Connect with us

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘Leviticus’ makes a demon out of desire in an auspicious debut for Adrian Chiarella

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘Leviticus’ makes a demon out of desire in an auspicious debut for Adrian Chiarella

What if the object of your desire was also the thing that’s trying to kill you? Not slowly irritating you to death for leaving the toilet seat up again. We mean actively trying to strangle you.

That’s the intriguing premise behind the horror-satire “Leviticus,” an auspicious feature film debut for writer-director Adrian Chiarella that’s both deeply scary and a queer revolt.

Named for the book of the Old Testament often used to justify homophobia, the movie explores the burgeoning relationship between two young men that is shattered when so-called “conversion therapy” — a scientifically discredited practice — unleashes a demon that stalks them. Some have called the movie “It Follows” meets “Heated Rivalry,” but that’s a disservice to Chiarella’s ambition.

The film centers on Naim (Joe Bird, the breakout star of A24’s “Talk to Me” )and Ryan (newcomer Stacy Clausen), who we watch fitfully, awkwardly fall for each other, slowly exploring their sexuality and stutter-stepping into their true selves. Wrestling turns to flirtation, which becomes longing and tenderness.

That doesn’t go over well in the small Australian town where the movie is set, a blue-collar community with belching smoke stacks, low-slung houses, barking dogs and a Christian pastor — with a “deliverance healer” — who prefers his flock much more heterosexual.

Advertisement

Chiarella is leaning not only into the notion that sexual desire makes you vulnerable, but also the harm that repressing who you are can do. In this case, the demon takes the form of your crush. It has weaponized lust.

“You shouldn’t be near me. I shouldn’t be near you, either,” one of the would-be lovers says to the other.

This image released by Neon shows Stacy Clausen, left, and Joe Bird in a scene from “Leviticus.” Credit: AP/Uncredited

Chiarella starts his movie with a nod to Alfred Hitchcock — a shower scene worthy of “Psycho” — and nods to others in the genre, like “A Nightmare on Elm Street.” He can be a bit clunky with his images — a frog being eaten by a snake — but his pacing is flawless and his ramping up of terror is sure. “Leviticus” might be an indie film, but it’s got the blessing of Frank Ocean, who gave the filmmakers the right to use his song “Self Control.”

The monsters — in addition to the nasty one only the boys can see, of course — are the adults: the parents and caregivers and friends who turn on vulnerable, scared young men and make them scared of each other. Mom might kindly take some disliked olives off her son’s pizza, but she won’t accept him kissing another boy.

Advertisement

Chiarella’s pro-queer filmmaking extends to his ability to perfectly capture the fumbling ecstasy of new love, the fierce longing of stolen kisses and how scary it is to submit to a new partner. Kudos to Bird and Clausen for capturing that universal feeling.

With his film, Chiarella forms a triumvirate of young filmmakers making horror brilliant in summer 2026, alongside Curry Barker with “Obsession” and Kane Parsons’ “Backrooms.” The future of movies is in good hands.

This image released by Neon shows Joe Bird in a...

This image released by Neon shows Joe Bird in a scene from “Leviticus.” Credit: AP/Uncredited

“Leviticus,” a Neon release that’s in theaters Friday, is rated R by the Motion Picture Association for “bloody violent content, language, some sexual content and teen drug use.” Running time: 88 minutes. Three and a half stars out of four.

Movie Reviews

Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass (2026) | Movie Review | Deep Focus Review

Published

on

Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass (2026) | Movie Review | Deep Focus Review

A deliriously funny riff on The Wizard of Oz from director David Wain, Gail Daughtry and the Celebrity Sex Pass is a goofy patchwork of ideas. Some of them don’t work, but most of them do if you’re in on the joke. Written by Wain and his longtime collaborator Ken Marino, the comedy features an incredible number of hilarious people, sometimes playing absurdist versions of themselves. Jon Hamm, Jennifer Aniston, John Slattery, and Elizabeth Banks, among others, cameo alongside a cast of lesser-known but no less talented performers. Headlining the movie is Zoey Deutch, who, amid an impressive list of credits, has proven her knack for ridiculous humor like this (see 2019’s Zombieland: Double Tap). Wain directs a series of episodic segments that follow characters who skip along a yellow brick road of surreal gags and jokes about Hollywood. It’s all a bit nonsensical and ludicrous, but it made me laugh a lot. 

For those of us who loved MTV’s sketch-comedy show The State (1993-1995) or Wain’s spoof movies such as Wet Hot American Summer (2001) and They Came Together (2014), Gail Daughtry will feel like a warm blanket. The State was a comedy troupe nesting ground for talent, many of whom went on to create and appear in dozens of other shows (Viva Variety, Reno 911!, Childrens Hospital, etc.), while member Michael Showalter has become a well-respected director whose output includes the indie comedy The Big Sick (2017) and the upcoming Colleen Hoover book adaptation Verity. Whenever Wain and Marino reteam with various members of The State (Michael Ian Black, Thomas Lennon, Kerri Kenney-Silver, Joe Lo Truglio, et al.), there’s usually something special in store. Even if the material doesn’t always work as a whole—see The Ten (2007), an anthology movie that pokes fun at the Ten Commandments—the result is bound to include some big laughs. 

Deutch plays the titular Kansas bumpkin, a hairdresser who plans to marry her fiancé and lifelong sweetheart, the ingeniously named Tom Soursap McNoodleman (Michael Cassidy), in two weeks. At once naive and intense, she’s never been with anyone else. Neither has Tom. But after sharing their picks for a celebrity sex pass, Tom almost instantly encounters his choice in the flesh and then takes advantage of the opportunity. Burned because she didn’t actually think they were serious about following through, Gail resolves to seek out her chosen celebrity, Jon Hamm, and have sex with him to balance the scales. And so, Gail is off to see The Wonderful Wizard of Hollywood, alongside her coworker named Otto (Miles Gutierrez-Riley), an anagram of Toto. As the story unfolds, Gail Daughtry spoofs the structure of Dorothy’s adventure to Oz, except that Gail’s destination is Tinseltown.

Just as New York was “another character” in They Came Together, Los Angeles becomes one here. But instead of capturing the city’s flavor, Gail and Otto gravitate toward CityWalk at Universal Studios and, based on their hotel concierge’s recommendations, other local hotspots such as McDonald’s, Starbucks, and 7-Eleven. Gail and Otto begin searching for Hamm and gather friends along the way. Among them are Vincent (Marino), a former paparazzo who dreams of snapping a photo of Hamm; Caleb (Ben Wang), an aspiring CAA talent agent; and the crazed Slattery, who wants to work with Hamm again after their Mad Men days. Hot on their trail are two cartoonish mobsters (Joe Lo Truglio, Mather Zickel) desperate to recover a briefcase that was switched with Gail’s at LAX and contains information about their boss’ (Sabrina Impacciatore) plans to dismantle the global financial system. Their quest eventually brings them to Hamm, whose private security (Tobie Windham) enforces not with his fists or a taser, but with an obscure promise to make anyone who tests him “real sick.” 

Advertisement

Gail’s travels are occasionally interrupted by Fourth Wall-breaking commentary from the film’s narrator, a mailman played by Fred Malmed. It’s one of the aspects of the movie that doesn’t work, but Gail Daughtry’s framework is less essential than the inspired jokes throughout. Wain and Marino riotously showcase the most banal aspects of LA, a signature of their delightfully dumb humor, which almost always lands as intended. Granted, some unfamiliar with their brand of comedy may take a while to get on its wavelength, and others may never understand why it’s funny. Still, there are enough non sequiturs and random punchlines blended with raunchy and occasionally dark-as-hell asides to keep the viewer off-kilter yet chuckling throughout. 

There’s an irreverent surprise around every corner in Gail Daughtry, and Deutch fits right in with her comedian costars. Her impressive range renders the silliest moments without winking at the audience, but she also never reduces her character to a mere comic device. It’s also a joy to watch celebrities of Hamm and Aniston’s caliber poke fun at their image, even if the movie doesn’t challenge Being John Malkovich (1999) in its self-referentiality. Outside of last year’s disappointing The Naked Gun, few comedies today attempt to be pure joke machines. Wain and Marino deliver a movie that will probably take some time to be discovered and cherished for what it is, but after a few rewatches, much like the director’s other features, it’s sure to become a cult favorite.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Film reviews: ‘The Invite’ and ‘Minions & Monsters’

Published

on

Film reviews: ‘The Invite’ and ‘Minions & Monsters’

‘The Invite’

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Summer movie reviews: Supergirl, Disclosure Day, and Toy Story 5

Published

on

Summer movie reviews: Supergirl, Disclosure Day, and Toy Story 5

It’s summer blockbuster movie season and there have been a lot of new releases from many of the biggest studios and directors. Some of the biggest titles include “Supergirl”, “Disclosure Day”, and “Toy Story 5.”

GBH’s Morning Edition guest host Tori Bedford spoke with GBH correspondent and film critic Sarah G. Vincent, along with GBH’s Callie Crossley, an avid cinephile and host of Under the Radar with Callie Crossley, for their take on some of the season’s biggest releases. What follows is a lightly edited transcript.

SUPERGIRL

Tori Bedford: So one of the biggest movies to hit theaters lately has been the next installment in James Gunn’s new DC Universe, “Supergirl”, starring Millie Alcock. Sarah, let’s start with you. What did you think?

Sarah G. Vincent: I actually loved it. It’s the first summer movie where I didn’t have any disclaimers of “I liked it but…” I was very invested in the storyline because if someone hurt my fluffy baby, I would run around the universe and try to save him. Also, I like that it was like a superhero movie with a woman where she didn’t become a surrogate mother, where she wasn’t sexualized, where she was dealing with real emotion. The real emotion really hit me. I love the backstory. It was gorgeous. I understand that it’s a lot of jokey jokes.

Advertisement

Bedford: What do you mean jokey jokes?

Vincent: On the present day storyline where she’s helping Ruthye, they do try to keep it light because they’re dealing with a lot of heavy issues, and so there are a lot of like flippant jokes and one-liners and everything. And I didn’t mind that because this is still a blockbuster and I think that a blockbuster does need to have some like mass appeal. I’m not going for a Bergman film, right?

Bedford: Yeah, it’s summer. Like, chill out.

Vincent: Right.

Bedford: What’d you think, Callie?

Advertisement

Callie Crossley: I am the “but” — I liked it except some of the themes were so heavy, even though presented in an entertaining way. So, don’t take me wrong. You should see it. It’s a popcorn movie. But I was like, “OK…”

Bedford: You wanted more jokey jokes.

Crossley: Well, it was just to me, I looked at it and I thought, “Epstein Files” because we have a plot of young girls being trafficked to an island of crazy men. So that’s what came to me. But then I thought, I guess I’m just— I live in news, so this is what I would think of. But I can understand in the moment why it was there, but I’m not sure it resolved itself for me in the best way possible that sort of made it maybe not so uncomfortable about it. Now, she is great, Millie Alcock as Supergirl, and I loved her backstory. I really enjoyed that part. And there are some cameos from Superman. So you really get to see the difference between the two of them and why there is a difference, because now you know the backstory.

Bedford: I love their relationship, where he’s like, “This is why Krypto is not well-behaved” and she’s all disorganized.

DISCLOSURE DAY

Advertisement

Bedford: All right, next up — I can’t wait to talk about this. Steven Spielberg is back with an alien mystery thriller, “Disclosure Day.” This man is obsessed with aliens.

Callie, let’s start with you. What’d you think?

Crossley: I went because it’s Steven Spielberg, and I wanted everything. So again, this is a popcorn movie, and out of the gate, you are really on a ride, and you’re like, “What’s happening?” So, I would say the first part of the movie, you’re just caught up in trying to understand where he’s going with it, and it’s a lot of action, and it’s Spielberg-esque in that way. And that John Williams score is fabulous. What I had a problem with was the end of it. I’m going to use the word unimaginative because I am not giving away the plot, so no spoilers here, It’s unimaginative in how he resolves it because I think it’s old-fashioned in both how he presents some of the folk, and also in the methodology of how he wants to get the word out. So that sort of threw me off and I’m thinking, “That’s not a word I use with Steven Spielberg. I should not be using unimaginative.” I still say you should see it, but those are my thoughts.

Vincent: At 2.5 hours, I would say, I warned you. So as an action movie where people are being chased, like the bad guys are chasing the good guys, it’s a great movie. As a movie where it takes an alternate sort of sci-fi approach to the idea of possession and what it would look like, terrific. Actually, a really provocative, wonderful idea. Emily Blunt does a wonderful job.

Crossley: Fabulous.

Advertisement

Bedford: She’s great in the movie.

Vincent: I think she owns the movie, and if the movie was just about her character, I would probably give it like closer to a 90 than where I landed, which was probably in the 70s.

Bedford: I was just going to say … I got out of this, and I thought, “Am I stupid? Or was this really dumb?” It was fun though.

Crossley: This is not a Spielberg movie you’re going to remember, I say.

Vincent: No, yeah, you’re not.

Advertisement

Crossley: And there’s a lot of reviewers saying it’s fabulous. And I’m like, were we at the same place?

Bedford: Am I dumb?

Crossley: But still, it’s a popcorn movie. Got some really good stuff in there you could enjoy.

TOY STORY 5

Bedford: All right, finally: Woody, Buzz, and all their friends are back again for “Toy Story 5,” and this one is taking on big tech as a teaching tablet enters the toy box. Sarah, what’d you think?

Advertisement

Vincent: I loved it. It’s my favorite Toy Story. And I would say that what I loved about this movie is when you go to movies, usually technology is the bad guy, period. And this movie is much more nuanced. And no one is really the bad guy. It presents the pros and cons of everything. And it’s about authentic relationships and it shows how in the past, a relationship without technology was fraught, in retrospect, with problems for Jesse, with the trauma she endured by losing her person. Now in the present with their new human basically having this crisis of “how do I make friends?” So I think it shows the universal problem of how you make authentic relationships, and the technology is only showing how that problem persists. It embodies now, but it’s always been a problem.

Crossley: I think it’s brilliantly done in this way. It doesn’t demonize all the folks that usually get demonized. The tech gets demonized. Sometimes the parents get demonized. That did not happen at all. But for me, any story about friendship that’s told authentically is going to get me. And they know how to get you. It’s a really, really important story about finding your tribe, as Sarah said. Now, having said that, it’s still not my favorite. Toy Story 3 is my favorite. And I went back just to say, “Okay, let me just go look at the end of 3 again to see if I had the same response.”

Bedford: Oh, masochist, my God.

Crossley: Well, because I just wanted to see. I looked at my computer, watched only the end, and sobbed yet again.

Bedford: I know, that’s all I’ve got to say about this franchise. How much more crying do you want me to do?

Advertisement

Crossley: I misted up at the end of this. I did not sob, as I scared the children in 3 before in the theater. But this time I did mist up because really, they know how to get you. It’s so worth seeing.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending