Connect with us

Entertainment

They traveled hundreds of miles to watch ‘Sinners’ make Hollywood history in Imax 70mm: ‘It was a no-brainer’

Published

on

They traveled hundreds of miles to watch ‘Sinners’ make Hollywood history in Imax 70mm: ‘It was a no-brainer’

If you ask a cinephile, there’s nothing better than Imax 70mm film. So Ryan Coogler’s latest movie, “Sinners,” which was partially shot on Imax film cameras and is being shown in Imax 70mm, has been all the buzz since its Easter weekend debut, when it grossed $63.5 million worldwide, exceeding expectations.

“Sinners” features a refreshingly original plot that is part Jim Crow period piece about two brothers who open a juke joint, part vampire thriller. Starring frequent Coogler collaborator Michael B. Jordan and newcomer Miles Caton, the film received an A CinemaScore — the first ever for a horror movie — and 98% on Rotten Tomatoes.

For many moviegoers, the fervor about the genre-bending film is matched by excitement for Coogler’s technical accomplishments, which follows in the footsteps of Christopher Nolan’s best picture winner, “Oppenheimer.” (While Todd Phillips’ “Joker: Folie à Deux” and Denis Villeneuve’s “Dune: Part Two” were also recently shown in Imax 70mm, they were shot for Imax digitally.) Ahead of “Sinners’” release, Coogler encouraged audiences to see the film in its intended format, on Imax 70mm screens in 1.43:1 aspect ratio.

But the mandate is harder to meet than it may seem as “Sinners” is screening in Imax 70mm in only eight theaters in the United States and 10 theaters globally: Harkins Arizona Mills 18 & IMAX in Tempe; Regal Irvine Spectrum & IMAX in Irvine; Universal Cinema AMC at CityWalk Hollywood & IMAX in Los Angeles; AMC Metreon 16 & IMAX in San Francisco; AutoNation IMAX Theater in Fort Lauderdale, Fla.; IMAX Theatre in the Indiana State Museum in Indianapolis; AMC Lincoln Square 13 & IMAX in New York City; Cinemark Dallas & IMAX in Dallas; Cineplex Cinemas Vaughan & IMAX in Ontario, Canada; and British Film Institute IMAX in London.

The per-screen average for the Imax 70mm locations (excluding London) was about $91,000 over the weekend, according to Jason Allen, head of publicity at Imax.

Advertisement

As for what makes Imax 70mm so special, the film camera is generally considered the highest resolution motion picture camera ever developed. The captured Imax negative has a resolution of 12x18K, according to Imax chief quality officer David Keighley. In comparison, the highest resolution of the average television or movie screen is 4K.

The visual is “absolutely sharp from edge to edge on a 90-foot screen,” said Bill Counter, a theater historian and retired projectionist. “An extraordinary amount of detail is captured.” Simply put, “it’s bigger, it’s sharper, it’s better.”

An Imax 70mm projector.

(Imax)

Advertisement

Adding to the hype, while not the first movie to utilize mixed aspect ratios, “Sinners” is the first film to be shot on both Imax (1.43:1) film and Ultra Panavision 70 (2.76:1). Cinematographer Autumn Durald Arkapaw is the first female director of photography to shoot in Imax film. Ultra Panavision 70 had a resurgence with the release of Quentin Tarantino’s “The Hateful Eight” in 2015. Prior to that, the format hadn’t been used for almost 50 years.

“Sinners” puts Coogler in the same company as renowned filmmakers Nolan, Tarantino, Paul Thomas Anderson, Martin Scorsese and Steven Spielberg, who have the clout and expertise to shoot on film, said Keighley.

“We’re excited because he’s a young filmmaker and he has done an incredible job with this,” Keighley said. “He’s not just a director that is enamored by the story, he’s a person who is enamored by the technology and believes both of those things together drive people to the theaters.”

Keighley said “Sinners” is one of the most positively received films he’s worked on. And in Dallas, Cinemark added 10 a.m. showings to the movie’s two-week Imax run to meet audience demand, said retired Imax technician and projectionist Patrick Caldwell.

“Sinners’” relatively limited 70mm release — “Oppenheimer” was presented in Imax 70mm in 30 theaters worldwide — came down to a business decision, said Keighley.

Advertisement

Caldwell put it more bluntly: “‘Oppenheimer’ got them going but let’s face it, Ryan Coogler is not Christopher Nolan. Mr. Coogler doesn’t have the name recognition to demand 30 theaters with each print costing upwards of $50,000, not to mention the cost of the equipment. Just the light bulb of the projector is $4,000.”

On the flip side, the limited opportunities to see the film in its intended format “makes it an event and people know they will get a more deluxe experience and they’ll get the entire image,” said Counter.

“Well, how rare is that if you’re a movie nut?” asked Caldwell. “People travel thousands of miles to see that.”

The Times spoke with moviegoers who did just that:

Sean Smrtka, 46

Where do you live? Outside of Cleveland

Advertisement

What theater did you watch the film in? IMAX Theatre in the Indiana State Museum in Indianapolis

Why did you make the trip? The main thought is we only have three actual Imax screens that are remotely accessible — Indianapolis, Grand Rapids and Toronto. I didn’t understand any of it until a few years ago when “Oppenheimer” came out. I grabbed a ticket in Indianapolis, I walked in like, “Wow OK, the screen’s gigantic,” and it just blew my mind how big it was compared to the Imax I know at home. I was completely immersed in it. For the 10-year anniversary in December, I went back out to see “Interstellar.”

People think, “Oh it’s just bigger or there’s more sound,” but the aspect ratio actually changes from scene to scene and it really impacts your viewing experience. I took my dad to see “Sinners” in Indianapolis last Thursday. I got dead-center perfect seats. He walked in, he’s looking around like, “Where’s the screen?” I’m like, “That whole wall is the screen.” The movie opened in a 1.43:1 ratio. He’s just sitting there looking around, you can tell his mind was blown by it. Hearing him talk about it afterward definitely made the five-hour drive worth it.

David Janove, 36

Where do you live? Chicago

What theater did you watch the film in? IMAX Theatre in the Indiana State Museum

Advertisement

Why did you make the trip? I lived in L.A. and Orange County for 17 years and we’re really spoiled there. There’s several Imax theaters — the kind of Imax that is capable of showing the real film, not the laser projection. Chicago had one at Navy Pier, but it shut down during COVID and Chicago doesn’t even have laser projection.

So when a movie was shot, like “Sinners” was and like Christopher Nolan does his, I want to see it in 70mm Imax, and Indianapolis was the closest. I got a $166 plane ticket just for the day — this was [Tuesday] — I flew out at 7 a.m. from Chicago. My Uber driver even was like, “You’re heading to the airport, you don’t need any luggage?” I was like, “I don’t need luggage today.” It’s a short flight — only 35 minutes — and relatively cheap. When I landed, I took an Uber to downtown Indianapolis, got lunch, saw “Sinners” and then literally got a Lyft back to the airport and was back in Chicago at 4 p.m. It’s a little crazy. I still can’t believe that I did that.

I was talking with my girlfriend and my friends about this trip and they were like, “Is it worth it?” and I was like, “Yes, it’s worth it because they only put out a 70mm Imax movie once a year.” When I saw that YouTube video of Ryan Coogler talking about the different aspect ratios, I was like, “This guy is speaking to me.” … I’m glad he and Christopher Nolan are putting their weight behind 70mm Imax. I’m not a purist, but I want these incredible formats to survive.

Anudeep Metuku, 23

Where do you live? Sacramento

What theater did you watch the film in? AMC Metreon 16 & IMAX in San Francisco

Advertisement

Why did you make the trip? As soon as the tickets went live, I made sure to get two tickets [for] April 19, but as the day approached, I came upon some information through Reddit saying Ryan Coogler had been at the Grand Lake Theatre in Oakland on Thursday and that he might be at the Metreon on Friday. So I was contemplating that Friday afternoon if I should make the trip. It was kind of a gamble, but my younger brother, who is also interested in Imax, encouraged me. I was refreshing the page until I got a really good seat and drove two hours straight to San Francisco after work.

Experiencing the film in this format was fantastic, especially knowing that Metreon Imax was Coogler’s “home” Imax. I’d seen videos but never been in an auditorium with a director like that. The energy in the room — everyone was really excited when he came in. He mentioned when he presented the film, pointing to the audience, that he sat in almost the same seat as I did for “Sinners” at the Metreon when he watched “The Dark Knight” in 2008 (the first time Imax 70mm was used in a feature film and not a documentary) and that after that he knew he wanted to shoot [on Imax film]. I also got to see “The Dark Knight” in 2008. We were living in Hyderabad, India, and my dad took me and my little brother to an Imax theater called Prasads. That was me and my brother’s first exposure to 70mm Imax, and ever since, we always tried to catch Imax movies at Grand Theater venues.

Brendan Cauvel, 27

Where are you from? Washington, D.C.

What theater did you watch the film in? AMC Lincoln Square 13 & IMAX in New York City

Why did you make the trip? In high school and college, I was aware that there was this greater format to see the films, but being from the Midwest, I didn’t really have the means. So “Oppenheimer” was the first one that I experienced and I did it for “Dune 2” last year. It was a no-brainer for “Sinners.”

Advertisement

I got friends to come with me; we did a three-person road trip and we didn’t even stay the night. We left D.C. at 5 a.m., got there by 9, saw the movie at 1 p.m., drove back at 4 and got home by 9. It was a full 10-hour workday. We all loved it. I’m going to see it now for the third time within a week.

What’s really special about “Sinners” — [with] everything from the blockbuster horror side, to how they marketed it as a genre film, all the film nerd stuff was sort of the cherry on top.

It’s a skill that Ryan Coogler has in general, his ability as a Black filmmaker to weave in Black stories into movies like “Creed” and a Marvel film with “Black Panther,” and make that angle digestible for people who are not used to going to films that have social commentary. His ability to make that, and now this technical expertise, digestible in a horror genre is really impressive and special. You don’t need to understand that stuff to enjoy it, but for people who understand it, those technical elements add value.

Advertisement

Movie Reviews

Movie Review – Avatar: Fire and Ash (2025)

Published

on

Movie Review – Avatar: Fire and Ash (2025)

Avatar: Fire and Ash, 2025.

Directed by James Cameron.
Starring Sam Worthington, Zoe Saldaña, Sigourney Weaver, Stephen Lang, Oona Chaplin, Kate Winslet, Cliff Curtis, Joel David Moore, CCH Pounder, Edie Falco, Brendan Cowell, Jemaine Clement, Giovanni Ribisi, David Thewlis, Britain Dalton, Jack Champion, Trinity Jo-Li Bliss, Jamie Flatters, Bailey Bass, Filip Geljo, Duane Evans Jr., Matt Gerald, Dileep Rao, Daniel Lough, Kevin Dorman, Keston John, Alicia Vela-Bailey, and Johnny Alexander.

SYNOPSIS:

Jake and Neytiri’s family grapples with grief after Neteyam’s death, encountering a new, aggressive Na’vi tribe, the Ash People, who are led by the fiery Varang, as the conflict on Pandora escalates and a new moral focus emerges.

Advertisement

At one point during one of the seemingly endless circular encounters in Avatar: Fire and Ash, (especially if director James Cameron sticks to his plans of making five films in this franchise) former soldier turned blue family man (or family Na’vi?) and protector Jake Sully (Sam Worthington) tells his still-in-pursuit-commander-nemesis-transferred-to-a-Na’vi-body Miles Quaritch (Stephen Lang) that the world of Pandora runs deeper than he or anyone imagines, and to open his eyes. It’s part of a plot point in which Jake encourages the villainous Quaritch to change his ways.

More fascinatingly, it comes across as a plea of trust from James Cameron (once again writing the screenplay alongside Rick Jaffa and Amanda Silver) that there is still much untapped lore and stories to tell in this world. If this repetitive The Way of Water retread is anything to go by, more isn’t justified. Even taken as a spectacle, the unmatched and undeniably stunning visuals (not to mention the most expressive motion capture ever put to screen, movie or video game), that aspect is less impactful, being only two years removed from the last installment rather than a decade, which is not to be confused with less impressive. Fortunately for the film and its gargantuan 3+ hour running time, James Cameron still has enough razzle-dazzle to scoot by here on unparalleled marvel alone, even if the narrative and character expansions are bare-bones.

That’s also what makes it disappointing that this third entry, while introducing a new group dubbed the Ash People led by the strikingly conceptualized Varang (Oona Chaplin) – no one creates scenery-chewing, magnetic, and badass-looking villains quite like James Cameron – and their plight with feeling left behind, rebelling against Pandora religion, Avatar: Fire and Ash is stuck in a cycle of Jake endangering his family (and, by extension, everyone around them) with Quaritch hunting him down for vengeance but this time more fixated on his human son living among them, Spider (Jack Champion) who undergoes a physical transformation that makes him a valuable experiment and, for better or worse, the most important living being in this world. Even the corrupt and greedy marine biologists are back hunting the same godlike sea creatures, leading to what essentially feels like a restaging, if slightly different, riff on the climactic action beat that culminated in last time around.

Worse, whereas The Way of Water had a tighter, more graceful flow from storytelling to spectacle, with sequences extended and drawn out in rapturously entertaining ways, the pacing here is clunkier and frustrating, as every time these characters collide and fight, the story resets and doesn’t necessarily progress. For as much exciting action as there is here, the film also frustratingly starts and stops too much. The last thing I ever expected to type about Avatar: Fire and Ash is that, for all the entrancing technical wizardry on display, fantastical world immersion, and imaginative character designs (complete with occasional macho and corny dialogue that fits, namely since the presentation is in a high frame rate consistently playing like the world’s most expensive gaming cut scene), is often dull.

Yes, everything here, from a special-effects standpoint, is painstakingly crafted, with compelling characters that James Cameron clearly loves (something that shows and allows us to take the story seriously). Staggeringly epic action sequences are worth singling out as in a tier of its own (it’s also a modern movie free from the generally garish and washed-out look of others in this generation), but it’s all in service of a film that is not aware of its strengths, but instead committed to not going anywhere. There are a couple of important details here that one could tell someone before they watch the inevitable Avatar 4, and they will be caught up without needing to watch this. If Avatar: The Way of Water was filler (something I wholeheartedly disagree with), then Avatar: Fire and Ash is nothing. And that’s something that hurts to say.

Advertisement

Without spoiling too much, the single best scene in the entire film has nothing to do with epic-scale warring, but a smoldering courting from Quaritch for Varang and her army of Ash People to join forces with his group. In a film that’s over three hours, it would also have been welcome to focus more on the Ash People, their past, and their current inner workings alongside their perception of Pandora. It’s not a shock that James Cameron can invest viewers into a villain without doing so, but the alternative of watching Jake grapple with militarizing the Na’vi and insisting everyone learn how to use “sky people” firearms while coming to terms with whether or not he can actually protect his family isn’t as engaging; the latter half comes across as déjà vu.

The presence of Spider amplifies the target on everyone’s backs, with Jake convinced the boy needs to return to his world. His significant other Neytiri (Zoe Saldaña), with rage building inside her stemming from the family losing a child in the climax of the previous film, encourages a more aggressive approach and is ready to kill Spider if him being a part of the family threatens their remaining children (with one of them once again a 14-year-old motion captured by Sigourney Weaver, which is not as effective a voice performance this time as there are scenes of loud agony and pain where she sounds her age). The children also get to continue their plot arcs, with similarly slim narrative progression.

Not without glimpses of movie-magic charm and emotional moments would one dare say James Cameron is losing his touch. However, Avatar: Fire and Ash is all the proof anyone needs to question whether five of these are required, as it’s beginning to look more and more as if the world and characters aren’t as rich as the filmmaker believes they are. It’s another action-packed technical marvel with sincere, endearing characters, but the cycling nature of those elements is starting to wear thin and yield diminishing returns.

Flickering Myth Rating – Film: ★ ★ / Movie: ★ ★ ★ ★

Robert Kojder

Advertisement

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=embed/playlist

 

Continue Reading

Entertainment

6 actresses on refusing the boxes Hollywood tried to put them in

Published

on

6 actresses on refusing the boxes Hollywood tried to put them in

Even the most accomplished actors sometimes feel out of their depth on a movie.

Gwyneth Paltrow, who returns to the big screen this fall as an Old Hollywood star trying to make a new start in “Marty Supreme,” was “way out over her skis” in her early 20s when she played a Park Avenue wife opposite older co-star Michael Douglas in “A Perfect Murder.” Jennifer Lopez, who showcases her triple-threat skill set in the musical “Kiss of the Spider Woman,” felt a “huge” responsibility to get it right when portraying Tejana icon Selena Quintanilla in the 1997 biopic about the late singer. And Emily Blunt, who goes toe-to-toe with Dwayne Johnson in the mixed martial arts saga “The Smashing Machine,” had to avoid being typecast as the go-to “acerbic British bitch” after the success of 2006’s “The Devil Wears Prada.”

These and many more tales from inside the maelstrom of megawatt stardom were the subject of The Envelope’s 2025 Oscar Actresses Roundtable, where Paltrow, Lopez and Blunt were joined by Sydney Sweeney, who transformed physically and emotionally to play boxing legend Christy Martin in “Christy”; Tessa Thompson, who tries to keep up appearances as the title character in “Hedda,” Nia DaCosta’s acclaimed new adaptation of “Hedda Gabler”; and Elle Fanning, who plays an American star struggling to find her way into a Norwegian art film in “Sentimental Value.”

In conversation with Times critic Lorraine Ali, the six performers discussed how they deal with bad press, resist being put in career boxes and inhabited some of the most-talked-about film roles of the year.

Advertisement

Jennifer, you play the title role in “Kiss of the Spider Woman,” a story set in Argentina during a military dictatorship. It takes place in a political prison where the men imagine themselves in a glamorous, sweeping musical. As producer on the film, why was it important for you to tell this story now?

Lopez: It’s never been more relevant, which is really scary. Manuel Puig wrote the novel in the 1970s about these two prisoners during the uprising in Argentina. It really is a love story about seeing the humanity in another person, like two very different people with different political views. One is queer, and the other is a political revolutionary. The two of them were like oil and water. But they escaped into the [fantasy of] a movie, which is “Kiss of the Spider Woman.” They slowly come together and see each other’s souls instead of who they were on the outside. I think with everything that’s happening in the world right now, especially in this country, with Latinos and queer communities being targeted, demonized — there’s never been a more important time to say, “Look at me on the inside. Stop with all of this divisiveness. See people for who they are.”

Gwyneth, “Marty Supreme” is set in the 1950s. You play Kay Stone, a faded starlet. Who did you base her on?

Paltrow: She’s an amalgam of a few ideas, but principally Grace Kelly, who also had this amazing movie career and was this incredible star, and then walked away from it for marriage. My character does the same. When I was looking at photographs [of Kelly during] her films, and then photographs after she got married, it was like the light dimmed. She lost something. My character had a very rough road to get to stardom, so she walks away from this big career to marry an unsuitable but very wealthy man. And then her son dies, so she has a lot of tragedy.

Gwyneth Paltrow.

Sydney, “Christy” is the story of Christy Martin, a pioneer in popularizing women’s boxing in the 1980s and 1990s. You really transformed for the role. Can you talk about that transformation?

Advertisement

Sweeney: Her story is probably one of the most important stories I’ll ever get to tell, so I felt that immense importance. I needed to fully transform myself. I trained every day for three months leading up to shooting. I put on 35 pounds. And I got to spend time with her, and now she’s like one of my best friends. I just kinda lived and breathed Christy for the entirety of the whole thing.

There’s so much violence in her world, particularly outside the ring. Was the real-life Christy there when you shot the domestic abuse scenes between her and her husband, Jim Martin (played by Ben Foster)?

Sweeney: To protect her, we didn’t have her on set when we were shooting the last part of the movie where the domestic violence came into play. The following Monday, we had her come to set, and the entire crew stood up and just started applauding. It was so beautiful. Then after that, she was on set all the time. We would be in the ring, and she’d be sitting [outside the ring], and I’d hear her say, “Hit her with the left hook, Sydney!”

Lopez: She was coaching from the sidelines?

Sweeney: Oh, yeah. We were having a blast. And in the fights, we actually fought. My No. 1 thing with all the girls was that I don’t want this to be fake because so much of Christy comes to life in the ring. I didn’t want to have [the camera] at the back of my head or have to cut to fake the punches. Every single one of those girls, they’re badasses. They punched me, and I punched them. We had bloody, broken noses. I had a concussion.

Advertisement

Blunt: Sydney broke someone’s nose.

Sweeney: I got a concussion. I’m not going to confirm [what else happened]. But I definitely caused some, uh, bruises and blood.

Sydney Sweeney.

Emily, with “The Smashing Machine,” you play Dawn Staples, girlfriend to Mark Kerr, who was a pioneer in the field of MMA fighting. How much did you know about that world before taking on the role?

Blunt: I knew very little, and I was moved that Mark Kerr was my first window into [MMA] because he is such a juxtaposition to the violence of the world. This is a man who headbutted people to oblivion, and when you meet him, he’s like [subdued tone], “Hi, how are you?” He’s so nice. And I said to Mark one day, “How did you do that?” And he goes, “I know, it was nasty.” He’s just so sweet and dear and eloquent. But I think he was sort of filled with this uncontrollable rage that he hardly knew what to do with, and he struggled so much with his own demons. The movie is more about struggle and fragility than it is about fighting.

Tessa, “Hedda” is an adaptation of Henrik Ibsen’s play “Hedda Gabler” and you play the title role. Your castmate, Nina Hoss, said the role of Hedda Gabler is for women actors what Hamlet is for men. Do you agree?

Advertisement

Thompson: I like to say that Hamlet is the male Hedda, just because I think it’s a nice reversal. But people say that because the truth is that we don’t have that many [roles] that are canonical in the same way that Hedda Gabler is, so it feels like this behemoth. It’s one of the parts in theater that feels like a mountain to climb. There’s a kind of complexity to the character that has compelled audiences and actors for centuries … which is the case with both [Hedda and Hamlet]. But I think the comparison is kind of boring, frankly. I remember an actor saying to me, “Oh, I learned in drama school you have to have your Hedda ready.” And I did not have my Hedda ready, but I got it ready.

Tessa Thompson.

The wardrobe and sets in “Spider Woman,” “Hedda” and “Marty Supreme” are beautiful. Did you swipe mementos when the films wrapped?

Paltrow: No, you can’t.

Lopez: I mean, you can.

Paltrow: I tried the Birkin bag from “The Royal Tenenbaums” [but I could not], so I took the loafers instead.

Advertisement

Blunt: Not the same. Not quite.

Thompson: [To Gwyneth]: I was almost you [in “Tenenbaums”] for Halloween, but I couldn’t get it together in time and I wanted do you justice. But one day …

Paltrow: Next year. I’ll lend you the loafers.

Elle Fanning.

Elle, in “Sentimental Value,” you play a Hollywood star who’s cast in an arthouse European production. In reality, you were shooting the massive production “Predator: Badlands” when you joined “Sentimental Value,” a smaller European film. Were the parallels with your character, Rachel, apparent at the time?

Fanning: I got a call that “Joachim Trier has a part for you and would like to talk over Zoom, and here’s the script.” I was like, “Oh, my gosh, Joachim Trier [who made] ‘The Worst Person in the World.’” I would’ve said yes to one line. But I was already doing “Predator.” I was about to go off to New Zealand, but it’s very important for Joachim to rehearse, so he [wanted me] to come to Oslo. I wasn’t sure which movie I could do, and I wanted to do both. So, of course, there were parts to the character that I could relate to. I kept thinking, “There’s a lot of meta-ness going on in this film,” particularly for my character, being the Hollywood actress coming to Oslo for the first time, working with a Norwegian director. And coming off of this action-packed film to go to this very intimate, emotional foreign film, they fed into each other in ways that I didn’t expect them to.

Advertisement

How do you all deal with rough reviews?

Paltrow: I try to never read anything about myself, full stop, ever. Period.

Lopez: Wait, not anything about yourself? Ever? Period? Because I don’t read reviews of my films either, but people will bring it to you it when it’s good and you’re like, “Oh, nice.” But there’s other things they’ll bring you …

Paltrow: Sometimes I’ll come upon it.

Lopez: And you want to die.

Advertisement

Paltrow: Want to die. Like when someone forwards you a link to something really horrible about yourself, and they’re like, “Oh, this is bull—.” I do try to avoid [that kind of stuff]. I deleted Instagram.

Blunt: Me too.

Lopez: You need to cleanse every once in a while.

Sweeney: Sounds nice. I can’t do that.

How do you push the negative stuff about you or your personal life aside and focus on your work?

Advertisement

Sweeney: It helps when you love what you do. Like, if you’re loving the characters that you get to play, you’re loving the people you get to work with, and you’re proud of what you’re doing, then it’s just outside noise. When we walk on set, the world kind of disappears and we get come to life in a different kind of way. Those are the moments and the relationships that matter. Everything else is just people we don’t know.

Paltrow: [To Lopez] I want to hear your answer to this question.

Lopez: From the very beginning, for whatever reason, I’ve been a lightning rod for nice things and a lot of negativity. And it’s hard because you say to yourself, “These people don’t get me. They don’t see me. They don’t understand me.” Then all of a sudden they do. And then they don’t again. Even from when I was very young, I would always say, “I know who I am. I’m a good person. I know what I’m doing. People wouldn’t hire me if I wasn’t good at what I do.” I was always affirming myself and keeping my feet on the ground. Luckily, I had a great mom and dad who really instilled in me a sense of self. And what Sydney was saying, I’d have to block out the noise so I can put my head on the pillow at night and go, “I did good today. I was a good person. I was kind to people. I worked really hard. I’m a good mom.” That has always helped me through.

Thompson: Not having your sense of self or identity entangled in this other self that belongs to the public seems like such a healthy thing. I’m still trying to figure out my balance with that. When I was acting in some projects, I felt like I was delivering a lump of clay that got sculpted by somebody else. So if someone was harsh on the final [product], I was like, “Well, I didn’t sculpt it. I’m just the material.” But now that I produce, it’s a completely different thing. It’s building it from the ground up and feeling so much responsibility to the people that you’ve made it with. You made a baby and sent it into the world, and you just hope it doesn’t get misunderstood.

Gwyneth, you’re stepping back into the film world with “Marty Supreme” after seven years doing other things, such as Goop. Were you nervous coming back into the fold?

Advertisement

Paltrow: I [had been] doing things like “Iron Man” and “The Avengers,” which are totally fun, but it’s like doing a TV show where you go back in and you know the character. It’s not that difficult. So it had been a really long time, and I was like, “How did I used to do this? How are you, like, natural?” And then I did the camera test and I was really nervous. I felt like a fish out of water. And then luckily the first scene that I shot for real was a scene in the movie where she’s rehearsing a play. And I started in the theater, and I did a million plays before I ever did a film. The camera was far away, and I had my mom’s voice in my head. She’s like, “You’re on the boards, you know, just let the energy come through your body.”

Emily Blunt.

Can wardrobe and styling help you embody the emotional core of a role?

Blunt: Dawn’s got a vibe for sure. It was that very overt ’90s, overglamorized thing, and everything was so revealing. I feel like my t— looked like two heads by the time they were done with the Wonderbra. They were just up under my chin. That helps you stand different, walk different. And the nails helped me. She had this incredibly long, square, chunky French tip manicure, and she’d talk with her hands. And the spray tan and the wig. It’s all fabulous. It’s such an amazing thing to look at yourself and go, “Who’s that?”

Thompson: [In “Hedda”], the construction of those dresses in the ’50s, there’s so much boning. We had Lindsay Pugh, who’s a brilliant costume designer. I also started looking up the starlets of the time and what their waist sizes were. It was like 20 or 21 inches. They were extreme. In the beginning, when we were constructing the dress, I was like, “I’m going to try to get down to that Dior-like silhouette,” which is impossible. Then we [fell in] love with the idea that the dress doesn’t actually fit her, because she’s inside of a life that doesn’t fit her. But the sheer sort of circumference of the dress makes her a woman who comes into a room and takes up space. A big part of [a woman’s] currency was their beauty and their body. That felt very foreign to me to inhabit. I didn’t recognize or had maybe suppressed the idea of using that part of me to gain power in the world.

Tessa Thompson, Gwyneth Paltrow, Elle Fanning, actresses Sydney Sweeney, Jennifer Lopez and Emily Blunt.

The 2025 Envelope Oscar Actresses Roundtable: Top row, left to right, Tessa Thompson, Gwyneth Paltrow and Elle Fanning. Bottom row, left to right, Sydney Sweeney, Jennifer Lopez and Emily Blunt.

Advertisement

Hollywood likes to put people in boxes, particularly women. What boxes has it tried to stuff you in?

Fanning: I was in “Maleficent” and I played Sleeping Beauty, so like Disney princess in pink. Blond.

Blunt: But look at that face. Come on!

Fanning: But I can be mean too! In “The Great,” [I played] Catherine the Great, she was a queen, but she was raunchy. It was such a delicious show in that way. People were like, “Whoa.” They were surprised [seeing me like] that.

Blunt: If there’s a movie that takes off, you will have to carve out space away from that. I remember after “The Devil Wears Prada,” I got offered every acerbic British bitch. I’m like, “I should not do that for a while.”

Advertisement

Paltrow: When I stepped back to be an entrepreneur around 2008, I really confused and upset people. Nobody understood what I was doing, and I faced a lot of criticism and confusion over the course of the 17 years since I sent out my first Goop newsletter. I really do think that women, we are so incredibly multifaceted. We are all the archetypes. We’re not just a mother, or an artist, or an intellectual. We’re all the things. So I’ve always kind of tried to make it my mission to say, like, “No, don’t put us in boxes. We get to define who we are.”

Blunt: Was it hard for you to keep going and ignore it?

Paltrow: It was really hard. Some days I was like, “Why did I do this? The headwinds are so extreme and I’m so misunderstood. I had a perfectly good job. People did my hair. Why on earth did I do this to myself?”

Thompson: And you also did it before there was a cultural appreciation for people doing multihyphenates and starting businesses.

Lopez: I think our generation started thinking, like, “We need and want to do other things.” Even when I started acting and I had done my early films, “Out of Sight” and “Selena,” and then decided I wanted to record music, and it was such a big deal. People were like, “They’re never going take you seriously as an actor ever again.”

Advertisement

Paltrow: And you had the No. 1 movie and the No. 1 album in the same time, right?

Lopez: It was in the Guinness Book of Records. But that’s the thing, everybody’s always trying to tell you: “You can only do this,” or “You can only do that.” I had my perfume line. I had my clothing lines. I have my J Lo beauty now. You have to just do what feels good for you. It doesn’t mean it’s for everybody. Somebody wants to just act their whole life, that’s beautiful too. That’s fantastic. I still want to direct. I still want to write more books. And I don’t ever feel like there’s somebody who can say to me, “No, you can’t.”

Blunt: Say that to Sydney and she’ll break their nose.

The Envelope December 16, 2025 Women in Film Issue
Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review | Sentimental Value

Published

on

Movie Review | Sentimental Value

A man and a woman facing each other

Sentimental Value (Photo – Neon)

Full of clear northern light and personal crisis, Sentimental Value felt almost like a throwback film for me. It explores emotions not as an adjunct to the main, action-driven plot but as the very subject of the movie itself.

Sentimental Value
Directed by Joachim Trier – 2025
Reviewed by Garrett Rowlan

The film stars Stellan Skarsgård as Gustav Borg, a 70-year-old director who returns to Oslo to stir up interest in a film he wants to make, while health and financing in an era dominated by bean counters still allow it. He hopes to film at the family house and cast his daughter Nora, a renowned stage actress in her own right, as the lead. However, Nora struggles with intense stage fright and other personal issues. She rejects the role, disdaining the father who abandoned the family when he left her and her sister Agnes as children. In response, Gustav lures a “name” American actress, Rachel Keys (Elle Fanning), to play the part.

Sentimental Value, written by director Joachim Trier and Eskil Vogt, delves into sibling dynamics, the healing power of art, and how family trauma can be passed down through generations. Yet the film also has moments of sly humor, such as when the often oblivious Gustav gives his nine-year-old grandson a birthday DVD copy of Gaspar Noé’s dreaded Irreversible, something intense and highly inappropriate.

For me, the film harkens back to the works of Ingmar Bergman. The three sisters (with Elle Fanning playing a kind of surrogate sister) reminded me of the three siblings in Bergman’s 1972 Cries and Whispers. In another sequence, the shot composition of Gustav and his two daughters, their faces blending, recalls the iconic fusion of Liv Ullmann and Bibi Andersson’s faces in Persona.

Advertisement

It’s the acting that truly carries the film. Special mention goes to Renate Reinsve, who portrays the troubled yet talented Nora, and Stellan Skarsgård as Gustav, an actor unafraid to take on unlikable characters (I still remember him shooting a dog in the original Insomnia). In both cases, the subtle play of emotions—especially when those emotions are constrained—across the actors’ faces is a joy to watch. Elle Fanning and Inga Ibsdotter Lilleaas (who plays Agnes, the other sister with her own set of issues) are both excellent.

It’s hardly a Christmas movie, but more deeply, it’s a winter film, full of emotions set in a cold climate.

> Playing at Landmark Pasadena Playhouse, Laemmle Glendale, and AMC The Americana at Brand 18.

Continue Reading

Trending