The weekend’s box office numbers doubled as a baton-passing moment.

• Out with the old – a moldy film franchise razed by its corporate overlords
• In with the new – a generation of storytellers weaned on YouTube 

“The Mandalorian and Grogu” plummeted close to 70 percent in its second frame, falling behind two movies with a combined budget of $11 million.

Maybe less.

The first “Star Wars” film in seven years couldn’t even replicate the box office totals from “Solo: A Star Wars Story.” That film proved the franchise’s creative and commercial nadir.

Now, “The Mandalorian” holds that dishonor.

Meanwhile, a pair of indie horror films dominated this weekend’s release slate. “Obsession” grew another 19 percent from its previous week, according to Deadline.com.

That. Just. Doesn’t. Happen. Yet it happened.

Again.

Those stunning results took a backseat to “Backrooms.” The directorial debut of 20-year-old Kane Parsons was expected to earn a whopping $20 million just a few short weeks ago.

Except the box office predictions kept growing, and growing. Last week, experts envisioned a $25-33 million opening.

The reality? Deadline.com reports the film could land between $85-88 million.

Stunning.

Hollywood has been very afraid of where the theatrical model will go over the next few years. It’s an understandable concern.

Ticket sales have slumped in recent years. Gen Z types seemed cozier watching movies on streaming platforms or their tablets than going to a theater.

The films released of late felt inadequate, either too creatively safe or just plain woke. This year, things are changing. Consider the early list of 2026 blockbusters:

• “Project Hail Mary”
• “Hoppers”
• “Scream 7”
• “Michael”
• “The Super Mario Galaxy Movie”
• “The Devil Wears Prada 2”

Hit after hit after hit. And now, two horror films are crushing the competition. What changed?

It helps that both Curry Barker (“Obsession”) and Parsons (“Backrooms”) were weaned on social media platforms like YouTube. They took full advantage of the video platform to build their storytelling chops and connect with audiences.

They’re young enough to grasp what Gen Z craves while growing a fan base.

Disney’s “Star Wars” represents something different, an older model that may have outlived its usefulness. Its creators mock the fan base, ignore canon and think throwing a few dozen Easter eggs on the screen will build brand loyalty.

To quote Tim Robinson, “Are you sure ’bout that?”

This new Hollywood may not have enough room for movies like “The Mandalorian and Grogu.” It’ll embrace young visionaries eager to lure audiences back to the cineplex.

Just ask Barker, who was offered $10 million for his next film (without a single hint of what it might actually be).

 

 

Source

Hasan Piker is the Left’s Flavor of the Month. Let that sink in.

Never mind his rageful rhetoric, from saying America deserved 9/11 to embracing political violence. That’s just the tip of the hateful iceberg.

Piker has expressed explicit support for U.S-designated terrorist organizations such as Hamas, the Houthis, Hezbollah and the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) on numerous occasions. He has also falsely claimed that the well-documented sexual violence committed by Hamas and other terrorists on October 7, 2023 did not take place. Piker’s casual and frequent assertions of support for terrorist groups and the violence they commit normalize the use of violence to his millions of followers.

Progressives are looking past that, hoping Piker’s click-worthy shtick will boost their party’s chances in 2026 and beyond.

Ghoulish barely describes it, and we’re sure Stephen Colbert would have skewered Piker’s hateful commentary had his show not been canceled earlier this month.

Yet Adam Carolla and his “crystal brain” see right through Piker’s pose. The podcaster and Dr. Drew Pinsky shredded Piker’s shtick on “The Adam and Dr. Drew Show” podcast.

It wasn’t pretty. Just necessary.

The pair didn’t further expose Piker’s violent musings. They skewered his bogus economic theories with ridicule and facts.

They played audio of Piker slamming Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, one of the world’s wealthiest men. He didn’t earn it nor deserve that kind of wealth, Piker alleges. He simply got “lucky,” was in the right place at the right time and needed all his Amazon employees to make his wealth possible.

It’s dumb on the surface, and insipid upon rudimentary inspection. Yet Democrats like Rep. Ro Khanna, Sen. Bernie Sanders, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani flock to Piker’s side to soak in his alleged wisdom.

And, presumably, to curry favor with people who embrace his unabashed hate. The Legacy Media, which is corrupt to the core, has yet to press any of these prominent figures about their Piker adoration.

“Embedded in here is a disdain for and a lack of understanding of ownership and, once you dig further, even property,” Dr. Pinsky said of Piker’s commentary. “You’re not supposed to have property.”

The podcasters noted that while Piker will call out folks like Bezos and Elon Musk, he’s far less vocal about other billionaires, think George Soros, Gov. J.B. Pritzker and wannabe California Gov. Tom Steyer.

Hmmmm.

“How does this reasoning figure into the money that Nancy Pelosi and AOC have … they have hundreds of millions of dollars, some of them,” Dr. Pinsky said. “Did they work hundreds of millions of times harder than the people who paid the taxes?”

“He continually leaves out his heroes,” Carolla answered, noting the partisan games in play.

Dr. Pinsky then called out Piker for his blatant hypocrisy.

“How does he explain the money he’s making, sitting behind a microphone?” Dr. Pinsky asked. Online estimates suggest Piker could be worth as much as $8 million. “Does he work a hundred times harder [than other people]?”

Carolla boiled it all down.

“I knew [Piker] was dangerous and I knew his rhetoric was s***, but I didn’t know he was a dope. This proves he’s a dope,” Carolla said. “These people are Communists who hate this country, that’s about it. They’re luxury Communists … they’re not living the life of a Communist.”

Source

Picture this.

A 50-something black woman tries to speak her mind from a concert stage. Her boss, the musician behind the tour, swiftly fires her.

He claims that she shared “offensive” views, even though the comments reflected the views of many ordinary Americans. Her monologue contained no profanity, nor did it disparage any group or person.

Cue the progressive outrage … right?

Right?

Not even close.

#KidCudi has announced that he fired M.I.A. as one of the openers on his Rebel Ragers Tour after she was booed during a rant which included lines like, “I’ve been canceled for many reasons. I never thought I would be canceled for being a brown Republican voter.”

Cudi announced… pic.twitter.com/h379HModFs

— Variety (@Variety) May 4, 2026

When Kid Cudi fired M.I.A. last month for espousing conservative views and questioning illegal immigration, the usual suspects went stone cold silent. Legacy Media outlets yawned. So did the ACLU, Bruce Springsteen, Jimmy Kimmel and other celebrities who claim free speech is under assault in the Age of Trump.

Some of these artists have spent months slamming President Trump from their concert stages. Imagine if someone fired them for that simple act?

Now, M.I.A. is going on the offensive. She is suing the singer to the tune of $2.8 million. Here’s part of a statement shared by Variety on the matter.

“Kid Cudi’s attempts to silence freedom of artistic expression and speech on his ‘Rebel Rager’s Tour’ cannot go unchallenged … Kid Cudi claimed shock over her comments he now labels as ‘offensive’ and his abrupt and unjustified termination of her performance agreement is a desperate attempt to sell tickets for his tour that was drastically underselling. As a result, his false allegations have fueled a misguided, hive-minded pile-on based on a deliberate misrepresentation of her words.”

RELATED: THE FREE SPEECH FIGHT THAT KIMMEL AND CO. IGNORE

RELATED: WHY LEFT’S SUDDEN FREE SPEECH ENERGY IS A FRAUD

Progressive celebrities have been crying wolf for months over alleged free speech attacks. Liberals, along with Legacy Media outlets, blamed “The Late Show’s” cancellation on President Donald Trump. They claimed he wanted to silence host Stephen Colbert for his chronic attacks on the real estate mogul.

The problem? CBS said “The Late Show” cost the network $40 million a year, and CBS officials decided to go with a more profitable option – Byron Allen’s “Comics Unleashed.”

Plus, the parent company behind CBS recently signed the team behind “South Park,” a show that spent an entire season skewering President Trump, to a billion-plus-dollar deal.

Other stars have claimed President Trump might prevent them from re-entering the country, like Neil Young. We’ve yet to see proof of such a scenario.

Yet when M.I.A. got bounced from the tour in question, the folks rallying behind free speech rights said nothing. Even Jane Fonda, who recently revived a decades-old group sworn to uphold the First Amendment, couldn’t spare a syllable for her fellow artist.

Now, M.I.A. is taking legal action to protect both her brand and her free speech rights.

Rolling Stone has done little to battle back against Cancel Culture in recent years. The far-Left outlet also slammed comedian Dave Chappelle for telling trans jokes at the height of the woke revolution.

To its credit, the site shared a further explanation from Team M.I.A.

“KiD CuDi’s attempts to silence freedom of artistic expression and speech on his ‘Rebel Rager’s Tour’ cannot go unchallenged. Censorship is something M.I.A has fought against her whole career,” a rep for M.I.A. said in a statement shared with Rolling Stone on Sunday.

Will Jimmy Kimmel’s free speech defenders rise up on behalf of M.I.A.? What about groups like the NAACP or Black Lives Matter? Will they honor the singer’s free speech rights, or will they sit this one out?

Source

Bill Maher settled on a curious recurring joke during his interview with Spencer Pratt.

The future Mark Twain Prize winner told Pratt to stop making the L.A. mayor’s race so darn “personal.”

Sure, your house burned to a crisp thanks in part to government incompetence, but isn’t it time we look past that nagging issue?

Maher’s gag fell flat the first time he tried it, while Pratt took it with surprising grace. The host trotted it out a few more times during their hour-plus conversation.

By the end, it seemed obvious that Maher was on Team Pratt. He just couldn’t say it out loud.

He didn’t have to.

The curious exchange found Maher gently pressing Pratt on several key issues, from the city’s current, dysfunctional state to the future of solar panels in the Golden State.

The latter was a rare swing-and-miss for Pratt, but he quickly recovered to say that renewable energy isn’t atop his “to-do” list.

Nor should it be given L.A.’s sizable flaws.

RELATED: BILL MAHER DID WHAT NO OTHER LATE NIGHT COMIC DARED

RELATED: BILL MAHER HEART HAMAS, NOT THE USA

RELATED: DID TRUMP CRUSH BILL MAHER’S STAND-UP ACT?

Maher remains a loyal Democratic voter, but he suggested he may not pull the lever for either Mayor Karen Bass or far-Left candidate Nithya Raman.

How?

“You had me at hello,” Maher told Pratt at the end of their conversation. Yes, Maher is liberal and he adores his adopted city of Los Angeles.

He also knows societal decay when he sees it.

“I didn’t know until I talked to you … but you have the exact right impatience with this s***. It’s very authentic,” Maher said.

It’s one thing for Pratt to drop by Fox News’ “Gutfeld!” The right-leaning candidate did just that a few days ago, a venue that let him share his talking points with little blowback.

Visiting with a man renowned for his liberal politics is something else.

The fact that Pratt either won Maher over or the comedian was sold on Pratt’s campaign long before he entered the podcast studio speaks volumes. At times, Maher played the political advisor, suggesting where Pratt should tone down his pitch and where to double down on it.

He’s clearly rooting for him to shake up the status quo, if not win the whole shebang.

It’s also noteworthy that Maher would “platform” Pratt in the first place. The host of “Jimmy Kimmel Live!” recently savaged Pratt from his ABC pulpit, a blend of partisanship and personal attacks. 

Wouldn’t it be easier to invite Pratt onto the ABC show and settle things in person? Kimmel would never do such a thing. His audience would revolt.

More importantly, he might get his clock cleaned by Pratt, rhetorically speaking.

Maher understands having Pratt on the air is more than just a great talk show “get.” It’s a way to save Los Angeles from its disastrous status quo.

Source

Quick, who have benefited from the U.S. more than Taylor Swift?

Tough question, right?

America has delivered endless dreams to hard-working patriots, immigrants seeking a brighter future and those who never stopped reaching for their stars.

And then there’s Swift. She’s the biggest pop star on the planet, a 30-something artist who has taken full advantage of the freedom and opportunity America offers. To her credit, she’s made the most of every chance her country gave her.

Now, it’s time to return the favor, but it won’t be easy.

Swift should agree to join the flailing Freedom 250 concert lineup, the very one that shed the vast majority of its acts in recent days. Artists like Bret Michaels, Martina McBride, Young MC and more broke their promises to appear because:

• The event proved more political than they expected (sans proof)
• The event put their lives in jeopardy (potentially true given the Left’s lust for violence)
• Everyone else is quitting, so …

Pick your choice. 

Editor’s Note: It’s a brutal time to be an independent journalist, but it’s never been more necessary given the sorry state of the corporate press. If you’re enjoying Hollywood in Toto, I hope you’ll consider leaving a coin (or two) in our Tip Jar.

Either way, the fallout is clear. Even C-list stars aren’t willing to face the professional blowback for aligning with a concert that’s pro America and, potentially, Trump adjacent.

President Donald Trump created the Freedom 250 group to honor the nation’s 250th birthday next month. Toward that end, it designed a massive, state fair-like gathering to celebrate the milestone.

And, once progressive pressure came down on the acts in question, they bailed one by one.

Vanilla Ice may be the last act standing.

“It’s all about enjoying the great times of 250 years. From George Washington to now. All the presidents and everybody in between, this is a magical event that’s gonna happen,” he said in the video. “It’s very rare. I’m honored, man. This is gonna be epic. And that’s it. We don’t take anything too seriously, and we’re gonna bring the ‘90s, that’s how it works.”

Not all heroes wear capes. And it’s well past time for Swift to either try one on or channel her inner Ice.

Why? 

The nation’s birthday shouldn’t be a partisan slugfest. We all know if President Kamala Harris sparked the Freedom 250 group, the concert would be wall-to-wall superstars. Springsteen. Beyonce. Roan. Bunny.

Except Harris couldn’t topple Trump at the ballot box. That means artists would rather do anything except perform for the nation’s big birthday. Their patriotism ends when Democrats don’t hold the levers of power.

See how this works?

If Swift ignored the corrupt Legacy Media and her fellow progressives to anchor the ceremony, she would singlehandedly resurrect the concert.

And it would start with a soul-searching Instagram post.

Y’all know I didn’t pull the lever for Donald Trump. And I disagree with many of his philosophies. But the country’s 250th birthday is bigger than one president. It’s about the American experiment, an evolving dream that has given the world so much.

That’s why I’m putting politics aside to honor my home’s 250th birthday. And I hope you’ll join me in D.C.!

Now, the chances of that happening are even slimmer than Lloyd Christmas landing a date with his dream girl.

Still, Swift is perfectly positioned to do just that and give America the patriotic present it deserves. She’d be crucified in the media, of course. MS NOW-style outlets would burn endless calories attacking her choice.

The op-eds would be legendary, as would the snark from her fellow stars.

Remember how the press turned on her for not immediately backing Hillary Clinton for president? If you don’t, just know that some media outlets suggested she was a White Supremacist.

Really.

Swift is literally too big to cancel. If she stood her ground and sang for her country out of pure gratitude, she’d survive the “scandal.”

She survived that faux controversy. And, chances are, she’d survived this one, too.

And, here’s betting, other musicians would follow her lead. America deserves nothing less.

Source

Lilly Wachowski wants a major movie studio to fund the director’s passion project.

So far, no takers.

Wachowski famously co-directed both “Bound” and, later, “The Matrix.” The latter rocked Hollywood, changing the way we process action movies. The film’s provocative themes and aesthetic gave Wachowski the ability to tell any story, any time.

Except the director’s follow-up projects either disappointed (two “Matrix” sequels) or outright flopped.

Think: “Jupiter Ascending,” “Cloud Atlas” and “Speed Racer.” Three high-profile duds, at least from a box office perspective.

Why would any studio trust Wachowski at this point?

Except the director has an answer for this creative dry spell. It’s fascism, don’t you know.

I feel like the industry is a microcosm of what is happening all around the world: the consolidation of wealth, the corporate consolidation that you’re seeing. It’s creating an ecosphere where fascism can thrive, and so within that ecosphere, queer stories, trans stories, Black and brown stories are all on the chopping block.

Even venerated film directors are struggling to get new projects off the ground. John Waters comes to mind. So does John Sayles. Kathryn Bigelow spent time in Director’s Jail following her 2017 flop “Detroit” before her 2025 Netflix comeback, “A House of Dynamite.”

Wachowski takes big swings, no doubt. Perhaps a better approach moving forward is taking a cue from the next generation of visionaries, directors like Curry Barker and Kane Parsons.

Make more with much, much less. Those filmmakers rocked the box office with projects that cost less than $10 million.

Earlier in the IndieWire chat, Wachowski skewered film critics, a body that leans relentlessly to the Left. Not according to Wachowski. Consider this reflection on the release of “Bound,” a film following a lesbian couple battling with the mob.

I remember the first screening that we had [at Sundance] was hugely tempered because the day of our screening — that morning — a review came out in Variety by Todd McCarthy, and he just trashed the film…The film played well, it won over the crowd, but since then, I was always skeptical of critique and came to understand, much later, the motivation, and why do people write what they write. Sometimes that stuff is seeped-in misogyny; sometimes it’s seeped-in homophobia; sometimes — a lot of the times — it is seeped-in, sort of, anti-socialist tendencies. And so you end up with these reviews, or critique, that has nothing to do with your film, but has to do with ideological differences.

Wachowski is partly right. Modern film critics routinely let their biases, both cultural and political, sway their reviews. It’s often in the service of a left-leaning agenda.

Just ask Jim Gaffigan, who bristled at critics for reviewing elements of his film that didn’t exist.

Wachowski suggested this liberal body is misogynist, homophobic and anti-socialist.

That seems … unlikely, to say the least.

Source

Director John Carney may have peaked with “Sing Street,” but we still need his brand of music-driven cinema.

The director struck gold with both “Once” (2007) and “Begin Again” (2013). His ode to ‘80s music, 2016’s “Sing Street,” may be the best Reagan-era flashback since “The Wedding Singer.

But Carney’s fine but formulaic “Flora and Son” went straight to Apple TV+ and lacked the filmmaker’s signature touch. Now, he’s back on solid ground with “Power Ballad,” a film boasting a stellar first act but a story unsure how far to push its premise.

Paul Rudd stars as Rick, a wedding singer who once dreamed of being an arena rock god. Fate had other plans, and he settled for a blissful marriage and being a Dad to a sweet, well-adjusted teen.

Playing classic rock for newlyweds scratches that old, artistic itch.

Barely.

Those old dreams resurface when he bumps into an aging boy band alum, Danny (Nick Jonas, perfectly fine but far from remarkable). The two get drunk, tinker with their respective music and bond over unfinished tracks.

The sequence works, in part, because Rudd can do virtually anything on screen. Plus, Carney’s musical instincts remain uncanny. You don’t have to be a guitar hero to admire two artists stumbling along until the right riff emerges.

This is Carney’s sweet spot.

Except one of their collaborations sticks in Danny’s head. And, when his label demands he come up with a hit, or else, he swipes one of Rick’s old noodlings. Voila, his ice cold career is hot again.

Naturally, Rick hears the song and can’t believe Danny betrayed their trust. What happens next isn’t as wacky as the film’s trailer suggests. Nor is it cynical to the core.

“Power Ballad’s” mid-section is unfortunately flabby, even if the film’s core gimmick is rock solid. Carney isn’t quite sure where to take this tale. Will Rudd channel his inner “Role Models” character and hound Danny until he admits to his pilfering?

Might Danny regret using a stranger’s song to boost his career?

“Power Ballad” does get some mileage out of Rick’s bandmates. They’re a talented group of Irish musicians with big personalities, and they offer some texture to the tale. Rick’s wife (Marcella Plunkett) doesn’t get anough screen time, and when some major tension rocks their bond later in the film, the circumstances seem driven by plot, not character development.

And as good as it was to watch Rick and Danny collaborate in those early scenes, the film can’t dig deeper into that connection.

“Power Ballad” isn’t as cynical as it could be, nor as hard edged as the story demands. Carney’s screenplays (this time with co-writer Peter McDonald) are still better than many modern storytellers. His comic timing never betrays him, and Rudd’s exasperation at missing his last chance for stardom is oddly relatable.

Carney’s best films deliver instantly catchy songs, from the Oscar-winning “Falling Slowly” to “Begin Again’s” “Lost Stars” and “Tell Me If You Wanna Go Home.”

The key track here, “How to Write a Song (Without You)” is fine. Nothing more. But when we’re asked to believe it could revive Danny’s career and become the “It” hit of the moment, it’s no sale.

Still, there’s a maturity to “Power Ballad” that’s hard to shake and easy to admire. Imagine “Power Ballad” under a more conventional approach, from the inevitable comic violence to an ending guaranteed to answer all our nagging questions.

Carney mostly resists that safe, sugary potential.

This is adult storytelling, and if that means we aren’t spoon fed easy solutions or cathartic third-act reveals, so be it.

Just look for a street busker cameo for the ultimate Carney easter egg. This talented filmmaker has more than earned it.

HiT or Miss: “Power Ballad” is the equivalent of a great Yacht Rock song. It’s easy to enjoy and will leave your feet a-tapping, but you might forget all about it in short order.

Source

Bonnie and Clyde robbed banks.

So do the antiheroes in “Carolina Caroline,” except the filmmakers are too enamored of the duo to tease out right from wrong.

It’s the biggest hurdle this indie film encounters, smacking its narrative shin in the process. The other is less obvious but profound. We’ve seen these characters too many times before, and “Carolina Caroline” isn’t sly enough to make them stand out from the crowd.

Star Samara Weaving tries her best, and at times her stirring work comes close. It’s not enough to salvage the feature.

Weaving plays Caroline, a Heartland gal whose life hasn’t panned out as planned. She lives with her father (Jon Gries) and makes a modest living at a local convenience store. That’s where she meets Oliver (Kyle Gallner), a moody rebel who plays the locals for fools.

And, to be fair, they go along a mite too well.

She’s enamored with his moxie and willingness to bend society to his liking. They fall in love, fast and hard, and he takes her on as a protégé. Who would think such a stunner would pull two-bit scams on unsuspecting souls?

Suddenly, her small-town dreams aren’t enough. He offers her a way to do more than just survive. Yes, that means they’ll soon be robbing banks.

If you think you know where this story is going … give yourself a gold star. Part of “Carolina Caroline’s” problem is how predictable this template proves. We’ve seen too many charismatic strangers lure broken women down dark paths.

Screenwriter Tom Dean does little to shake up that formula. It’s all there, from her budding confidence to the close calls the duo face as they strive for bigger targets.

Weaving and Gallner boast crackling chemistry, and there’s something enthralling about seeing them build each other up. Oliver isn’t as cruel as most characters in this story template, which is both smart and part of the story’s undoing.

He’s tender and empathetic, yet he’s willing to put her in harm’s way. Repeatedly. What kind of partner does that, even a kinder Clyde type?

“Carolina Caroline” makes no fuss about the crimes in question. Sure, the two rationalize their schemes, but it’s pure spin.

They’re two-bit hoodlums, no matter how they frame their actions.

Caroline’s backstory has her pining to visit South Carolina, presumably where her estranged mother lives. Said Momma, given an over-the-top turn by a recognizable star, explains some of Caroline’s emotional pain.

It’s still not enough to justify the moral pretzel twists on display. But that’s modern Hollywood for you. Too many films make us root for antiheroes, putting the law on a back burner. Heck, our broken economy (late-stage capitalism!) gives crooks an unblinking green light.

Sorry. Not even close.

That moral toxicity gives way to a third act teeming with genre action, at least until a sinking feeling emerges.

Whose side is this story on?

We’ve seen endless hitman movies begging us to cheer on unrepentant killers. It’s a trend the woke mob allowed without incident, one of many reasons not to trust that crowd.

The recent “Emily the Criminal” suggested the antihero’s thievery made her worthy of an aw, shucks finale.

“Carolina Caroline” is far messier, to its credit. It’s also fallen so hard for its leads that its final sequence, meant to be a “yessss” epilogue, becomes more of a sickening sigh.

HiT or Miss: Strong performances and a sturdy soundtrack give “Carolina Caroline” a welcome pulse, but we’re left wondering why lawbreaking is suddenly hip on screen.

Source

Let’s start with the obvious.

Remaking “Cape Fear” isn’t the best use of Apple TV’s resources. Or any studio, for that matter.

Did anyone complain about the 1962 original or that gonzo Martin Scorsese’s update?

It doesn’t help that the series needle drops Bernard Herrmann’s epic score and recycles Scorsese’s X-ray visuals from the 1991 version.

Stop reminding us that two superior films exist for all to see. Please.

What emerges is a watered-down plot that drowns the original chills, replacing them with head-scratching twists and lukewarm suspense. The show’s A-list cast is left scrambling to explain why they’ve gathered in the first place.

NOTE: This critic screened the first three installments of a 10-episode saga.

It’s Javier Bardem’s turn to play Max Cady, a wrongfully convicted man who spent more than a decade behind bars. Yeah, he looks guilty of something, but the system betrayed him.

Or was it his legal representation?

We’re in spoiler territory, but the setup isn’t dramatically different than the previous films, both inspired by John D. MacDonald’s “The Executioners.”

Married lawyers Anna and Tom Bowden (Amy Adams, Patrick Wilson) live in Savannah with their teen son and daughter. The girl (Lily Collias) is a high-achieving athlete, while their son (Joe Anders) is a sullen lad with a lot on his plate.

Anna worked on Max’s defense, and she’s understandably shaken to learn what happened to his case. Her motives are murky, to say the least.

She should pay more attention to her quasi-Southern accent. Yikes.

The Bowdens fear Cady’s arrival on the scene will crush their picture-perfect life, a potent theme that show creator Nick Antosca (“Candy,” “Brand New Cherry Flavor”) fumbles early on.

Meanwhile, Anna’s boss (CCH Pounder) sees Max’s case as a perfect way to promote her Innocence-style legal project. Pounder’s character milks Cady’s case to fund her nonprofit, but it’s a one-dimensional portrait that’s beneath the great character actress.

The Bowdens seem ripe for an implosion long before Max shows up, but is he responsible for the eerie events that start happening to the family?

The “new” story expands the “Cape Fear” canvas, deletes parts of the 1991 version and flirts with woke themes without going the full Lena Dunham. A key character’s sexuality doesn’t track with the earlier version of the film. 

The not-so-hidden attacks on the legal system suggest another progressive tic.

Tom’s legal career isn’t as high profile as his spouse’s, an angle left to dangle in the first few episodes. Other problems swamp such minor complaints.

The narrative head scratchers pile up fast, from the couple’s on-again, off-again ties to Max to Tom’s potential infidelity. Why would Patrick flirt with a female colleague at home while his son is lurking nearby?

There’s almost nothing here that wasn’t presented with more clarity or excitement before. It’s a crackerjack story warmed over for a new generation.

Bardem works hard to make Max a memorable figure, and he has moments where he flexes his character’s menacing side. The show’s 10-episode arc means his full nature may take time to emerge, another reason the show’s thrill factor feels incomplete.

And there’s a casting decision that can’t be shared here, but it offers another reminder that a remake should do all it can to improve on the source material.

If it can’t, why bother?

“Cape Fear” debuts on Apple TV+ June 5.

Source

Some examples of media bias are so blatant they practically scream their intentions.

Take the year-long mourning over Stephen Colbert’s “Late Show” cancellation. Week after week, saw news articles bemoaning his late-night fate. Most journalists ignored the fact that the show cost CBS $40 million a year.

Oops! Did we leave that out?

Sources inside CBS have suddenly become much more forthcoming about the economics of late-night television—go figure!— revealing that The Late Show with Stephen Colbert has recently been running at an annual shortfall of $40 million. https://t.co/N0H1wR1qHp

— LateNighter (@latenightercom) July 18, 2025

Had Colbert spent the last decade skewering President Joe Biden, Senatorial hopeful Graham Platner and other progressives, the same journalists would have pinned a “Kick Me” sign to Colbert’s back on the way out the door.

Instead, they collectively recoiled at his dismissal, dubbing him an “avenger” and a “minister” to a troubled nation.

Really.

Now? It’s Stephen Colbert who? 

Why? CBS News head honcho Bari Weiss is cleaning house at another hard-Left institution – “60 Minutes.” Yes, the same program that got pummeled by President Donald Trump’s lawyers for selectively editing Kamala Harris to make her sound smart in the final days of the 2024 presidential campaign.

The same “60 Minutes” that tried to fix the 2004 election with a “fake but accurate” story smearing President George W. Bush.

The same “60 Minutes” that fought with President Trump over the Hunter Biden laptop, insisting it lacked the resources to see if it was the real deal.

Remember when Trump tied to bring up Hunter Biden’s crimes and Lesley Stahl laughed and called it discredited? pic.twitter.com/Gk6BwCDPWw

— End Wokeness (@EndWokeness) December 3, 2024

It was … and they were terrified to learn the truth.

That “60 Minutes.”

Now, with center-Left Weiss attempting to bring the show to the journalistic center, the same Colbert defenders are rallying behind the just-fired Scott Pelley.

He’s been a part of the far-Left show for years, and he epitomized the modern journalist – arrogant, biased and willing to publicly trash his bosses, assuming said bosses wouldn’t fire employees for insubordination.

Wrong.

He’s out of a job, and the media is in full meltdown mode. Here’s a Google News snapshot.

That’s a small sample of the media coverage.

“60 Minutes” legend Steve Kroft says the news program has become “disastrous” under CBS News boss Bari Weiss.

“It’s the highest rated news program on television, and it has been that way for more than 50 years. The audience was up about 9% last year. Why would you mess with… pic.twitter.com/xOGFCfRaiQ

— Variety (@Variety) June 3, 2026

WTF Is Happening at CBS and ’60 Minutes’?

Longtime correspondent Scott Pelley was fired from the gold-standard program on Tuesday, in the latest sign of chaos at the iconic show. https://t.co/sZEtqmrauJ

— Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) June 3, 2026

Scott Pelley is speaking out after being fired from “60 Minutes” with accusations that CBS leadership has forced bias and catered to politicians. https://t.co/mpW0QWdEIg

— USA TODAY (@USATODAY) June 3, 2026

Wait … who is Scott Pelley? Newsbusters offers a crash course on his chronic liberal bias.

Consider this softball he lobbed to President Joe Biden:

“Joe Biden is among the longest-serving politicians in Washington. If there is less bounce in the step than there once was, if the words don’t flow like they used to, maybe there’s something to be said for knowhow, five decades on the Hill and in the Oval…You have lived a long life of triumph and tragedy. In November, you’ll be 80. And I wonder what it is that keeps you in the arena.”

Or this commencement address during the second President Trump administration, which doubled as an MS NOW audition tape:

“Our sacred rule of law is under attack. Journalism is under attack, universities are under attack, freedom of speech is under attack. An insidious fear is reaching through our schools, our businesses, our homes and into our private thoughts. The fear to speak in America….In a moment like this, when our country is in peril, don’t ask the meaning of life. Life is asking, what’s the meaning of you?”

Is it any wonder journalists forgot Colbert’s cancellation to mourn yet another far-Left figure?

And, for added context, consider how little attention these same journalists paid to a former president suffering from obvious cognitive decline?

What’s the worst example of Pelley’s liberal bias that you remember?

Source