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

All music licensed through Epidemic Sound.

Logo art: Illustration 73265080 © Worldofvector | Dreamstime.com

LFG!!! Deadpool & Wolverine has slashed its way through multiple box office records. Its opening weekend has made more money than any other R-rated movie, and it’s currently in sixth place for the highest-grossing weekend of all time. Will it have the summer movie legs to join last summer’s winner, Barbie, in the billion dollar club? And what does this success signify? Does it portend anything for the future of the MCU? Or is it more a testament to Ryan Reynolds and Hugh Jackman’s collective star power?

In this episode of The Long Take Review, Colby Mead of The Colbycast joins us to debate these questions, as well as respond to complaints from the critics who aren’t exactly screaming LFG. We consider who this movie is for, what it’s about, and how much prior knowledge is actually required to appreciate the jokes and story. We share all our favorite moments. We may have even stumble upon a working thesis. This recording was longer than the movie itself, but you’ll want to stick around to hear Colby’s brilliant thoughts about Marvel hero history, P.T.’s explanation of how the multiverse works in this film, and Jen’s pitch for an Alpha Flight movie (well, maybe that last one’s not worth sticking around for).

You can listen to The Long Take Review on Substack, Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Image Credit: LA Times

Movie News Update: We react to big MCU news coming out of San Diego Comic Con and Deadpool & Wolverine’s box office boom. 4:03

The Short Take: Our spoiler-free review of Deadpool & Wolverine. 30:54

The Recommendation Algorithm: Who should go see Deadpool & Wolverine? What do you need to have seen (and how old do you need to be) to deeply appreciate the humor in this film? 35:44

SPOILER MODE: Does this movie have a story? What’s the thesis of this movie? Then we share our favorite cameos, jokes, fight scenes, etc. 50:28

Our favs/superlatives. 1:41:00

The Rhetorical Situation: How do feel like this film engages with the history of these characters and the history of comic book movies? 2:10:27

All music licensed through Epidemic Sound.

Logo art: Illustration 73265080 © Worldofvector | Dreamstime.com

Look. We know that Deadpool & Wolverine is about to take over theaters and probably dominate the summer box office narrative. We, too, are excited to see the merc with a mouth team up with everyone’s favorite clawed hero. But, what we fear may get lost in the MCU shuffle is another fun summer blockbuster already out in theaters: Lee Isaac Chung’s Twisters.

This sequel to the 90s hit that put disaster movies on the map stars Glen Powell, Daisy Edgar-Jones, Anthony Ramos, and a slew of other up and coming actors who all give charismatic performances. The story follows Kate (Edgar-Jones), a former tornado chaser and meteorologist who reluctantly returns to her home state of Oklahoma and finds herself going head-to-head with Tyler the “tornado wrangler” (Powell), a showboating YouTuber who thrives on danger.

In this episode of The Long Take Review, Greg, P.T., and I share what we thought was fun about Twisters, while acknowledging what doesn’t work and doesn’t make sense. We dissect the film’s themes, identify places where we see Oscar-nominated director Lee Isaac Chung’s influence coming through, and debate whether or not this should actually count as a sequel to Twister. Why did Jen regret not wearing a sweatshirt to her screening? Why does P.T. feel the need to get on a soapbox? What’s Greg’s genius movie pitch to Universal Studios? Tune in to find out. And stay until after the outro for not one but two humorous clips Jen had to edit out of the main show.

You can listen to The Long Take Review on Substack, Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Image Credit: People

Movie News Update: We check in on the summer box office. 2:56

The Short Take Our overall impressions of Twisters. 18:04

The Recommendation Algorithm Do you need to have seen Twister (1996) before Twisters? Do you hate fun if you don’t like this movie? 29:05

SPOILER MODE What surprised us? What let us down? How does this film intersect with its predecessor? To what extent does Twisters engage with political/social commentary? 38:14

The Rhetorical Situation Does Twisters actually count as a sequel? How do we define a sequel? 1:18:35

Oscars Watch Can Twisters get sucked up by the Oscar vortex, or will it dissipate into the atmosphere? 1:41:24

All music licensed through Epidemic Sound.

Logo art: Illustration 73265080 © Worldofvector | Dreamstime.com

We are less than five days away from Deadpool & Wolverine! Though, based on how much marketing has been coming at us, if you didn’t know that already, you may be living under a rock. As we so often say with the MCU these days, a lot is riding on this movie. The expectations for the box office, despite it being a Rated R film, have gone sky high. With Marvel/Disney scaling back and slowing down its offerings on the big and small screen, critics are left wondering if this film will impact the recent trajectory of the MCU or stand alone as an anomaly.

In this episode of The Long Take Review, Greg and I take a look at the cinematic histories of both Deadpool and Wolverine as a way to get hyped for Jen’s hype draft pick. We give shoutouts to our favorites, shake our heads at some misses, dissect both the characters and the actors who play them, and speculate about what we might see in the upcoming film.

While there are light spoilers for any movie in which Deadpool or Wolverine has appeared, we discuss major plot points for X-Men Origins: Wolverine (2009). The very end of the episode also contains a discussion of Internet rumors about Deadpool & Wolverine.

You can listen to The Long Take Review on Substack, Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Image Credit: The Hollywood Reporter

All music licensed through Epidemic Sound.

Logo art: Illustration 73265080 © Worldofvector | Dreamstime.com

In this episode’s Oscar Fairy Flashback, we go back to the 88th Academy Awards, held on February 28, 2016 and honoring the films of 2015. Some of the big contenders that year included Mad Max: Fury Road, Spotlight, The Revenant, The Big Short, Bridge of Spies, Steve Jobs, and The Martian. Which snubs will we correct? Which films will divide or unite us? How many more Oscars will we try to give to Mad Max: Fury Road? And why was Jen the only one who saw The Revenant when it came out in 2015? Listen to find out!

What is an Oscar Fairy Flashback? At the Long Take Review, we have one eye always on the Oscar race. Usually, that means we are looking forward to the upcoming Academy Awards, talking through the race as it happens. But given our collective history of caring about these silly awards, we occasionally step back and train our eye on an earlier year in Oscar history. Regular listeners know we frequently talk about what we would change in the current race if we had the power of an Oscar Fairy; we decided to use that magic wand on the past with this Oscar Fairy Flashback, in which we’ll discuss what we would, in hindsight, like to change about the nominees and winners from a chosen year.

To spice up the discussion, P.T. designed a point spending system. Each co-host will receive 10 points for this round, and carry over any leftover points from the previous Oscar Fairy Flashback if we participated. To swap out a nominee in a below-the-line category (the technical and production crew categories as well as speciality film categories like International, Animated, Documentary), we have to spend 1 point; swapping out a nominee in an above-the-line category (screenplay, acting, or directing) requires 2 points; and swapping out a best picture nominee is 3 points. To change the winner within a given category costs double points: so 2 points to change the winner below-the-line, 4 points for above, and 6 points for best picture.

You can listen to The Long Take Review on Substack, Spotify, Apple, or wherever you get your podcasts.

All music licensed through Epidemic Sound.

Logo art: Illustration 73265080 © Worldofvector | Dreamstime.com

Hot off the success of four-time Oscar winning film Poor Things, Yorgos Lanthimos is already back with Kinds of Kindness, playing in theaters now. This anthology film, with three distinct stories in one, is very different fare, with a darker, more brutal humor and more obtuse storytelling. Most critics agree that this is a return to the Yorgos of yore, when he previously collaborated with Efthimis Filippou on films such as The Lobster (2015) and The Killing of a Sacred Deer (2017), as opposed to Tony McNamara, who was the writer for the relatively tamer (emphasis on relatively!) period pieces, The Favourite (2018) and Poor Things (2023).

On this episode of The Long Take Review, P.T., Antonio, and I search for meaning by dissecting individual stories and zooming out to try to connect common themes across all three. What does Kinds of Kindness have to say about power and control? Where does reality end and fantasy or allegory begin? And will this film be too weird and too abstract for The Academy?

You can listen to The Long Take Review on Substack, Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Image Credit: NPR

The Short Take Our overall impressions of Kinds of Kindness. (The noise you hear in the background are fireworks going off in P.T.’s neighborhood.) 3:15

The Recommendation Algorithm If you liked Poor Things, will you like Kinds of Kindness? 7:54

SPOILER MODE How would we rank the three stories? What are the themes that cut across all three stories? Who is RMF and what is their purpose? 14:13

The Rhetorical Situation What do we call these stories? Allegories? Parables? Myths? And what role do dreams or visions play? 1:02:06

Oscars Watch Will Yorgos ride the Poor Things wave into this year or will Kinds of Kindness be too extreme for The Academy? 1:34:29

Notes:

P.T. referenced a couple of articles this week:

Variety article. What Yorgos Lanthimos has to say about RMF.

Films Fatale review. A potential explanation that unlocks the entire film!

All music licensed through Epidemic Sound.

Logo art: Illustration 73265080 © Worldofvector | Dreamstime.com

Have you recently found yourself endlessly scrolling through Netflix, not knowing when to press play? Are you looking for a something to watch while you wait for the next big summer blockbusters (and our reviews of them)? Whether you’re impatiently awaiting Greg’s hype draft pick, Twisters, on July 19 or, more realistically (sorry, Greg), Deadpool & Wolverine on July 26, we’ve got recommendations for smaller films from this year that we think are worth seeing. Many are available to watch at home, while others have just arrived in theaters.

For this episode of The Long Take Review, we’ve assembled the entire team — Antonio, Greg, P.T., and Jen — to share our top 3 films of the year to date. The caveat, however, is that we cannot select any films that we ourselves have already reviewed on the show. This forced us to consider smaller films that either suffered from poor marketing, were too unconventional to gain mainstream popularity, or just slipped through the cracks of film discourse. We also bookend our lists with a “temperature check” of the year in movies thus far. At the start, we reflect on our experience as moviegoers in 2024, responding to the frequent handwringing about the state of the box office and film industry at large. We conclude with, of course, an update on the Oscar race — what we think is worthy as well as what has a lot of early buzz.

You can listen to The Long Take Review on Substack, Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

All music licensed through Epidemic Sound.

Logo art: Illustration 73265080 © Worldofvector | Dreamstime.com

When Inside Out came out in 2015, critics and fans showered it with praise for its innovative storytelling, as it translated a series of basic human emotions — joy, sadness, anger, fear, and disgust — into lovable characters who work in an elaborate visualization of the human mind. It was a commercial hit and an award-winning film. It seemed then like Pixar could do no wrong; little did critics know that from that point forward Pixar would steadily decline, losing its apex position in the animation industry.

Much to everyone’s surprise in the face of such a downturn, Inside Out 2 has been a smash, positioned as the savior of the summer box office. What does that tell us about what audiences want? Pandering to our IP nostalgia? More sophisticated animated features for children? Or just a general desperation for any movies for families, regardless of the quality?

In this episode of The Long Take Review, Greg and I speculate some answers to those questions, as well as why this film, while good, doesn’t quite reach the heights of the original. We discuss how the film tries to level up its representation of emotions, revel in the parts we laughed at most, assess the new characters and voice performances, and share how our own kids responded to the film.

You can listen to The Long Take Review on Substack, Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Image Credit: IndieWire

Movie News Update We react to Sony’s purchase of the Alamo Drafthouse. 4:30

The Short Take Our overall impressions of Inside Out 2. 12:25

The Recommendation Algorithm How does Inside Out 2 handle kids in the audience vs. adults? 23:31

SPOILER MODE What new ideas does this sequel introduce and why doesn’t it quite reach the heights of the original? What made us laugh? Who are our favorite new characters? 30:17

The Rhetorical Situation How does this film impact the Pixar discourse? Is Pixar “back”? And what is the larger cultural impact of the “pop psychology” used in the Inside Out films? 1:03:18

Oscars Watch We check in with the animated feature race and debate whether or not Inside Out 2 will have a spot in the line-up. 1:28:56

Notes:

Jen wants it on record that while she did not like Morbius and has not yet seen Madame Web, she does enjoy the Venom movies.

Greg had trouble getting names exactly right in this episode. He says Jane Squibb when he means June Squibb and says Lord and Mitchell when he means Lord and Miller. Jen can attest that he does actually know these names.

Greg alludes to Jen having visited the Pixar campus, but Jen never had a chance to explain. A friend of hers from high school used to work at Pixar, and so Jen would visit him at work. She actually saw Tropic Thunder in the Pixar theater. Shoutout to Najeeb Tarazi, who is now a prolific (and talented!) independent director.

During Oscars Watch, Greg sends Jen into a panic about how Aardman Studios only has enough clay to make one more movie. He later discovered that they reassured everyone that they will be fine.

All music licensed through Epidemic Sound.

Logo art: Illustration 73265080 © Worldofvector | Dreamstime.com

Glen Powell’s having a great year. He arguably entered the movie star chat with 2022’s Top Gun: Maverick (in which he played Hangman), but this year alone he has had/will have three big releases. Despite middling reviews, Anyone But You, Powell’s rom com with Sydney Sweeney did exceedingly well at the box office this past winter. Looking ahead, Powell will star in a sequel to the 1996 disaster film Twister. (And yes, it’s called Twisters.) The trailers and press for that film indicate that if the film is a hit, it could launch Powell into a new level of stardom.

The third film and subject of our review, Hitman, is one that just dropped on Netflix as it winds down its brief theatrical run. Directed by Oscar-nominated Richard Linklater, the dark romantic comedy premiered last fall at The Venice Film Festival, to very positive reviews that have only grown in number and intensity since. Powell co-stars with Adria Arjona, who most viewers would recognize as Bix in the Star Wars Disney+ series, Andor. She plays Madison, a troubled woman in an abusive relationship looking for a way out. Powell plays Gary, a psychology professor who moonlights as an undercover agent for the New Orleans Police Department.

In this episode of The Long Take Review, Greg, P.T., and I discuss the palpable on-screen chemistry between Powell and Arjona, weigh in on how the film represents academics, play a “name that genre” game, and just generally revel in the good time that is Hitman.

You can listen to The Long Take Review on Substack, Spotify, Apple, YouTube, or wherever you get your podcasts.

Image Credit: Netflix

The Short Take Our overall impressions of Hitman. 3:32

The Recommendation Algorithm To whom do we recommend Hitman? What genres do we see Linklater playing around with? (Spoiler: there are many). 10:19

SPOILER MODE What did we think about the twists and turns in the plot? What do we think is Linklater’s “thesis” and what do we think about that thesis? 19:41

The Rhetorical Situation How does this film represent “our kind” (a.k.a. professors)? What value does the invocation of academic research and concepts add to the story? How is the main character, Gary, an expert in rhetoric and composition? What does this movie have in common with The Good Place? 32:53

Oscars Watch In a quieter year, does Hitman have a sharper shot at the Oscars? 52:46

Notes:

P.T. mentions the acronym NTT. That stands for “non-tenure track,” used to describe a professor whose position does not allow (or expect) them to publish and go up for tenure. We also use the term “adjunct” which refers to a part time faculty member who has been hired to teach courses but is not considered a full time employee/member of a department.

All music licensed through Epidemic Sound.

Logo art: Illustration 73265080 © Worldofvector | Dreamstime.com