Review by Sean Boelman

You don’t often see a directorial debut with as star-studded of a cast as Boys Go to Jupiter, but what is even more surprising about Julian Glander’s animated feature is how idiosyncratic it is. Weird in all the best ways, Boys Go to Jupiter won’t work for everyone, but it’s impossible not to admire Glander’s unique style. 

The film follows a teenage gig worker on a quest to earn $5,000 as his plans are derailed by otherworldly visitors and massive conspiracies. It’s hard to describe exactly what’s happening in Boys Go to Jupiter, not so much out of fear of spoilers but instead because describing its events without sounding like a lunatic is virtually impossible.

Boys Go to Jupiter is very much a vibe-driven movie, but that’s not to say it’s light on story. In fact, the exact opposite could be argued. At a certain point, so much is happening that’s all so random and weird that you check out of trying to follow the story and instead just decide to embrace the ride. And at right around 90 minutes in length, the film is brief enough that its relentless quirkiness does not outstay its welcome.

Glander’s characters also make spending time on this journey with them easy. On paper, the names and character designs seem totally absurd, and in some ways, they absolutely are. Still, these people and anthropomorphic beings feel in other ways like people you’d actually want to hang out with, which is the key to success in a hangout movie.

However, as is the case with so many coming-of-age directorial debuts, one will be left wishing that Glander’s movie had a little more to say. It’s an exercise in style over substance, and while there could be something to be said about finding one’s own voice as a filmmaker through a story about finding oneself, part of that voice should be a unique perspective, and that’s what’s missing from Boys Go to Jupiter — at least in a thematic sense.

That being said, Glander’s approach to animated filmmaking is certainly very individualistic in an aesthetic sense. The 3D style is incredibly colorful and strikes a wonderful balance between rudimentary and imaginative. Although some might be put off by this peculiar animation style, which is entirely unlike anything you’ll see in mainstream animation, it’s very refreshing to see someone take such a distinctive approach. 

The other aspect of Boys Go to Jupiter that is likely to earn recognition is its voice cast. The central role is played by newcomer Jack Corbett, who is incredibly charming. However, the spotlight is frequently stolen from Corbett by the comedy A-listers in the supporting cast, including Elsie Fisher, Julio Torres, Sarah Sherman, Joe Pera, and more. Although none of their roles are particularly big, their presence is greatly welcome, and their scenes are among the most memorable in the film.

Boys Go to Jupiter is an incredibly weird animated movie, but it seems tailor-made for a cult following. From its voice cast of comedians known for their own peculiarities to the quirky sense of humor and Glander’s distinctive animated style, this film is designed for an incredibly niche audience, but that core group will enjoy it beyond belief.

Boys Go to Jupiter screened at the 2024 Tribeca Festival, which runs June 5-16 in New York City.

Rating: 3.5/5

Review by Sean Boelman

Assel Aushakimova’s Bikechess has the makings of a sardonic satire that could spotlight a part of the world that doesn’t often get a platform in cinema. Unfortunately, despite the novelty of its perspective and the urgency of its message, Bikechess fails to connect as a satire, boring the audience rather than provoking their thought.

The film follows a Kazakh broadcast journalist working for a state-owned television station who is becoming increasingly disillusioned with the belittling puff pieces she is being asked to report on. At the same time, she juggles drama in her personal life, including her younger sister’s constant brushes with the authorities and an affair with her married cameraman. 

Aushakimova deserves a lot of respect for her bravery as a filmmaker. Making any movie about censorship, freedom of speech, and propaganda in a country like Kazakhstan, where opposing viewpoints are often prosecuted, is a feat in and of itself. When you add that Aushakimova’s satirical commentary is so unabashed, Bikechess is at least impressive as a work of political activism.

Unfortunately, the film is only impressive on that level. It is meant to be incredibly satirical, but its humor isn’t all that funny. It pokes fun at the absurdity of state-run propaganda in occasionally amusing ways, but this satire peaks early. The opening scene, which gives the movie its name, hits the ground running but cannot maintain this narrative momentum through the rest of the runtime.

One of Bikechess’s other prominent issues is that its characters feel underdeveloped. When the protagonist of a film is arguably the least interesting character, it’s a problem. Although Aushakimova is obviously most interested in the journalistic themes, the more intriguing storyline is that of the protagonist’s activist sister. After all, what would the journalism story matter if the journalist didn’t have something incendiary and urgent to cover?

Saltanat Nauruz’s performance in the lead role is solid for the dramatic portions of the movie, but she struggles with the comedic elements. The film's sense of humor is incredibly dry, and Nauruz almost feels too sincere for this aspect to work. The rest of the cast doesn’t make much of an impression in one direction or the other.

Visually, Bikechess is almost disgustingly grey-looking. Although you can cut it a bit of slack because it’s obviously made on a very small budget, it’s in a weird grey area where it’s a bit too rough around the edges but also slightly too refined to work in a guerilla-esque sense. As a result, Bikechess looks (and feels) cheap but doesn't have the scrappy quality necessary to pull this aesthetic off.

It would be impossible to watch Bikechess and not at least acknowledge the bravery that Assel Aushakimova has shown in creating such a damning condemnation of censorship and propaganda. However, one will wish that Aushakimova had crafted a more engaging film. It needed to be more exciting, funnier, or perhaps even just more focused. But in its current state, viewers will leave Bikechess feeling more disappointed about what it wasn’t than anything else.

Bikechess screened at the 2024 Tribeca Festival, which runs June 5-16 in New York City.

Rating: 2/5

Review by Sean Boelman

More often than not, interesting subject matter is the determining factor in the success of a documentary. However, in some instances, the filmmaker’s approach is so ineffective that it doesn’t matter how compelling its subject or message is — the movie simply isn’t engaging. This is the case with Simon Klose’s Hacking Hate, a film with all the elements to be great but fails to engage or sway the audience.

Hacking Hate follows Swedish journalist My Vingren, who works for Expo, the magazine founded by The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo writer Stieg Larsson. Her career, defined by daring and potentially dangerous investigations into the darkest corners of the internet, has earned her comparisons to the protagonist of that franchise.

This documentary follows Vingren as she conducts an investigation into white supremacy circles on social media by diving deep undercover online using a fake profile. Although this investigation is intended to open viewers’ eyes to the ways in which extremists use these tools to recruit and radicalize individuals into their culture of hate, Vingren's observations aren’t especially revelatory. Instead, the movie offers a rudimentary, doom-and-gloom understanding of online culture.

Stylistically, Simon Klose’s approach to telling this story is accomplished, if almost exactly what you would expect from a documentary of this nature. Its editing is very fast-paced, and the cinematography is very close. It’s clear that Klose wants the viewer to feel like they are part of this “action” happening in the cyber realm.

However, an investigative doc — particularly one that’s only eighty-something minutes long — should easily be able to keep viewers engaged. Unfortunately, Klose seems overly fascinated with the minutiae of the investigation and its logistics instead of the results or its significance. While understanding how Vingren infiltrated these supremacist circles is interesting at first, it quickly becomes almost inaccessibly technical. 

As a result, Hacking Hate doesn't feel particularly timely for a film that deals with such an incredibly urgent subject. Unfortunately, this is the consequence of making a movie about something that evolves as rapidly as social media and online discourse. The case studies used in the film, from Donald Trump’s removal from X to Elon Musk’s takeover of the platform, happened just a few years ago but already feel dated. The result is a cautionary tale about a platform that’s already imploded, eliminating any real feeling of stakes.

Klose’s documentary also makes the mistake of giving the audience too many subjects to follow. The main focus is on Vingren, who is an interesting protagonist in this investigation. However, in trying to flesh out the stories of Anika Collier Navaroli and Imran Ahmed as full-on threads rather than simply interviewing them as experts, Klose causes the entire movie to feel unfocused and underdeveloped.

The conversation that Hacking Hate attempts to spark about the vitriol of online culture is undoubtedly very important and needs to be had. That being said, Simon Klose’s documentary is not as conducive to this conversation as it may seem. It lacks the stakes, urgency, and focus to hammer home its point effectively.

Hacking Hate screened at the 2024 Tribeca Festival, which runs June 5-16 in New York City.

Rating: 2.5/5

Review by Camden Ferrell

For years, Annie Baker has been a name associated with her acclaimed work as a playwright, even winning a Pulitzer Prize in 2014 for The Flick. Her debut feature film as a writer and director had its premiere at the 2023 Telluride Film Festival. Janet Planet is a grounded yet often profound coming-of-age story that translates her sensibilities to screen well while serving as a showcase for her talented cast.
 
In the early 90’s, Janet is an acupuncturist who is spending the summer in rural Massachusetts alongside her daughter Lacy. Throughout the summer, Janet brings three different people into their lives: her boyfriend, a friend, and the leader of a local theater group. Lacy spends the summer interacting with these individuals as she vies for her mother’s attention and as she explores childhood and her own imagination. This is a story that is right up Baker’s wheelhouse as a writer, and it’s the perfect backdrop for the kind of everyday stories she became successful telling.
 
Baker’s script is superb and the best part of the movie. Her style of dialogue translates very well as a feature film, and it’s toeing a subtle line from start to finish. It is grounded enough to remain realistic and immersive, but it’s meticulously crafted enough to engage audiences and encourage thought and reflection. The movie never feels like it’s filler, and it never feels overwritten. It’s a delicate balance that Baker perfectly demonstrates in her film debut, and it’s hard to leave this movie not being utterly impressed with the themes and ideas she explores so naturally.

In addition to the writing, the movie boasts two stellar performances from Julianne Nicholson and Zoe Ziegler as Janet and Lacy, respectively. Their chemistry is stellar from the start. Nicholson captures an alluring and earthly aura that is imperative in defining her character and the relationships with the people in her life. Ziegler plays off of Nicholson in such an impressive manner for a young actress. She handles the material well and understands Baker’s sense of pacing that helps capture the process of growing up in such a unique way.
 
I think it’s disingenuous to call this a coming-of-age movie despite that being what it is. However, I don’t want to group it with other movies in that genre because this one doesn’t feel like it belongs with them. It’s an extremely subtle look at childhood, the borderline codependent attachments we form with our parents, and the slow and stumbly disillusionment with them. One of the only critiques I can make of the movie is that Baker’s use of her signature pregnant pauses can sometimes be too gratuitous for its own good, but those pauses are otherwise imperative to how this movie operates that you forgive the times it overstays its welcome.
 
Janet Planet is a quiet and tender movie about a mother and daughter, their bond, and the forces and people at work in their lives one summer. Baker has showed that the medium of film is one that she can also conquer, and I sincerely hope we see a lot more from her going forward. Smartly written and wonderfully acted, this is a movie worth checking out.
 
Janet Planet is in theaters June 21.
 
Rating: 4/5

Review by Joseph Fayed

If you have ever heard the phrase "drinking the Kool-aid," you probably already know the fate of the People's Temple, led by Jim Jones. Over 900 died from poisoning in Jonestown, Guyana, making it the largest intentional loss of American citizens until 9/11. Cult Massacre: One Day in Jonestown is a three-part National Geographic docuseries that interviews survivors, both members of the cult and some concerned members of Congress and the media who were there that fateful day in 1978. Heart-pounding stories of survival are shared in the docuseries, which begins to lose a bit of its edge by the end of its run.  
​
On November 14th, 1978, Congressman Leo Ryan, along with a team of his staff members and reporters, flew to Guyana to visit Jonestown, the sect of the People's Temple founded by Jim Jones that had relocated from the United States several years prior. This visit came after a growing number of relatives of members of the People's Temple wrote to the Congressman, expressing how they had not been able to contact any of their loved ones in many months. A few days later, the group is allowed to visit Jonestown. Shortly after their arrival, several members tell Ryan they secretly want to leave. When this information gets leaked to Jones, it sets off a domino effect for something sinister he had planned should members try to deflect. Survivors who were both members and non-members recount how they were able to escape the nightmare that quickly unfolded. 

The docuseries is divided in the most reasonable way possible for content with just three episodes. By focusing on the beginning of the end, the day of, and the day after, it is phased out with an equal amount of coverage for how Jonestown fell apart. I'm sure there are years of stories leading up to the tragedy that deserve to be told and say more about who Jim Jones really was than these few survivors recall. But with that said, the documentary lays enough groundwork in the first episode to give you a definitive answer as to who Jones really was. The docuseries avoids being a flat-out character study of Jones but allows those interviewed to share their experiences with him and how their perceptions differed by the fateful day in 1978. ​

This docuseries is survivor-centric, with both members and non-members who were in Guyana making up nearly all of the talking heads. There are no cult experts or outsider perspectives shared here, which is for the best because hearing the red flags from survivors feels more damning than from someone who has only studied cults like this one. The interviews with the various survivors are edited together pretty well, recapping the natural flow of what occurred in those last few days. With some of them, you feel like a lot was left on the cutting room floor due to time constraints. One particular survivor, Leslie, is not featured until episode three, and she shares a largely overlooked story of her and about 15 other survivors fleeing Jonestown the morning of the massacre. It would have been interesting to hear more from her versus the retelling of the other escape involving the Congressman. 

This being made by National Geographic, there are no obvious signs of poor directing, such as horribly acted reenactments or large amounts of B-roll. Archive footage of those who are deceased and that of The People's Temple live on, and thankfully for the viewer, plenty of it was preserved to paint a picture of what Jonestown appeared to be like from the outside as this Utopia. At the same time, the words of the survivors reveal it was anything but. The interviews are set up for the subject to speak directly to the camera, often in a close-up. It comes across as an interrogation at times. Still, when intercut with footage from 1978, the cinematography and camera angle remind you that this is a survivor speaking to us in the present. 

Cult Massacre: One Day in Jonestown depicts how mass murder came to be. This docuseries has an important distinction from previous ones I've seen where a title card at the end points out how this tragedy was long regarded as a mass suicide but is now seen as murder. This is largely because of how testimonies from that day have changed the narrative. Hearing some of those survivors recount their survival is chilling, but narratively speaking, the filmmakers tie it together for the most part. While some moments arguably deserve to be highlighted more, what and how it all went wrong is exactly what we still talk about and look out for in modern-day cults. Like similar series about cults in the present, there could easily be room for another episode about the aftermath of survival.

Cult Massacre: One Day in Jonestown is now streaming on Hulu. All three episodes reviewed.

Rating: 4/5