Connect with us

Movie Reviews

‘Saturday Night’ review: A madcap backstage ode to Lorne Michaels’ legendary show

Published

on

‘Saturday Night’ review: A madcap backstage ode to Lorne Michaels’ legendary show

movie review

SATURDAY NIGHT

Advertisement

Running time: 109 minutes. Rated R (language throughout, sexual references, some drug use and brief graphic nudity). In theaters Sept. 27.

Lorne Michaels should send a check to Sony.

Advertisement

Because the studio’s sent him a love letter. In their new movie “Saturday Night,” a madcap comedy about the 90-minute dash leading up to the 1975 debut episode of “SNL,” the show’s famously enigmatic creator is lionized. 

Michaels, the most important behind-the-scenes comedic force of the past 50 years, is placed on an innovator pedestal alongside the likes of Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, only without their personal downsides.

He’s portrayed as an optimistic young underdog with an improbably bold vision: a completely live, weekly sketch series starring inexperienced, unpolished nobodies in a desert island of time slots.

His “This is Sparta!” speech comes during the climax, when Lorne (Gabriel LaBelle) is grilled by NBC exec David Tebet (Willem Dafoe) about what “Saturday Night Live” exactly is.

Michaels, finding his confidence in real time, tells doubting David it’s discovering a hot new comic at the back of a bar downtown, or being swept up by the music at a tucked-away jazz club.

Advertisement

“It’s everything you think is going to happen when you move to the city,” says a then-30-year-old Michaels. “That’s ‘Saturday Night.’” 

And that’s the stuff of goose bumps.

Lorne Michaels (Gabriel LaBelle) tries to control his rambunctious cast, including Matt Wood’s John Belushi (right, being restrained). AP

The David-and-Goliath confrontation is the best and most grounded scene in Jason Reitman’s never-less-than-likable film, which had its international premiere Tuesday at the Toronto International Film Festival. 

The plot barrels forward like the brakes are broken. And, being a Tour de Frantic, it can be hard to keep up. The gist is that this massive TV hit that spawned countless stars was nearly a disaster that didn’t make it to air. Execs were ready to roll a “Tonight Show” rerun instead. 

Advertisement

Knowing this is his only chance, Michaels races around 30 Rock and Studio 8H attempting to get his scrappy creation up and running.  

The knockout cast includes Rachel Sennott (center), LaBelle and Cooper Hoffman. AP

He must control his boisterous young stars, who treat the office as a kegger — or worse. John Belushi (Matt Wood, a find) refuses to sign his contract and heads to a bar. George Carlin (Matthew Rhys), the first host, gets lockjaw from snorting too much cocaine. 

The set’s not finished and the dress rehearsal ran three hours. An NBC page (Finn Wolfhard) stands outside on 48th Street begging passersby to be audience members.

On the periphery of the art, there are corporate concerns. The affiliates are in town to decide if they even want to air whatever this is. And whiny network stars Milton Berle (J.K. Simmons) and Johnny Carson are threatened by the annexation of their late-night turf. 

For a movie that’s barely longer than an episode of “SNL,” that’s a lot of ground to cover. And those “Noises Off”-style backstage snafus are just a small sampling of all the action. But Reitman ably crams it in, even if the onslaught occasionally gives us whiplash. 

Advertisement

Always in motion, “Saturday Night” can be a bit like if Joan Cusack’s sprint at the start of “Broadcast News” lasted for an hour and 45 minutes.

It’s fitting that, in casting actors to play them, director Jason Reitman chose some of Hollywood’s most talented rising stars who America will soon know very well. Courtesy of TIFF

Since the characters barely get a chance to catch their breath, let alone say their piece, we don’t learn much about them beyond familiar traits. However, Reitman’s aim isn’t to seriously illuminate that fateful night so much as to energetically add to showbiz mythology. 

The director said onstage at the premiere that, during interviews, the real talents’ accounts of that first show all contradicted each other. We can tell, but the absurdity is part of the fun.

On Oct. 11, 1975, Gilda Radner, Chevy Chase and Dan Aykroyd were not yet household names. They barely mattered in their own studio. But over the course of that year, they’d explode. 

So it’s fitting that, in casting actors to play them, Reitman chose some of Hollywood’s most talented rising stars who America will soon know very well.

Advertisement
LaBelle (“The Fabelmans”) is once again excellent as Lorne Michaels in “Saturday Night.” Getty Images

LaBelle, a revelation as a young Steven Spielberg in “The Fabelmans,” wows once again as Michaels, another dreamer. 

I never guessed that Cory Michael Smith, who I’ve watched for years onstage and in Todd Haynes’ films, would make such an uncanny and hilarious Chase with a gift for punch lines.

Cooper Hoffman, whose star-is-born moment came in “Licorice Pizza,” brings that same charming gumption to producer Dick Ebersol. And Ella Hunt exudes Radner’s easy effervescence. 

The cast is sadly too gigantic to list off. Some are skilled impressionists, while others manage to get to the meat of their person. Like the aftermath of a sketch being cut from an “SNL” episode, there are times when you wish you could see a lot more of certain performers.

In any case — and who would’ve thought I’d be saying this about a man who barely speaks — the real magic here is LaBelle’s Michaels. Live from New York, it’s Lorne!

Advertisement

Movie Reviews

‘Hen’ movie review: György Pálfi pecks at Europe’s migrant crisis through the eyes of a chicken

Published

on

‘Hen’ movie review: György Pálfi pecks at Europe’s migrant crisis through the eyes of a chicken

A rogue chicken observes the world around it—and particularly the plight of immigrants in Greece—in Hen, which premiered at last year’s Toronto International Film Festival and is now playing in Prague cinemas (and with English subtitles at Kino Světozor and Edison Filmhub). This story of man through the eyes of an animal immediately recalls Robert Bresson’s Au Hasard Balthazar (and Jerzy Skolimowski’s more recent EO), but director and co-writer György Pálfi (Taxidermia) maintains a bitter, unsentimental approach that lands with unexpected force.

Hen opens with striking scenes inside an industrial poultry facility, where eggs are laid, processed, and shuttled along assembly lines of machinery and human hands in an almost mechanized rhythm of production. From this system emerges our protagonist: a black chick that immediately stands apart from the others, its entry into the world defined not by nature, but by an uncaring food industry.

The titular hen matures quickly within this environment before being loaded onto a truck with the others, presumably destined for slaughter. Because of her black plumage, she is singled out by the driver and rejected from the shipment, only to be told she will instead end up as soup in his wife’s kitchen. During a stop at a gas station, however, she escapes.

What follows is a journey through rural Greece by the sea, including an encounter with a fox, before she eventually finds refuge at a decaying roadside restaurant run by an older man (Yannis Kokiasmenos), his daughter (Maria Diakopanayotou), and her child. Discovered by the family’s dog Titan, she is placed in a coop alongside other chickens.

After finding a mate in the local rooster, she lays eggs that are regularly collected by the man; in one quietly unsettling scene, she watches him crack them open and cook them into an omelet. The hen repeatedly attempts to escape, as we slowly observe the true function of the property: it is being used as a transit point for migrants arriving in Greece by boat, facilitated by local criminal figures.

Advertisement

Like Au Hasard Balthazar and EO, Hen largely resists anthropomorphizing its animal protagonist. The hen behaves as a hen, and the humans treat her accordingly, creating a work that feels unusually grounded and almost documentary in texture. At the same time, Pálfi allows space for the audience to project meaning onto her journey, never fully closing the gap between instinct and interpretation.

There are moments, however, where the film deliberately leans into stylization. A playful montage set to Ravel’s Boléro captures her repeated escape attempts from the coop, while a romantic musical cue underscores her brief pairing with the rooster. These sequences do not break the realism so much as refract it, gently encouraging us to read emotion into behavior that remains, on the surface, purely animal.

One of the film’s central narrative threads is the hen’s search for a safe space to lay her eggs without them being taken away by the restaurant owner. This deceptively simple instinct becomes a powerful thematic mirror for the film’s human subplot involving migrant trafficking. Pálfi draws a stark, often uncomfortable parallel between the treatment of animals as commodities and the treatment of displaced people as disposable bodies moving through a similar system of exploitation.

The film takes an increasingly bleak turn toward its climax as the migrant storyline comes fully into focus, sharpening its allegorical intent. The juxtaposition of animal and human vulnerability becomes more explicit, reinforcing the film’s central critique of systemic indifference and violence. While effective, this escalation feels unusually dark, and our protagonist’s unknowing role feels particularly cruel.

The use of animal actors in Hen is remarkable throughout. The hen—played by eight trained chickens—is seamlessly integrated into the film’s world, with seamless editing (by Réka Lemhényi) and staging so precise that at times it feels almost impossible without digital augmentation. While subtle effects work must assist at certain moments, the result is convincing throughout, including standout sequences involving a fox and a dog.

Advertisement

Zoltán Dévényi and Giorgos Karvelas’ cinematography is also impressive, capturing both the intimacy of the hen’s low vantage point and the broader Greek landscape with striking clarity. The camera’s proximity to the animal world gives the film a distinct visual grammar, grounding its allegory in tactile observation rather than abstraction.

Hen is a challenging but often deeply affecting allegory that extends the tradition of animal-centered cinema while pushing it into harsher political territory. Pálfi’s approach—unsentimental, patient, and often confrontational—ensures the film lingers long after its final images. It is not an easy watch, nor a comfortable one, but it is a strikingly original piece of filmmaking that uses its unusual perspective to cast familiar human horrors in a stark, unsettling new light.

Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Movie Review: ‘The Drama’ – Catholic Review

Published

on

Movie Review: ‘The Drama’ – Catholic Review

NEW YORK (OSV News) – Many potential brides and grooms-to-be have experienced cold feet in the lead-up to their nuptials. But few can have had their trotters quite so thoroughly chilled as the previously devoted fiance at the center of writer-director Kristoffer Borgli’s provocative psychological study “The Drama” (A24).

Played by Robert Pattinson, British-born, Boston-based museum curator Charlie Thompson begins the film delighted at the prospect of tying the knot with his live-in girlfriend Emma Harwood (Zendaya). But then comes a visit to their caterers where, after much wine has been sampled, the couple wanders down a dangerous conversational path with disastrous results.

Together with their husband-and-wife matron of honor, Rachel (Alana Haim), and best man, Mike (Mamoudou Athie), Charlie and Emma take turns recounting the worst thing they’ve ever done. For Emma, this involves a potential act of profound evil that she planned in her mind but was ultimately dissuaded from carrying out, instead undergoing a kind of conversion.

Emma’s revelation disturbs all three of her companions but leaves Charlie reeling. With only days to go before the wedding, he finds himself forced to reassess his entire relationship with Emma.

As Charlie wavers between loyalty to the person he thought he knew and fear of hitching himself to someone he may never really have understood at all, he’s cast into emotional turmoil. For their part, Rachel and Mike also wrestle with how to react to the situation.

Advertisement

Among other ramifications, Borgli’s screenplay examines the effect of the bombshell on Emma and Charlie’s sexual interaction. So only grown viewers with a high tolerance for such material should accompany the duo through this dark passage in their lives. They’ll likely find the experience insightful but unsettling.

The film contains strong sexual content, including aberrant acts and glimpses of graphic premarital activity, cohabitation, a sequence involving gory physical violence, a narcotics theme, about a half-dozen uses of profanity, a couple of milder oaths, pervasive rough language, numerous crude expressions and obscene gestures. The OSV News classification is L — limited adult audience, films whose problematic content many adults would find troubling. The Motion Picture Association rating is R — restricted. Under 17 requires accompanying parent or adult guardian.

Read More Movie & Television Reviews

Copyright © 2026 OSV News

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Movie Reviews

Thimmarajupalli TV Movie Review: A grounded rural drama that works better in the second half

Published

on

Thimmarajupalli TV Movie Review: A grounded rural drama that works better in the second half

The Times of India

TNN, Apr 18, 2026, 3:39 PM IST

3.0

Story-The film is set in a quiet, close-knit village, Thimmarajupalli, where life follows a predictable rhythm, shaped by routine, relationships and unspoken hierarchies. The arrival of a television set marks a subtle but significant shift, slowly influencing how people see the world beyond their immediate surroundings. What begins as curiosity and shared entertainment starts to affect personal dynamics, aspirations and even conflicts within the community.Amid these changes, the film follows a group of villagers whose lives intersect through everyday interactions, simmering tensions and evolving relationships. As the narrative progresses, seemingly ordinary incidents begin to connect, revealing a layer of mystery beneath the surface.Review-There’s a certain patience required to settle into Thimmarajupalli TV. It doesn’t rush to impress, nor does it lean on dramatic highs early on. Instead, director Muniraju takes his time — perhaps a little too much, to establish the world, its people and their rhythms. The first half feels like a long, observational walk through the village, capturing its textures, silences and small interactions. This slow-burn approach may test your patience initially. Scenes linger, conversations unfold without urgency, and the narrative seems content simply existing rather than progressing. But there’s a method to this stillness. By the time the film begins to reveal its underlying tensions, you’re already familiar with the space — its people, their quirks and their unspoken conflicts.It is in the second half that the film finds its footing. The mystery element, hinted at earlier, begins to take shape, pulling the narrative into a more engaging space. The shift isn’t dramatic but noticeable, the storytelling gains purpose, and the emotional stakes become clearer. What once felt meandering now starts to feel deliberate. The film benefits immensely from its rooted setting. The rural backdrop isn’t stylised for effect; it feels lived-in and authentic. The cast blends seamlessly into this world, delivering natural performances that add to the film’s grounded tone. There’s an ease in how the characters interact, making even simple moments feel genuine.The background score works effectively in enhancing mood, particularly in the latter portions where the mystery deepens. It doesn’t overpower but gently nudges the narrative forward, adding weight to key moments. Visually too, the film stays true to its setting, capturing the quiet beauty and isolation of rural life. That said, the pacing remains inconsistent. Even in the more engaging second half, certain stretches feel slightly indulgent, as though the film is reluctant to let go of its observational style. A tighter edit could have made the experience more cohesive without losing its essence.Thimmarajupalli TV is not a film that reveals itself instantly. It asks for time and patience, but rewards it with sincerity and a quietly engaging narrative. It may stumble along the way, but its rooted storytelling and stronger latter half ensure that it leaves a lasting impression.—Sanjana Pulugurtha

Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending