Tag:

Brilliant

Zachary Quinto as Dr. Oliver Wolf, Brian Altemus as Dr. Charlie Porter —
TV & Streaming

Is Michelle Dead on ‘Brilliant Minds’? Brian Altemus Talks Cliffhanger and Charlie Reveal

by jummy84
written by jummy84

What To Know

  • The fall finale of Brilliant Minds Season 2 reveals Charlie’s true motivation for joining Wolf’s team: His new boss was his mother’s doctor when she died.
  • Brian Altemus discusses Charlie’s confrontation of Wolf, including what he meant to do with that address where his dad, Noah, supposedly is.
  • The episode ends with a dramatic cliffhanger involving Michelle, setting up an all hands on deck situation for the show’s return in 2026.

[Warning: The below contains MAJOR spoilers for Brilliant Minds Season 2 Episode 10 “The Resident.”]

The truth about Charlie (Brian Altemus) and just why he wanted to work for Wolf (Zachary Quinto) is revealed in the Brilliant Minds Season 2 fall finale. What a way to end the 2025 run of episodes!

Charlie lets Wolf in on that fact in the middle of a gala. As he explains, he got into medicine because his mother’s doctor sold his family a fantasy about her getting better when she was dying, and he wanted to make sure to tell his patients the truth. After, Charlie reveals to Wolf that his father drank himself to death after his mom’s death, and so he’s been alone since he was 14. Wolf tries apologizing, but Charlie refuses to forgive him. Instead, he gives him the address where his father is — Noah (Mandy Patinkin) left Wolf at the beginning of the season — and, since not processing trauma can break a person, wants to see who breaks first.

As the fall finale ends, Wolf goes to the address and, when no one answers, breaks in. Plus, Van (Alex MacNicoll) thinks his girlfriend Michelle (Stacey Farber), who had been hesitant to attend the gala, just didn’t show up, but she’s really unconscious in a car after a crash. Uh-oh!

Below, Brian Altemus breaks down the fall finale and teases what’s ahead after that cliffhanger.

This fall finale has major moments for Charlie. How much of his backstory had you known from the beginning? Had you known about his mom and everything from the beginning of the season?

Brian Altemus: Not from the beginning of the season. By the time we were filming Episode 4 or 5, I was starting to piece a little bit more and more together. Michael Grassi does an incredible job of giving information, teasing information, even for us, so we’re kind of jumping in the deep end of what we imagine and just going 110% in that direction, just trusting that the writers have something really good lined up for us, and they continue to do so.

Pief Weyman/NBC

Why do you think he wanted Wolf to know that now, at this point, who he really is?

Charlie’s conscious of not leading patients to the same painful experience that my mom went through, and the family that goes along with those patients. He’s seeing it live happen in action. Jorge Torres, he’s seeing the pain that can come from a mother watching her son go through treatment that Charlie doesn’t think is necessary. So it’s really about making sure that the patients that he’s seeing aren’t going through the same pain.

So, he feels like, “If not now, when?”

Yeah. And, “Why is someone else going to have to live through this pain that I’ve already lived through?” and “I want to stop.” I mean, I feel like everyone in some little type of way, unless you’re the Joker, you want to alleviate some kind of pain and suffering in the world, and this is Charlie’s way of doing that.

Charlie doesn’t accept Wolf’s apology when he tells him he’s sorry. He says, “Let’s see who breaks first.” That’s chilling. What does he want to see in Wolf? Is it what we’re seeing in the flashforwards? Is it something else? Is he kind of not sure? Did he set out with a specific goal in mind?

It’s a loose goal. It’s definitely a takedown stance. He does not want to see him practicing medicine the way that he has been, and if that means his medical license is revoked, his medical license is revoked. If that means he changes his ways, he changes his ways. I don’t think Charlie has a good idea of what it exactly means. He just knows he’s coming in to change things.

Charlie gives Wolf what he says is his dad’s address, leading to Wolf breaking into that place, wherever it is. What does Charlie want to accomplish there? Just making Wolf think his dad was close and didn’t want to see him? Also, it’s like, what would be more cruel: that it’s actually Noah’s address or for him to make Wolf think it is?

Yeah, right. I mean, the mental game there is tough, I mean — I can’t ask the question back to you. I think it’s incredibly demonic to give an address that’s not actually his address and to say that it is. I mean, going on a wild goose chase for something not there is sadistic, to say the least. So I’d like to say that that is his address because if not, we take a whole different direction with Charlie. We take the direction of a literal psychopath and not in the, “He’s crazy. Oh my God, he’s crazy.” I mean in the literal sense of the word. So I would like to keep him as much as he is going for revenge, and he has a vendetta. He’s not psychopathic. So I like to think that is actually his dad’s address.

But then you also never know if it’s still the address, if it was once his address, if he’s there…

If he’s there, if he’s not, and who knows.

Talk about filming that scene with Zachary, going head-to-head. It was so good.

I mean, not only that scene, but the scene in the end of [Episode] 8. When I imagined this role doing the auditions and going through the callbacks and whatnot, I mean, this is what you’re preparing for. So just like any good game or any good match, you know what you’re headed for, and you’re kind of preparing all along the way for that. So when the day comes, you’re nervous, you’re excited, you’re just above all prepared so that you can do whatever it is that they’re asking you to do in the moment. And also, I mean, the way that showrunners run the show is fantastic. I mean, I got to actually speak with the writers, with Michael, with DeMane [Davis, director] about the direction we wanted to take the scene and the physicality of it, the movement, all of it. And so by the time we got there, everyone was just kind of buzzing, and then you just throw everything against the wind and into the wind and let it go. So it was one of my more fun days on set, for sure.

That’s not the only mystery at the end of this episode. There’s the matter of Michelle in that car accident on the way to the gala, and that kind of feels like it’s going to be an all-hands-on-deck situation where everyone has to put any conflicts aside when the show returns. What can you preview about that? Is that what we’re going to see?

Exactly that. The show does a great job of handling conflict and showing compassion through conflict, and there’s an incredible amount of compassion saying, “Hey, I know things aren’t good between us right now, but we really have to be there for something bigger than what’s going on between us.” And as much as they have their personal vendettas, they are in the field of care, and they’re going to care for the people, for anyone, but especially people they care about to begin with, they’re going to put aside their differences.

There are all these mysteries about these flashforwards. We’ve seen Charlie in a couple of them. Should we be wondering if there’s any sort of connection between Charlie and Amelia?

I’m going to leave that one up for time. We will see, I don’t even know if they’re on the same wavelength, if they have the same goal. I know that they definitely have some shared interests. We’ll see if they collaborate or corroborate.

When you were filming the flashforwards we’ve seen so far with Charlie, how much did you know about what’s going on there? Was it just what you needed to know for that scene?

Just what I needed to know for the scene and guessing all the ways in which it could go, and then saying, “OK, we did a take in this direction. Let’s go 150% in that direction. Let’s do a take in this direction.” Because that’s the beauty of writing as we’re going, and I don’t know where we’re headed, so you give them options.

Brilliant Minds, Mondays, 10/9c, NBC

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Classic Trailer Rewatch: Danny Boyle's 'Sunshine' Brilliant Sci-Fi Film
Hollywood

Classic Trailer Rewatch: Danny Boyle’s ‘Sunshine’ Brilliant Sci-Fi Film

by jummy84
written by jummy84

Classic Trailer Rewatch: Danny Boyle’s ‘Sunshine’ Brilliant Sci-Fi Film

by Alex Billington
November 23, 2025
Source: YouTube

“If it dies, we die.” Sarchlight Pictures originally released this sci-fi classic Sunshine back in 2007, but no one went to see it back then when it opened in theaters. Now 18 years later it’s considered one of the best modern sci-fi movies, even with the controversial horror ending. Made by director Danny Boyle & writer Alex Garland as another one of their collabs after the original 28 Days Later (made 5 years before this) the film follows a crew trying to take a special payload to the Sun to help reignite since it’s “dying”. It’s one of my favorite films mostly for the intense realism & attention to detail. And its bleak but fascinating look at how being out in deep space makes people go mad. Sunshine is a sci-fi psychological thriller starring a great cast featuring Cillian Murphy as Capa, with Rose Byrne, Cliff Curtis, Chris Evans, Troy Garity, Michelle Yeoh, Benedict Wong, and Hiroyuki Sanada. The film takes place in 2057, where a group of astronauts aboard the Icarus II are sent on a dangerous mission towards the Sun. Posting these old trailers is also another excuse to say again how brilliant this film truly is and how it always deserves a rewatch if it has been a while since you’ve last seen it. Both of these trailers also use the epic Requiem for a Dream song.

Here’s two original trailers (+ the original poster) for Danny Boyle’s sci-fi movie Sunshine, from YouTube:

Sunshine Trailer

Sunshine Poster

You can always watch more unforgettable trailers from the past in our “Classic Trailer Rewatch” archives.

In the year 2057, a crew of eight courageous men and women have embarked upon a lengthy journey to the Sun to reignite the dying star and save mankind from extinction. But when a terrible accident throws their mission into jeopardy, the crew find themselves fighting not only for their lives and their sanity, but for the future of us all. Sunshine is directed by acclaimed British filmmaker Danny Boyle, directing his 7th feature film at the time right after Millions (2004) and just before making Slumdog Millionaire (2008) next. The screenplay is written by Alex Garland. Produced by Andrew Macdonald; co-produced by Bernard Bellew. This initially premiered at the 2007 Fantasy Filmfest in Germany before opening in theaters in the US starting on July 20th, 2007. It only earned $3.6M at the US box office that year but has since become a beloved favorite of many sci-fi fans. Searchlight Pictures has the movie available to watch on VOD anytime.

Share

Find more posts in: Sci-Fi, To Watch, Trailer

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Pluribus Review: Vince Gilligan Remixes The Twilight Zone For One of the Year’s Best New Shows
Music

Vince Gilligan’s Brilliant New Sci-Fi Series

by jummy84
written by jummy84

When Apple TV’s Pluribus was first announced, all we knew was that it was a science fiction series from Vince Gilligan, and that it would star Rhea Seehorn, who had just finished giving one of TV’s most captivating performances on Better Call Saul. Everything about that equation was exciting, especially because before changing television on a fundamental level with Breaking Bad and Better Call Saul, Gilligan was a key writer on The X-Files during some of its best years. The potential for what he might bring back to the genre, after spending so long in the world of Albuquerque drug dealers and crooked lawyers, was reason enough to tune in.

It turns out, though, Pluribus has far less connection with The X-Files than it does with The Twilight Zone’s particular brand of storytelling — ordinary people caught up in an extraordinary situation. There is an investigatory element, especially early on, when the questions feel overwhelming. Yet that’s really not the thrust of the series, at least based on the first seven episodes provided to critics. Instead, it’s a show about the individual, as well as society, and how those concepts might exist in direct opposition to each other.

When Pluribus begins, the scientific world is on the verge of a major discovery — but most people have no idea, just living their lives as if there’s not a giant countdown clock looming above them. This includes Carol (Rhea Seehorn), a frustrated writer whose speculative historical romances are best-sellers, but not exactly creatively fulfilling. (“Mindless crap,” she calls it.) Still, as her partner Helen (Miriam Shor) reminds her, it pays the bills for their otherwise content existence.

Related Video

When everything changes, though, it changes fast. Soon, Carol finds herself alone and scared — unsure what’s happened to the world, and if it can even be fixed. Especially since there are some people who might argue that the world doesn’t need fixing.

The list of things that can be said about Pluribus in this review is much shorter than the list of things that cannot be said, due to Apple TV’s desire to keep much of the plot under wraps. While these sorts of embargo restrictions are never fun for a critic, it does speak to how much of the show’s power comes not from its twists, but the way the writers approach those twists. There are no shortage of elements here that might feel familiar on the surface, but the creative team here is just as familiar with the tropes as we are. The glee they take in subverting them is just one element of what’s so fascinating here.

It’s very close to the storytelling style we saw evolve during the Breaking Bad-verse, executed on a global scale. No easy answers are provided, making the pleasure of each revelation all the more satisfying, all executed with top-tier unconventional cinematography and editing that speaks to a fresh narrative voice. Such care has gone into this show’s making that every detail on screen is worth savoring.

It’s also worth noting that for as much time as characters might spend on their own, the writing never lapses into lazy quirks like having the person talk to themselves, narrating their actions. Instead, the show puts its faith in the audience to watch carefully. Breaking Bad composer Dave Porter handles the score here, creating a totally different sound for the show’s music that’s largely choral-based — a choice, considering the premise, that’s more than apt. Yet it’s also conscious of how powerful silence can be.

Gilligan, Seehorn told Consequence back in 2022, wrote the role of Carol specifically for her, and it truly is an incredible showcase for her talents. She’s not in every scene, but the weight of the show largely rests on Seehorn’s shoulders. Fortunately, Carol is so well-drawn as a character, both in the writing and the performance, that she offers steady support for the action. She’s far from perfect, with flaws that perhaps make the situation worse as opposed to better, yet that draws out her humanity all the more. Not the hero we need, but the only one we’ve got.

While the stakes are quite high, there’s still a sense of real fun to be had, whether it be in Carol’s reactions or some of the wilder cameos that occur. However, speaking of flaws, Pluribus’s biggest one might be found in how close it holds its cards to its chest: Key information gets doled out at a pace that could frustrate viewers more eager for answers than understanding. There are no shortage of clues, of course, though how many of them are actually relevant isn’t explicitly clear. As one example, some of the numbers being thrown around do have Biblical overtones, though the degree to which that’s an actual hint as to what’s going on is more than murky at this time.

When you dig a little deeper into Pluribus, though, it does reveal that it may have a little something to do with that recent period of time we all spent sheltering in place, every cough heard in public a potential harbinger of doom. There’s a lot being explored here about community, and the kind of value we put on acceptance as opposed to independence. Not just because of the isolation some characters experience, but because of what that isolation draws out of them.

This might be the best pandemic-related art we’ve gotten yet, because it comes at those themes from the most unexpected of angles, prying open the lingering trauma from those years to explore the deeper ways that time hurt us all. The title of the show, a Latin word drawn from the American motto E pluribus unum, emphasizes the “many” out of the translation “Out of many, one.” Seehorn might be the star of the show, but it really is a series about all of us.

The first two episodes of Pluribus are streaming now on Apple TV. New episodes premiere on Fridays.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
New US Teaser for Brilliant 'Sirat' Film Set in the Deserts of Morocco
Hollywood

New US Teaser for Brilliant ‘Sirat’ Film Set in the Deserts of Morocco

by jummy84
written by jummy84

New US Teaser for Brilliant ‘Sirat’ Film Set in the Deserts of Morocco

by Alex Billington
October 30, 2025
Source: YouTube

“Is this what the end of the world feels like?” Yes. Neon has revealed the official US trailer for the highly acclaimed, award-winning, best-of-the-year film Sirat – created by Spanish-French filmmaker Óliver Laxe as his fourth feature. It premiered at the 2025 Cannes Film Festival where it was regarded as one of the best films at the fest that deserved to win the Palme d’Or. Now it’s opening in US theaters starting in November. After his daughter disappears at a rave, a father travels to Morocco up into the mountains with his son to search for her. She has been missing for months and they travel into the rave scene in hopes of finding her. Starring Sergi López & Bruno Núñez as the father & son. The title is a reference to this concept in Islam, “sirat” refers to a narrow bridge spanning the chasm of Hell, which believers are said to cross on the Day of Judgment. It’s also a broader concept representing the “straight path” of righteousness and guidance, both in a literal and metaphorical sense. I wrote in my glowing review at Cannes: “Óliver Laxe’s Sirat is a techno-filled desert odyssey that will leave everyone breathless. A must watch for all cinephiles.” This film RULES! This trailer shows quite a bit, but doesn’t reveal all of it thankfully. Don’t miss experiencing this in theaters.

Here’s the first US teaser trailer (+ poster) for Óliver Laxe’s film Sirat, direct from Neon’s YouTube:

Sirat Official US Trailer

Sirat Official US Poster

You can also rewatch the full Spanish trailer for Óliver Laxe’s Sirat film right here from back in May.

A father (Sergi López) and his son arrive at a rave deep in the mountains of southern Morocco. They are searching for Mar — their daughter and sister — who has vanished months ago at one of these endless, sleepless parties. Surrounded by electronic music and a raw, unfamiliar sense of freedom, they hand out her photo again and again. Hope is fading, but they push through and follow a group of ravers heading to one last party out in the desert. As they venture deeper into the burning wilderness, the journey forces them to confront their own limits. Sirat is directed by French-Spanish filmmaker Óliver Laxe, director of the films You All Are Captains, Mimosas, and Fire Will Come previously. The screenplay is written by Óliver Laxe and Santiago Fillol. A Spanish movie – it’s produced by Movistar Plus+, El Deseo, Filmes Da Ermida, Uri Films, and 4A4 Productions. It already opened in Spain in June earlier in the year. The film premiered at the 2025 Cannes Film Festival in the Main Competition and it won the Jury Prize. Neon releases Óliver Laxe’s Sirat in select US theaters starting on November 14th, 2025 this fall. Who’s ready to watch this?

Share

Find more posts in: Foreign Films, Indies, To Watch, Trailer

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Eartha Kitt
Music

The Brilliant Eartha Kitt Is “Miss Kitt” to You » PopMatters

by jummy84
written by jummy84

Everybody knows that the actor, singer, and activist Harry Belafonte recorded the best music ever made. Well, okay, years ago I made that somewhat exaggerated claim, for rhetorical effect, elsewhere on the web. Now I’m here to say that if such a credit doesn’t belong to Belafonte, it might go to the actor, singer, dancer, and activist Eartha Kitt. Were she still alive, Kitt could object to the association with Belafonte. According to her, the two performers had a brief sexual relationship, but he was unkind to her, saying he could never be fully satisfied with a Black woman.

Still, whatever his personal flaws, the legendary Belafonte’s essential recordings stand as models of taste and craft. Connecting Kitt‘s work with them indicates how impressive her performances are throughout the compilation “Miss Kitt,’ to You, released in 1992 and gathering 16 highlights of her 1952-1958 recordings on RCA Victor. Kitt went on to outstanding achievements in subsequent decades, but her music in the 1950s represents the bedrock on which she built her career.

Each song on “Miss Kitt” turns out to be an aspect of a portrait of the artist as young, smart, and sexy. However, the songs aren’t autobiographical. We don’t learn exactly who Eartha Kitt was in the way a singer-songwriter collection suggests it reveals the performer, but some of the songs discuss her public image. In contrast, others uncover layers beneath it, together depicting Kitt as a multifaceted combination of strengths, unafraid to speak her mind and willing to not appear in the most flattering light. She takes on roles and, because she has done so, gives of herself.

That Eartha Kitt’s versions of show tunes, non-English-language ballads, and blues sound so right all these decades later relates to their contrast with our time. Suffused with Kitt’s famously kittenish personality, her performances present a charming antithesis—a temporary antidote—to the harsh, uncarapaced 21st century.

Which is not to say that listening to Kitt means retreating from reality. Instead, Kitt needs to be reincorporated into the world, lifted into the general public’s hive mind as a song stylist, streaming into ears eager to feel better about being human. Because like Belafonte and other existentially beautiful purveyors of popular music, Kitt represents humanity doing good: not, say, robbing or ravaging but relieving suffering through entertainment.

Kitt appears to have been a natural-born entertainer, or at least her talents and personality were shaped that way by challenges early in life. She was born Eartha Mae Keith in the small town of North (yes, that’s correct), South Carolina, in 1927. As she detailed in interviews and autobiographies, this light-skinned, fatherless girl endured rejection, racism, neglect, torture, and rape. Mainly for her own “safety”, she was moved to New York City by an aunt, who intimidated and beat her.

However, by 1952, her undeniable talents as a dancer, singer, and actor had been recognized. Eartha Kitt had appeared in movies and on television, starred in theater, and began recording. Perhaps applicable here is John Lennon‘s self-description in 1970’s “I Found Out”: “They didn’t want me / So they made me a star.” Lennon meant his unmarried parents, who didn’t raise him, and the drive that resulted from their rejection, but we can extrapolate to the circumstances of Kitt’s early life.

“Miss Kitt,” to You closes where Kitt’s recording career began, with the delightful novelty “Monotonous”, which provided her star-making opportunity in the Broadway musical review New Faces of 1952. Written specifically for Kitt, “Monotonous” details the exploits of a world-weary vamp: “For what’s worth, throughout the earth / I’m known as femme fatale / But when the yawn comes up like thunder, brother / Take back your Taj Mahal”. This song became one of Kitt’s lifelong calling cards with its tongue-in-cheek litany of reasons to be blasé. Consider the awe-inspiring self-reinvention involved in South Carolina’s Eartha Mae convincing the world that she was so full of the glamorous life that she had transcended it.

This recording encapsulates much of Eartha Kitt’s appeal as a vehicle for the well-written song: enough vocal facility to navigate a melody while injecting dramatic details in service of lyrical nuances. When the material is worthy of her, it gives her enough to work with. Eartha Kitt becomes a songwriter’s best friend, with exquisite diction and an unequaled savoring of syllables.

So from the start, Eartha Kitt elicited smiles, fired synapses, and at least tapped toes. Further work on stage, on screen, and in the recording studio followed. In 1967-1968 came Kitt’s star turn as Catwoman in five episodes of the Batman TV series, an opportunity to have fun and play with her public image. Her fearlessness in the cat suit led to trouble in the White House, however, where, as a guest of President Lyndon Johnson and First Lady “Lady Bird” Johnson, she criticized the ongoing Vietnam War and spoke openly about social unrest. A period of politically dictated blacklisting in the US followed, and Kitt spent years in Europe, returning to the media spotlight in the late 1970s.

For those unfamiliar with Kitt as Catwoman, she may now be best remembered for stage appearances, such as in a 1987 London production of Stephen Sondheim’s Follies, and screen roles, such as in the 2006‒2008 animated series The Emperor’s New School. She died in 2008, and it’s cool that her final screen credit is for providing her trademarked purr on an episode of The Simpsons that aired two years later.

Eartha Kitt’s many performances and her classic recordings celebrate her and express a desire not to take herself too seriously. The title “Miss Kitt,” to You captures that dichotomy, with its winking insistence on being treated with respect. Maintaining one’s dignity in the face of the world’s injustices can be hard enough, but doing so while retaining one’s full humanity—intelligence, humor, expressiveness, aliveness—can be heroic. Doing so as a diminutive woman of color in early 20th-century America constitutes a superpower.

As if to tacitly prove her power, “Miss Kitt,” to You omits some of her biggest hits, including “I Want to Be Evil” and “Santa Baby”, both from 1953. The compilers seem to have assumed that you can find those favorites elsewhere, such as, in the case of the latter, everywhere during the Christmas season. Instead, the material combines hits with obscurities, focusing on sophisticated boom boom.

That phrase isn’t Kitt’s—it’s the title of a 1965 song by the girl group the Shangri-Las. They were tough New Yorkers who owed at least a spiritual debt to Kitt. Indeed, it’s tempting to declare that without Eartha Kitt, there wouldn’t have been girl groups. Diana Ross cited her as a model for the Supremes. In any case, sophisticated boom boom will do as shorthand for lightly jazzy pop that tickles the mind while energizing the body.

Eartha Kitt’s first two releases, 1953’s RCA Victor Presents Eartha Kitt and 1954’s That Bad Eartha, were recorded with Henri René and His Orchestra. Each of these albums was an eight-song ten-inch, and in 1956 they were combined into a 12-song, 12-inch, also called That Bad Eartha. Most of the material on “Miss Kitt” comes from this body of work.

Kitt’s 1953 recording of the perennial favorite “Let’s Do It” evidences her delightful way with a clever lyric set to an infectious, perhaps instantly memorable tune. Written by Cole Porter for the 1928 Broadway musical Paris, “Let’s Do It”—also known as “Let’s Do It, Let’s Fall in Love” and “Let’s Do It (Let’s Fall in Love)”—ranks with Chaucer and Shakespeare in setting a standard for bawdy double entendre. Or does it?

Eartha Kitt’s affectionate rendition, delivering but not overdoing the come-on, makes the lyrics seem multidimensional, their catalog boundless: “Birds do it, bees do it / Even educated fleas do it”, and so on. However, as written, the lyrics are briefer and more repetitious than expected, and some lines fall just this side of flat (“educated fleas”?). The song needs an interpreter, and Kitt clearly delights in feeling her way through Porter’s playfulness as if experiencing each sensation for the first time. It’s hard to imagine anyone improving on her version—no, not even Ella Fitzgerald.

Also from 1953 are the wistful, wised-up ballad “Smoke Gets In Your Eyes”, which Kitt sings with a convincing ache and bit of her trademark purr, and “C’est Si Bon (It’s So Good)”, in which she moves through modes of feeling and contemplation. Take a minute to savor the beauty of Kitt’s French, both sung and spoken, and the confidence of her chuckle as she ponders life on the arm of a well-to-do lover. “Cadillac car… mink coats,” she muses in English, and Kitt probably did prize those things, though not only them. 

Track seven on “Miss Kitt,” to You is mislabeled as “Avril in Portugal” but is in fact “Angelitos Negros”. Both appeared in the 1953 version of That Bad Eartha, and presumably a production error resulted in the swap on “Miss Kitt”. “Angelitos Negros” is in Spanish rather than French, and it’s half a minute longer than “Avril in Portugal”.

More importantly, it replaces a sweet but insubstantial tribute to April in Portugal with an elegant combination of spare, Latin-inflected percussion, minimal orchestration, a dash of Spanish guitar, and an address to a painter who disrespects his own negritude by never depicting black-skinned angels when surely there are such beings in heaven. This sentiment put Eartha Kitt ahead of her peers in making race an issue. The song remained just as fresh when Roberta Flack, yet another heir to Kitt, performed it on her debut album, 1969’s First Take.

“Miss Kitt” includes just one song from Kitt’s actual first full-length album, 1955’s Down to Eartha, recorded with René‘s Orchestra and Chorus. “Hey, Jacque” gives Kitt a chance to croon. The timelessly delicate orchestration alone justifies this little address’s inclusion here. Especially tasty is the section where the accordion comes in and Kitt speaks, playing the lovelorn woman.

“Je Cherche Un Homme (I Want a Man)” was the B-side of a 1955 single. The music is unobjectionable easy listening, and Eartha Kitt comes across as an American Edith Piaf, which is probably why the compilers made this the collection’s opening track. Should you hear this one—or a similar one—and think Kitt was just a Piaf knockoff, think again and listen on, because Kitt has so much more to offer. Here, the singer declares, “An ordinary guy’s all right with me,” for perhaps the first and last time in Kitt’s career.

“Miss Kitt” includes a few songs from the 1956 album Thursday’s Child, recorded with René and His Orchestra. “Just an Old Fashioned Girl” again suggests Piaf but anticipates the vibrato of the folk-pop-rock singer-songwriter Buffy Sainte-Marie, who began recording in 1964 and might have admired Kitt. However, with the genders switched, this harpsichord-enhanced track could be the English pop-rockers the Kinks in the mid-1960s, and it would not be surprising for that band’s Ray Davies, purveyor of ironic and theatrical social commentary, to have been inspired by Kitt?

In this song, a gold-digger coyly embraces the old world while declaring her desire for riches: “I’m just an old-fashioned girl with an old-fashioned mind / Not sophisticated, I’m the plain and simple kind / I want an old-fashioned house, with an old-fashioned fence / And an old-fashioned millionaire.” (So does Lola.)

On her hour-long 1967 TV show Something Special, Kitt coupled this song with “My Heart Belongs to Daddy”, a Cole Porter tune she recorded in 1953, included on “Miss Kitt”. The title could refer to a father-daughter relationship. However, the lyrics’ series of punning double entendres clearly refer to a sugar daddy, the backdrop against which the singer engages in dalliances. On the show, as in her original, Kitt delivers absolutely straight-faced such laugh lines as “If I invite a boy some night / To dine on my fine finnan haddie / I just adore his asking for more / But my heart belongs to Daddy”. Eartha Kitt makes each delicious scenario fun—not silly—and thus powerfully sexy.

Through Something Special, Kitt plays with her gold-digger persona like a cat with a cat toy. Wearing furs and animal prints, wrapping herself in mink, slinking and purring, she embodies the character while also distancing herself from it by directing her penetrating gaze straight at the camera. It’s unnerving to see so much intelligence, quick wit, and self-possession wrapped up in one unique package. Now and then, she moves past her sly grin to smile widely. A few times, she unexpectedly throws back her head and laughs, seemingly taken over by the elaborate joke of it all.

Eartha Kitt comes across as her own person, owning her persona. She would not, never seemed to, have it any other way. One of her late-career triumphs was delivering Stephen Sondheim’s “I’m Still Here”, the testament of a show-business survivor: “Black sable one day / Next day it goes into hock / But I’m here / Top billing Monday / Tuesday, you’re touring in stock / But I’m here / First, you’re another sloe-eyed vamp / Then someone’s mother, then you’re camp / Then you career from career to career / I’m almost through my memoirs, and I’m here / Talk about owning your persona.”

For contrast, think of another 1950s bombshell, a very different kind of commodity: Marilyn Monroe. Kitt’s and Monroe’s personas intersected in the gold-digger aspect; Monroe is forever associated with the song “Diamonds Are a Girl’s Best Friend”. Whereas Monroe became the archetypal buxom “dumb blonde”—a form she toyed with until finding herself straightjacketed and self-destructing—Kitt from the start was a sex subject rather than object. Or rather, sex was her subject, rewards for it her object. 

“I’m happy to do this, be this,” she seems to say, “because I’m here, and I’m a small Black woman in a business, society, country, world that is racist and sexist to its bedrock, and I’m unwilling to be subservient, so I will be this performer because doing so enables me to combine my many talents into a representation of myself that I enjoy and that will reward me for my efforts, but make no mistake: I choose to be this thing. I take as much pleasure from inhabiting it as you do observing it. You may read into it and think you know me, but you cannot own me.”

Perhaps the difference between Monroe and Eartha Kitt comes down entirely, as much as anything ever comes down entirely, to race. The socioeconomic constructs around white skin and black skin led Monroe, whose people had always been free, into a servitude that she hadn’t even known to fear. Meanwhile, they formed Kitt into a bundle of self-determination. In other words, Eartha Keith, from North Carolina and South Carolina, knew in her bones what was at stake.

She could draw on depths of experience sonically or ironically, as shown by two That Bad Eartha tracks on “Miss Kitt”. “Lazy Afternoon” displays, as the title suggests, a haunting languidness, as if Lana Del Rey had a deeper, more penetrating voice. Billie Holiday also comes to mind, but as if her “Gloomy Sunday” wasn’t a life-or-death struggle as much as a phase. By contrast, “Mademoiselle Kitt” is cooking Latin jazz, sung in Spanish with athletic flair. Translated declarations include “I’m asocial / I’m intellectual and chic… I’m a global artist… Do-it-yourself Kitt”.

“I’m a Funny Dame” was the B-side of a 1956 single. Recorded with Joe Reisman and His Orchestra, this track is vibraphone-fueled lounge jazz with stellar electric guitar soloing. Kitt delivers the intellectual chicness promised in “Mademoiselle Kitt”, presenting herself as not traditionally expressive but “yours just the same”.

“A Woman Wouldn’t Be a Woman” and “Toujour Gai” are both sides of a 1957 single recorded with the Shinbone Alley Orchestra and Chorus, remnants of a short-lived Broadway musical, Shinbone Alley. “A Woman” is horn-fueled R&B. With drums, it’d be rock and roll. Working up a throaty roar she doesn’t display elsewhere on this collection, Eartha Kitt certainly has the gusto of rockabilly cats such as Wanda Jackson. “Toujour Gai” returns Kitt to the familiar territory of her 1953 chansons, but her trilling here might have inspired Dolly Parton, whose tarted-up persona owes something to Kitt’s earthy sophistication.

Two spirited W. C. Handy blues come from 1958’s St. Louis Blues, recorded with Shorty Rogers and His Orchestra. Swinging New Orleans style with a touch of Hollywood in the backup vocals, they further testify to Eartha Kitt’s versatility. It is, perhaps paradoxically, a limited versatility. She fits into songs the way certain classic Hollywood stars, including Monroe, fit into roles—bringing an instantly recognizable set of mannerisms that, under the right circumstances, express every detail and add just a touch more specialness: humor, intensity, feeling, what have you. Here, she’s unforcedly bluesy without suggesting a whole new Eartha Kitt.

Lots of Kitt collections include more or less than this one does, but this one thoroughly satisfies. Omitting trivia such as 1956’s “Honolulu Rock and Roll” (included on The Essential Eartha Kitt), “Miss Kitt” is a uniformly pleasurable listen in addition to a potential revelation. It might inspire the desire to hear Kitt’s complete RCA Victor material, or at least the hits not delivered here, or it might lead a listener to explore later obscurities, such as her 1970 covers of the folk-pop singer-songwriter Donovan’s “Hurdy Gurdy Man” and “Wear Your Love Like Heaven” or her 1988 collaboration with the electro-popsters Bronski Beat, “Cha Cha Heels”.

Eartha Kitt’s later work doesn’t reveal as much about her, though, as about the importance of matching song to performer. The Donovan songs weren’t great fits; “Cha Cha Heels” was perfect. On her TV special, Kitt and Sergio Mendes’ Brasil ’66 gamely rendered the Beatles‘ “Day Tripper”, a lean, riff-driven pop-rock song whose lyrics didn’t give Kitt enough detail to dig into. A different Beatles song might have worked better, such as “Drive My Car”, whose lyrics (“Yes, I’m gonna be a star / And maybe I’ll love you”) would have fit her persona and whose melody, incidentally, bore a musical resemblance to “Monotonous”.

She might also have inhabited “In My Life” (“But of all these friends and lovers / There is no one compares with you”) the way she later took over “I’m Still Here”. She didn’t necessarily need a Sondheim-caliber combination of wit and grit, but to be at her best, Eartha Kitt needed sound and sense to carry equal weight. 

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Bette Midler Says the 'Hocus Pocus 3' Script Is 'Brilliant'
TV & Streaming

Bette Midler Says the ‘Hocus Pocus 3’ Script Is ‘Brilliant’

by jummy84
written by jummy84

Bette Midler is updating fans on the progress of “Hocus Pocus 3.”

During a recent appearance on “Watch What Happens Live,” the “Beaches” star shared that the “Hocus Pocus 3” producers are currently ironing out “all the those logistical things” before shooting begins. She also revealed that she recently read an early draft of the script and thought it was “brilliant.”

“Well, you know, they sent a script, and a lot of it was brilliant,” she said. “So I got very excited, and now we’re trying to figure out what it is and where it’s going to be and how much it’s going to cost and all those logistical things.”

The last time Midler discussed the “Hocus Pocus 3” script was in July 2024. During an appearance on the QVC+ talk show “Busy This Week,” she urged Disney to speed up development on the long-awaited sequel.

“I haven’t seen the script, but I’ve heard rumblings,” Midler said at the time. “I think if they’re gonna, they oughta, because time is not just marching, time is barrel-assing to the finish line. Get us while we’re still breathing, I mean, God!”

Former president of Walt Disney Pictures Sean Bailey revealed that “‘Hocus Pocus 3’ is happening” in a 2023 profile with the New York Times. The first film, released in 1993, starred Midler alongside Sarah Jessica Parker and Kathy Najimy as a trio of witches who return from the 17th century to cause havoc in modern-day Salem. Parker and Najimy are expected to return for the third film.

“Hocus Pocus 2” became Disney+’s most-watched original film ever after its 2022 release, with 2.7 billion minutes watched over its opening weekend.

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Is Donna Murphy Leaving 'Brilliant Minds'? Boss Explains Muriel's Decision, Talks Wolf and Josh Romance (Exclusive)
TV & Streaming

Is Donna Murphy Leaving ‘Brilliant Minds’? Boss Explains Muriel’s Decision, Talks Wolf and Josh Romance (Exclusive)

by jummy84
written by jummy84

[Warning: The below contains MAJOR spoilers for Brilliant Minds Season 2 Episode 2 “The Contestant.”]

Brilliant Minds isn’t about to say goodbye to Donna Murphy, right?! Especially not so soon after Wolf’s (Zachary Quinto) father left? Muriel does step down as CMO in the latest episode, but she and Wolf also discuss that now she’ll just be his mom, not his boss. That should make for some good television since those two are so great in scenes together.

Also in “The Contestant,” Carol (Tamberla Perry) successfully fights for her job, helped by Muriel, saying she told her to keep treating Alison, the woman with whom her husband was having the affair. Plus, it looks like Wolf and Josh (Teddy Sears) will be getting back on track when they go out for drinks, but then the latter pulls away when the former kisses him. He can be his friend, but that’s it, for now. And a new flashforward reveals that Carol is at Wolf’s side when he signs himself into Amelia’s (Bellamy Young) Hudson Oaks psychiatric facility.

Below, showrunner Michael Grassi breaks down this episode, reveals if Donna Murphy is going anywhere, talks Wolf and Josh’s moment, offers more information about the flashforwards, and much more.

Muriel steps down as CMO. Is Donna still a series regular?

Michael Grassi: Donna is still very much a part of the show, and we’ll be seeing more of her very soon.

I feel like that means we’ll be getting a lot more of the mother-son relationship. But can she step away from the hospital when her son works there as much as she should?

Good question. So, we’ll definitely be seeing more of Muriel in the first half of the season and even later, but I think that relationship is going to shift a little. But I think we’ve seen so much growth in the Wolf-Muriel relationship, and I love Zach and Donna on screen together so much. Some of my favorite scenes are them. We’ve seen them grow, and we’ve seen Wolf appreciate everything his mother did and even though it might’ve been hard for him growing up the way his mother was, sometimes I think he sees that she was really trying to protect him and that it wasn’t even that she wanted to keep what dad did a secret, but it was what dad wanted and she was just trying to protect him in so many ways. And I think Wolf really sees that for the first time, and we see their relationship evolve, and you’re so right that post 202, we’re going to see a bit of a shift. It’s like, what does it look like when Muriel isn’t at Bronx General and when she catches up with her son? That new dynamic of just mother and not boss is something we haven’t gotten to see yet really on the show since he was a kid in the flashback. So, it’s going to be really fun.

When you said seeing the growth, I just thought about when he checked on her after hearing the end of her phone conversation. A moment like that at the beginning of the series almost would’ve been impossible to imagine.

Yeah, and I have to say, too, I love Tamberla and Donna together as well. That’s one of my favorite scenes in 202. I love it. It is just so good, and I love the mutual respect they have, and they have so much in common, but also, Wolf is their main thing in common. They also just love him so much, and he’s such a big part of their lives, so it’s just nice to see that connective tissue between them.

Yeah, then Muriel has that line that Wolf is going to need Carol, and the flashforward in this episode shows he does, with Carol by his side. So, are the flash forwards going to be a bit disjointed like that, where that one clearly took place before the premieres? Should we expect that, and then it’s going to be piecing it all together?

 Correct. I think it’s going to be a bit of a puzzle that the audience is going to be putting together for sure. We’re going to see different parts of what those flashforwards are, jumping in time a little bit.

With these first two episodes, it’s easier to tell, but will there be moments where it’s questionable when something took place?

I don’t want to spoil it too much. You’ll see.

What can you say about the new CMO and that person’s dynamic with Oliver? He’s adjusting to someone who’s going to be his boss, who’s not his mom?

Yeah, I would say stay tuned.

The good news is Carol is back. First of all, thank you so much for the Carol and Josh scenes in this episode. They were great,

They’re so good together.

Pief Weyman/NBC

But there is now the question of who reported her, since it appears it wasn’t Alison. Can you confirm it wasn’t Alison? Because she could have reported her and still decided to speak up on her behalf.

I can confirm it wasn’t Alison. She went in and she told them that Carol saved her life and she meant it.

How is Carol going to go about trying to get that answer?

I think Carol’s going to be torn about the ethics of getting that answer. And is it something that she even should do because whoever reported her, was it their right to report her? So, I think we’re going to see Carol be tested a little bit throughout the season, and that question will loom and it will weigh on her. She has to be at work, and somebody around her reported her for this. We’re going to see how Dr. Carol Pierce navigates something like that as a psychiatrist, which is going to be great.

Is she going to be changing her approach to work at all because of what she just went through?

That’s something we’re going to continue to explore in Episode 203, which I’m so excited for you to see.

Oliver kisses Josh, trying to just get things back to where they were before Noah showed up. But I can’t help but think about Oliver not returning his “I’m falling for you” and you telling me that he would in his own unique way, which he hasn’t yet. So, does that play into where Oliver is when it comes to being ready to resume that relationship?

I think when Wolf kisses Josh in 202, it’s a bit of a moment where he’s trying to reset, but it’s also that he’s doing it in the wrong way because it’s like, “We haven’t even had the conversation, and you’re kissing me at drinks.” And Josh literally thought, “Oh, he’s asking me to drinks to be like, ‘Hey, I have to talk to you. My dad left again. It’s messed up.’” It’s just a little bit cart before the horse, and I think it’s just part of Wolf trying to cope with what happened, and it’s Josh being like, “Oh, this is messy.” And I think it further complicates things to be honest.

Josh says he can be his friend. Why did you want to slow them down, and what can you say about any hope for their romance after 202?

I think they had a bit of a quick start. I think they shot out of the can a little bit. I think they had that amazing kiss in Episode 107 last season, but it might’ve been premature. And I think ever since that kiss, they’ve been trying to navigate, “Who are we to each other? We clearly have feelings for each other. We also work together and disagree in a lot of stuff. And that’s really complicated.” And then Wolf did what he did in 113 because he was dealing with personal stuff and I think they have a lot to figure out and it’s going to be a ride between them. But I really do think that there’s love there and mutual respect, and I think we see that on screen between the two of them. I think Zach and Teddy are so good, and those are some of my favorite scenes. Their dynamic is going to shift in a big way very soon.

Zachary Quinto as Dr. Oliver Wolf, Teddy Sears as Dr. Josh Nichols — 'Brilliant Minds' Season 2 Episode 2 "The Contestant"

Pief Weyman/NBC

I might be getting a bit dark with this question, but Ericka (Ashleigh LaThrop) sleeps through her phone going off about the patient and Charlie (Brian Altemus) has that comment about taking it easy on the benzos. Did he dose her or is it just that he knows that she’s taking pills?

He knows that she’s taking pills. He saw her take pills.

So it was just that, we shouldn’t be wondering how far this guy’s going to go?

No, no, no, no, no. I love that you asked that though. That’s a whole other show. Maybe Season 3, maybe Season 3.

Are there any episodes coming up like the building collapse from Season 1?

We have some really dramatic cases this season. I’ll tease Episode 203 has an opening sequence that is one of my worst nightmares, and I think a lot of people’s worst nightmares. So I’m excited for people to see that. And we will have some bigger episodes this season for sure. And some unexpected events happen.

Brilliant Minds, Mondays, 10/9c, NBC

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Venice 2025: Guadagnino's 'After the Hunt' is Brilliant Tale of Denial
Hollywood

Venice 2025: Guadagnino’s ‘After the Hunt’ is Brilliant Tale of Denial

by jummy84
written by jummy84

Venice 2025: Guadagnino’s ‘After the Hunt’ is Brilliant Tale of Denial

by Alex Billington
August 30, 2025

“He crossed the line.” “But what actually happened?” The truth is out there, but no one really likes the truth anymore, because the truth can be destructive. That’s just the truth. Not every film is meant to make you feel all warm & fuzzy when you watch. In fact, some of the best films ever made are films that make viewers feel uncomfortable (like Tar at Venice 2022), and make them question their own views and thoughts and feelings. This is the case with After the Hunt, the 10th feature film from the acclaimed Italian filmmaker Luca Guadagnino. The film just premiered at the 2025 Venice Film Festival to many negative reviews from critics right off the bat. But I’m here to set the record straight – After the Hunt is a brilliant thriller, Luca Guadanigno’s best film after Call Me By Your Name. It may not as exciting or upbeat as Challengers or Queer, but that doesn’t make it any less masterful. The film features an exceptionally dense, philosophically / intellectually complex script that directly address sexual assault denialism. It’s also meticulously crafted, entrancing and harrowing to watch. And it hasn’t left my mind at all since the end of the screening days ago.

After the Hunt is a sensitive story about sexual assault and women, however it is directed by a man – Luca Guadanigno. Though the screenplay is written by a woman – American writer Nora Garrett with her first produced screenplay. The film is set at Yale and literally opens with a title card saying “it happened at Yale.” Clearly inspired by and/or based on a real incident, but that’s besides the point because what it shows is still sadly happening in so many places. Julia Roberts stars as professor Alma Olsson, on the verge of tenure at Yale. One of her friends / colleagues is Hank Gibson, played by Andrew Garfield, a beloved, outspoken, bearded young professor. Ayo Edebiri co-stars as Maggie Price, a PhD student in Alma’s program. After a late night party at Alma’s fancy home where everyone was drunk, Hank walks Maggie home and something happens. The next day a broken down Maggie comes to Alma and tells her something bad happened that night, hoping she might help her through this horrible situation. Alas, Alma increasingly becomes resistant, and the situation explodes – mainly because Hank and Alma start to realize this is going to mess with their hopes and dreams of tenure climbing up the career ladder in academia. It’s not actually a “he said, she said” situation – it’s much more about why won’t others believe what she said & refuse to deal with abusive men.

The filmmaking is entirely on point as it’s a very sensitive subject dealing with major issues of our time and generational differences. This film has some serious depth to what it’s getting at and implying about society – and it’s actually very specifically making an uncomfortable point. It’s not “fun” to watch by any means, but it is compelling and extremely fascinating. Michael Stuhlbarg also co-stars as Alma’s husband Frederik, an arrogant philosopher therapist who loves to argue and debate about heady topics. Much of the dialogue throughout he film is exceptionally complex, and I think it will take multiple viewings for those interested to dig into what is being said, what is being debated, and what each scene means. It’s hard for anyone to pick up on everything in the first viewing. Yes it’s a very talky film, but almost all of Luca Guadanigno’s films are about dialogue and conversations. Even Call Me By Your Name – they’re attracted to each other because of their conversations. “You know what things…” After the Hunt is actually quite similar to CMBYN but plays out entirely opposite. At the start, Alma and Maggie do sort of love each other (in a respectful professor / student way) however as the story goes on they split and get further & further from each other. I love how Guadanigno crafts this dynamic and builds a narrative around an intellectual understanding of the dialogue.

What might upset people the most is that the film has a very strong point to make about all the characters. Essentially it’s a film about generational differences, and specifically it’s about how the older generation is entirely wrong about the younger generation. Yes this is brought up in a few conversations, but the point of the script is digging really painfully into why someone like Alma gets so obsessed with denying and rejecting Maggie and what happened. Accusations are thrown about, conversations descend into yelling matches, and philosophy is used to excuse complaints. All because way too many people are afraid of losing their power, their career, all that they’ve worked for, because they don’t want to deal with the truth about sexual assault and rape, and how poorly it is handled in places like prestigious universities. The script and this film really want to remind us that older generations might not be right about everything and really do need to defer to the younger generations – even if this pisses them off. The writing is very, very heavy with intricate scenes and subtle reveals aplenty. I really think most are missing the point. But this is all too common nowadays – even the final revelations are going to piss people off because it’s not what they want to hear from anyone…

Aside from the narrative, this new Trent Reznor & Atticus Ross score is again superb though much more haunting, enhancing the unease of watching this story about accusations and truth. Of course everything is different from Guadanigno’s past films because this is not a topic that warrants any kind of playful, upbeat filmmaking. The lead performances are all exceptional & layered. Their characters are not underdeveloped at all, any claim of such is incorrect. There’s so much going on within each one of them, but of course they’re people in academia and that means their entire existence is wrapped up in the philosophy & intellectualism of academia, which is precisely what it is like on these campuses. The film will grow on people with time and will be appreciated properly with time. The best summation of how reflective it is comes from Garfield at the press conference in Venice: “If we don’t make the unconscious conscious, things will happen in our lives and we will call them fate. When our motivations are invisible even to ourselves, we become unreliable narrators – especially in a culture where survival is paramount. It’s fascinating that, in these characters, their wants and needs are invisible to themselves, so each of them believes they’re the hero of the story.” And in the end there is no hero, there is no one to celebrate in this story. But it’s still an important story told so brilliantly.

Alex’s Venice 2025 Rating: 9.5 out of 10
Follow Alex on Twitter – @firstshowing / Or Letterboxd – @firstshowing

Share

Find more posts in: Review, Venice 25

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail
Liam and Noel Gallagher perform onstage at the Oasis Live '25 Toronto concert at Rogers Stadium on August 24 in Toronto, Ontario. (Credit: Kevin Mazur/Getty Images)
Music

How is Oasis Live ’25 Going? So Far, So Fuckin’ Brilliant

by jummy84
written by jummy84

It proved a right perfect evening, as the Brits might say. August 24—Oasis’s first of two sold-out shows at Toronto’s Rogers Stadium—kicked off the North American leg of their reunion tour by bringing the U.K.’s rainy weather, Manchester City’s Poznań tradition, and a two-hour set of Brit-pop classics, all under the watchful eye of a blue-and-white scarved cardboard cut-out of Man City manager Pep Guardiola.

What the famously feuding brothers Noel and Liam Gallagher didn’t bring on the Oasis Live ’25 global tour were any tantrums, insults, cricket bats, swinging guitars, or middle fingers after burying the hatchet following their 2009 band and brotherly bust-up, and blowing away fans by announcing the Oasis reunion a year ago. 

And so far, so fuckin’ brilliant is how Oasis Live ’25 is going. 

Fans attend the Oasis Live '25 Toronto concert at Rogers Stadium on August 24, 2025. (Credit: Kevin Mazur/Getty Images)
Fans attend the Oasis Live ’25 Toronto concert at Rogers Stadium on August 24, 2025. (Credit: Kevin Mazur/Getty Images)

The U.K. tour began with two shows in Cardiff, Wales, July 4-5, and included five in their hometown of Manchester and seven in total in London (two are in September), all sold-out stadiums that hold between 75,000 and 90,000 people. This is nothing even close to a nostalgia act playing the casino circuit; Oasis could easily do a residency at Las Vegas’ Sphere (hint hint). People want this and now the brothers do too. Hence, they are playing stadiums in North American cities which they never did in the ’90s or 2000s, although they were a healthy arena act. But the mania has grown. 

Bad Bunny. (Credit: Eric Rojas)Bad Bunny. (Credit: Eric Rojas)

Perhaps the man in charge of their beloved hometown English football team provides a constant reminder for them to get along, that they play for the same team—Oasis. 

While rock ‘n roll does keep you young, and perhaps a little immature (Noel is now 58 and Liam 52), it’s been more than three decades since their breakthrough 1994 debut album Definitely Maybe made instant rock stars out of the brothers who grew up in a government-subsidized council estate. Their follow-up, 1995’s (What’s The Story) Morning Glory, proved it wasn’t a fluke. They sold some 75 million albums worldwide in 15 years over seven studio albums.

Liam and Noel Gallagher perform onstage at Rogers Stadium on August 24, 2025 in Toronto, Ontario. (Credit: Kevin Mazur/Getty Images) Liam and Noel Gallagher perform onstage at Rogers Stadium on August 24, 2025 in Toronto, Ontario. (Credit: Kevin Mazur/Getty Images)
Liam and Noel Gallagher perform onstage at Rogers Stadium on August 24, 2025 in Toronto, Ontario. (Credit: Kevin Mazur/Getty Images)

With excitement off the charts for the pair of Toronto shows—Oasis last played here in 2008 at Virgin Festival, where a fan assaulted Noel onstage, sending him flying into the monitors and breaking three ribs—the massive screen that spanned the width of the stadium flashed “This is not a drill” and various news headlines speculating “Liam and Noel on speaking terms again” and rumours of a reunion. The brothers then emerged on stage, arms raised overhead, holding hands. Noel bowed to Liam and Liam gave his big brother a quick hug. 

“Oasis vibes in the area,” Liam—the parka-wearing frontman—greeted us, as “TORONTO” and “this is it; this is happening” appeared on the video backdrop. And then it did. It happened.

Opening, appropriately, with “Hello,” 50,000 people were on a high for the next two hours.  

(Credit: Karen Bliss)(Credit: Karen Bliss)
(Credit: Karen Bliss)

Joining Liam and Noel, lead singer and guitarist/singer/songwriter respectively, are Oasis stalwarts guitarists Gem Archer and Paul “Bonehead” Arthurs, bassist Andy Bell, plus new drummer Joey Waronker, keyboardist Christian Madden, and horn section Alastair White, Joe Auckland, and Steve Hamilton. Roughly half the 23-song setlist came from the band’s first two albums, unchanged from the U.K. shows.

They went into pogo-prompting “Acquiesce,” then “Morning Glory,” “Some Might Say” and “Bring It On Down,” before Liam had some instructions for the Canadians, who, as Noel griped, like hockey: How to do the Poznań, the Man City celebration love-in bounce, for the ripping “Cigarettes & Alcohol.”

The fans on the floor—many of whom had travelled from far and wide—knew the drill. The frontman goaded us by saying a geezer told him he wouldn’t be able to get Canadians to do it, “because they’re a little bit shy and a little bit scared,” and, “you all smoke pot now, so they’re all fuckin’ out of yer heads.” He then told us to “turn ’round, put your arms around each other, give each other a cuddle and just jump up and down; it’s easy.” 

(Credit: Karen Bliss)(Credit: Karen Bliss)
(Credit: Karen Bliss)

“We showed ‘im,” he said afterwards in his glorious Mancunian accent.

The brothers otherwise said little onstage, producing music as good as ever, Noel on guitar and some vocals, and Liam’s cool arms-behind-his-back posture at the mic, the same as it ever was, as they went through “Fade Away,” “Supersonic,” “Roll With It,” and Noel taking the lead for “Talk Tonight,” “Half the World Away,” and “Little By Little.”

Liam dedicated “D’You Know What I Mean?” to the “warriors,” and he couldn’t have been more split-second prophetic before the rain began—a little at first, around “Stand by Me,” “Cast No Shadow,” and “Slide Away” and then it was windy and torrential. People put boxes on their heads. Some ran to guest services to get plastic ponchos. Some even used their merch bags or new Oasis swag to cover up. Even Liam put the hood of his signature parka up while they waited on some towels so they wouldn’t wipe out on the slippery stage

“It’s only a bit of rain, man. We’re from Manchester,” Liam said. As the weather got more unapologetic, he said “Don’t you just love it? A little bit of chaos when the weather comes,” while later joking that he was told he wouldn’t need a parka during Toronto’s summer, just “shorts, a Bermuda shirt, you’ll have a fucking lovely time.” 

(Credit: Karen Bliss)(Credit: Karen Bliss)
(Credit: Karen Bliss)

Quipped Noel, “All this money we’re making and we can’t afford a bit of fucking carpet.”

And then as they played through the next hour—“Whatever” (incorporating a bit of the Beatles’ “Octopus’s Garden,” which they did in the ’90s too), “Live Forever,” and “Rock ‘N’ Roll Star”—the crowd settled in and went with it, enjoying the rain, dancing and pogoing, hugging and singing, spirits undampened by the damp. No doubt, it was the universe playing a hilarious joke, testing our willingness to get soaked to the skin after waiting 16 years for the brothers to make up.

The four-song encore—Noel singing “The Masterplan” and “Don’t Look Back in Anger” and Liam capping the night with the anticipated “Wonderwall” and “Champagne Supernova,” preceding it by thanking everyone for sticking with them over the years. “It must be a fucking nightmare to support and followin’ that. Nice one for making this happen and allowing us to put the band back on the map again. Respect. We’ll see you in a bit.”

Next stop is Chicago’s Soldier Field August 28, then two shows in East Rutherford, New Jersey at MetLife Stadium, and two at Pasadena, California’s Rose Bowl. Then, the lads head to Mexico City, back to London, then three weeks later South Korea, Japan, Australia, Argentina, and Chile, wrapping up in Brazil in late November. By the time the tour is over, the Poznań will be a thing all over the world. 

0 comments
0 FacebookTwitterPinterestEmail