Tag: Entertainment-Variety

Senior figures within the film community in Hungary gave two thumbs up to Péter Magyar’s landslide victory Monday, although the scale of reforms needed within the media and entertainment sector are daunting.

Contacted by Variety, Hungarian filmmaker László Nemes, who won an Oscar with “Son of Saul,” wrote: “Free at last! Hungary has chosen hope over fear, freedom over submission, humanism over anti-humanism. This election is a profound game-changer, not only for the people, but also the arts, liberating all those who were despised, sidelined or silenced by the corrupt regime. Hungary has rich artistic traditions and we’re thrilled to wake up from this nightmare.”

Another Hungarian filmmaker, Ildikó Enyedi, whose “On Body and Soul” was Oscar nominated, told Variety, “I am in Hong Kong with my last film ‘Silent Friend,’ so, because of the time difference I was one of the first to vote. It was still the middle of the night in Hungary… It is such a euphoria to see that despite all the wounds and distortions, the democratic system works and is able to fulfill its main function – to represent the true intentions of the citizens. The healing can start – and, I am sure, we all will be much more attentive while observing how the politicians, our public servants work.”

Hungary is a major destination for Hollywood and other big budget international shoots, ranking number two in Europe as a production hub. This position relies on its 30% tax rebate, whose future had been in doubt under the government of Viktor Orbán.

That doubt has been swept away with Magyar’s victory, according to Adam Goodman, managing partner of Hungarian production company Mid Atlantic Films, which has worked on numerous Hollywood films and series including the “Dune” franchise, “F1” and “Ballerina.”

He told Variety: “Since June 2025 the outgoing administration cast doubt on the reliability of the Hungarian incentive program. There have been discussions with the incoming administration during the election cycle, in which they pledged to fix the uncertainty and added the film industry to their policies platform.

“It will take some time for the incoming government to appoint new ministers of culture and finance and work through all the issues that need their attention, but we expect the current issues regarding the security of the incentive and the registration procedures will be rectified.”

When it comes to the media sector in Hungary more broadly, the new government faces a mammoth task. According to the media freedom lobbying group Reporters Without Borders, Orbán supporters control 80% of the country’s media through organization like KESMA, which has a stranglehold on private television, and MTVA, which controls the public broadcasting network.

This control is enshrined in law so Magyar’s first objective will be a legislative overhaul. The size of his majority allows him to make amendments to the constitution, should those be required. Magyar’s Tisza party took 138 seats, with Orbán’s Fidesz on 55 and the far-right Our Homeland on six.

First-time actor Angus Cloud was an immediate standout when “Euphoria” premiered on HBO in 2019, and built that momentum even further in Season 2. His character, drug dealer Fezco, ends up in a climactic shootout when his home is raided by a SWAT team, creating one of the biggest cliffhangers of the season finale in 2022. But in 2023, while “Euphoria” was on hiatus, 25-year-old Cloud died from a fentanyl overdose.

Now “Euphoria” is back after more than four years off the air. The Season 3 premiere picks up after a five-year time jump, with its previously high school-age characters all exploring early adulthood in different ways. And Fez, surprisingly, is still alive.

He first comes up when Rue (Zendaya) is catching up with Lexi (Maude Apatow) and tells her, “You know, you really should call Fez.” Lexi looks uncomfortable, and says she knows she should, but that she’s been too busy. Rue says Fez has told her multiple times that he misses Lexi, and Lexi makes the excuse that their hours don’t line up.

“Just pick up the phone and call him. It’s not like he’s going anywhere. He’s in prison for 30 years,” Rue says.

Speaking to Variety‘s Marc Malkin on the red carpet for Season 3, series creator Sam Levinson said, “There’s a lot of scenes where people are talking to him on the phone. I thought, if I couldn’t keep him alive in life, then maybe within this show I could keep him alive.” He added that Cloud “would be cracking up at his storyline” in the last few episodes of the season. “I think he would love it,” he said.

In another interview with Variety, Levinson expanded on his thoughts about Cloud. “Losing Angus was a tragedy,” he said. “I spent a lot of time trying to make sure that he was healthy, and when he passed, I was very angry. He’s one of 70,000 people that died of a fentanyl overdose in this country in that year. There’s a lot of questions that poses as an individual who’s loved someone and lost them. What is this all about? What does this mean? And I think death has a way of giving life its meaning. You realize how much the small moments matter. The interactions, the good deeds, the way you talk to the people around you. It reveals how precious life is.”

“And in terms of ‘Euphoria, I thought, how do I how do I tell a story about that?” Levinson continued. “How do I tell a story about what it means to be alive and to have the freedom to choose whatever path you want to choose — but there’s also the consequences that come with it? In many ways, this season was about honoring Angus and exploring what the greater meaning of life is. And I think what it comes down to is gratitude. You gotta have gratitude for the small moments, for the tragedies and also the beautiful parts of life. It became the thematic backbone.”

The “Euphoria” Season 3 premiere also paid tribute to Cloud with an “in memoriam” note at the end of the episode that features his name alongside supporting actor Eric Dane, who died earlier this year, and executive producer Kevin Turen, who died in November 2023.

Additionally, the episode seemed to reference Cloud’s death by depicting the dangers of fentanyl in the plot. For spoilers, read Variety‘s recap.

Marc Malkin contributed to this story.

Though it was not entirely without precedent as the progenitor of faux-found-footage horror, few films have been more widely imitated than 1999’s “The Blair Witch Project” — if only because its premise was so, well, economical. With no pressing need for FX, sets, name actors or stunts, just about anyone could make a marketable knockoff. Unfortunately, almost everyone did, creating an overtaxed genre where mediocre, sometimes barely-watchable titles far outnumber the few inspired entries.

A notch above-average on that narrow scale, but still falling a bit short, is Canadian actor Markian Tarasiuk’s feature directorial debut. “Hunting Matthew Nichols” earns points for self-awareness: Not only does “Blair Witch” get name-checked here, but the missing-persons cold case it centers on involves two aspiring-filmmaker teens who were obsessed with that popular hit, and indeed may have been trying to recreate it when they disappeared in the forests of Vancouver Island. The film we’re watching is an effort by one boy’s surviving sister to solve the mystery decades later, with Tarasiuk and Ryan Alexander McDonald playing themselves as professionals helping her make a documentary about that quest. Needless to say, something very sinister and deadly lies at the end of their path. 

That climax is sufficiently creepy. But “Hunting” takes a long time getting there — not even entering the island’s woods until its last lap — a buildup overfilled by that least-appealing staple of found-footage horror movies, i.e. nervous or frightened characters yelling at each other. The result is a competently crafted if unmemorable thriller perhaps most impressive for its off-screen enterprise. The self-distributed indie production opened on over 1000 North American screens (in partnership with various theater chains) on June 10, following an even wider sneak preview the prior week. 

Mock vintage TV news clips and direct-camera-address from Tara Nichols (Miranda MacDougall) spell out what’s being “hunted” here: Twenty-two years earlier, her older brother Matthew (James Ross) vanished with best friend Jordan Reimer (Issiah Bull Bear) on Halloween night, 2001. They were last seen traipsing into a vast, densely wooded parkland just outside town. When they failed to re-emerge, an extensive search began. Police eventually found their camcorder in a remote abandoned cabin, but no other sign of the boys, and no evidence of foul play. It was assumed they had, like numerous unwary hikers before them, fallen to accidental deaths off a cliff, or into a ravine. Nonetheless, nasty rumors circulated for a time — most casting unfounded suspicions on Jordan’s family, for little reason beyond their being Indigenous people.

These events occurred when Tara was a child, haunting her since. Now she’s returned from the mainland for the first time since her father’s funeral, in search of “a better answer” to her sibling’s absence. Perhaps as tribute to his passion, she’s turned that inquiry into a film project, with Tarasiuk as director (it’s rather murky whether they’re also in a romantic relationship) and McDonald as cinematographer. They interview her mother (Susinn McFarlen), Jordan’s father (Trevor Carroll), the cop once in charge of the now-cold case (Christine Willes), a former mayor (Bernard Cuffling), and others. Little is gained beyond resuscitated creaky gossip about speculated “Satanic rituals,” and spooky local folklore regarding a 19th-century religious commune that a modern-day anthropologist dismisses as “just an old story to keep kids out of the woods.”

Still, Tara begins to suspect the authorities are hiding some intel, which is confirmed when she gains possession of the original evidence box. It holds surprises, as well as indications that still more might be missing. Tara grows obsessive to a point of near-hysteria, suggesting she ought to step back and take a mental-health break. Instead, she insists on pressing onward — into the forest itself, with or without her colleagues. Needless to say, that turns out to be a very bad idea.

It was also arguably a bad idea to keep our protagonists out of the woods for the feature’s entire first hour, though faux archival footage plus actual cinematographer Justin Sebastian’s occasional gorgeous scenic shots provide teasing earlier glimpses. Nonetheless, there’s no immediate peril until the trio finally go camping, at which point things get more actively suspenseful. 

Tarasiuk doesn’t try all that hard to maintain the mock-doc illusion, with those more-polished images, MacDougall’s histrionic performance, and an effective if sometimes overblown score (by Jeff Griffiths and Christopher King) all poking holes in that ruse. Which would be fine if at least some scares arrived earlier, rather than being held in reserve for so long. Their lack leaves us too much time to grow weary of Tara — whose unraveling under pressure is understandable, yet has an effect on the viewer more exhausting than empathy-inducing. 

The actress throws herself into it, but less might have been more. It’s also a minus that, by contrast, her costars get so little character definition, despite a surplus of often cliched dialogue. Nor do investigation subjects Matthew and Jordan, seen in old video footage, warrant any deeper interest from Sean Harris Oliver’s screenplay.

The last few minutes of belated payoff are strong enough. But not so much so that they fully redeem the preceding 80, let alone will make anyone eager for a sequel. 

Who could’ve guessed that the biggest water-cooler moment from night 1 of Coachella 2026 would not be a musical cameo or a particularly galvanizing moment from one of the evening’s headliners, but… a seven-minute monologue by a legendary Hollywood actress in her late 70s? Talk about stunt casting at its most unexpected. Susan Sarandon was brought in to play an elder version of Sabrina Carpenter, midway through that pop superstar’s set. Whatever else may transpire over the weekend, this will surely stand as the festival’s most puzzling, polarizing, dig-it-or-hate-it moment… although “moment” may be too modest a word for an epic scene that its detractors felt seemed to go on just shy of forever.

It couldn’t have seemed much more incongruous, in the middle of an hour-and-a-half performance that was otherwise 98% a musical sex comedy, as is the singer’s entertaining custom. Amid the nonstop choreography and gags, suddenly things came to a crawl for seven minutes of actual seriousness — as if Carpenter were outsourcing the depth of the set to Sarandon. The actress sat in a car in a makeshift drive-in that was set up in the middle of the main stage field, hair blowing in the desert breeze as she reminisced from some point in the future about what it had been like to once be the pop tart Sabrina Carpenter, with plenty of rumination about fame and family and the pros and cons of constantly projecting positivity.

Questions abounded as it went on. Why drop such a sober sequence into a performance whose other cameos — by Will Ferrell (also live) and Samuel Jackson Jr. and Sam Neil (pre-recorded) — leaned toward pure fun? Who wrote this soliloquy? Was it all scripted, or partly improvised? Was it intended to go on that long? And are we looking a gift horse in the mouth if we complain about such an unusual interruption in an otherwise pretty pro-forma pop festival?

Well, that last question is mine, and maybe mine alone. I seem to be in a distinct minority when it comes to getting an admiring kick out of Sarandon’s cameo, which I’ve now rewatched a couple of times, in bootleg clips. (Coachella is pretty good at having anything quickly pulled down that home viewers might try posting to social media from the livestream, but it’s out there.) Variety‘s own recap late Friday night said “the scene, a bungled reflection on wish fulfillment, brought the pop show to a screeching halt.” I’d probably have to agree that it did just that, or brought it to a crawl, at least… but is that necessarily a bad thing? Is momentum everything, even in pop music? You could argue that it’s a lot. But I’m also a fan of those outlier dynamic moments where something that is supposed to be about escapism tries to get real for a minute — even if, at this point in her career and persona, Carpenter felt compelled to hire someone to suggest she can foresee going all mature on us someday.

I’m also fascinated by the idea that the whole thing might’ve been partly an accident. Sources on the ground at Coachella indicated that the monologue was originally supposed to be shorter, and that Sarandon was asked to stretch to cover a changeover that was taking longer than intended. That hasn’t been confirmed, and there was nothing about Carpenter’s subsequent costuming that looked like it should have taken seven minutes to pull off, by itself. But the actress didn’t appear to be reading off a prompter, and if indeed she was making some of it up as she went along, it was a pretty good example of an age-old actors’ class exercise in improv. Did Carpenter script all the stuff about the (apparently) fake sister and niece, or was Sarandon freestyling some of that? The fact that we’re even wondering about this makes the bit at least as fun as the old-school song-and-dance of the big production numbers, if you have a liking for the kind of risk-taking that may or may not go off the rails a little.

And however much the whole thing was or wasn’t 100% pre-scripted, it made for an amusing punchline to take the piss out of the monologue’s philosophizing by having her “Girls Meets World” co-star Corey Fogelmanis show up at the end as a carhop, getting bogged down in the minutiae of closing out tabs and tapping credit cards. On top of how good the key casting was: Who could have been a better (or more aspirational) choice to play a Carpenter with a few more decades of mileage on her?

One hates to read too much into any of this. You only had to go on X during the livestream to say fans commending Carpenter for hiring Sarandon to play her shortly after the actress complained she’d been blacklisted for her pro-Palestinian activism. It’s less likely the singer brought her idol in for the gig to make a statement on the Middle East, or even show-business blackballing, than it is that she just really loves “The Rocky Horror Picture Show.” But, regardless of what you think of anyone’s latter-day politics, Carpenter just has good taste in screen sirens.

The “Aunt Sabrina” interlude will no doubt be held up by many as an example of how to stop a show, in the wrong way. But maybe we’d be better off if more pop stars thought of more ways to throw quietly interesting and unexpected asides into their shows, even at the risk of having audiences scratching their heads for a minute. Or, sure, seven. Take a note, Addison Rae — although maybe you want to play it safe and only have Helen Mirren or Sally Field pop in for a mini-monologue.

SPOILER ALERT: This story contains spoilers from Season 1 of “Big Mistakes,” now streaming on Netflix.

Dan Levy knows exactly what keeps him up at night, as the possibility of being blackmailed into committing crimes has haunted him for years. So naturally, he made a TV show about it.

Six years after “Schitt’s Creek” wrapped, Levy has returned to television with “Big Mistakes,” a darkly comic crime thriller he co-created with Rachel Sennott. The show follows Nicky (Levy) and Morgan Dardano (Taylor Ortega), a pastor-and-teacher sibling duo from New Jersey who stumble into organized crime after Morgan steals a necklace from a postal store to bury with their dying grandmother. What follows is a season-long descent into grave robbing, drug running and enough accessory-to-murder charges to keep the Dardano family lawyer very busy. However, the deeper they sink, the better they get. “The worse they were, the better they got at their jobs,” Levy tells Variety. “And the more they were needed.”

The chaos is matched only by the cast assembled to deliver it. Laurie Metcalf plays Linda, the siblings’ mother and accidental mayoral candidate, whose parallel bid for local office manages to feel just as high-stakes as the organized crime subplot. Abby Quinn rounds out the family as Natalie, the well-behaved sister who got the good genes — and Elizabeth Perkins delivers a season-ending shocker as Annette, whose reveal as the crime boss orchestrating everything is the kind of twist that sends viewers immediately back to Episode 1 to uncover what they missed.

Levy spoke with Variety about building his follow-up to “Schitt’s Creek,” the very pre-planned criminal path ahead and what a potential second season might look like for two siblings who are now, definitively, in too deep.

You’ve spoken about taking a real break after “Schitt’s Creek” before developing this. What was the creative kernel that got you moving?

You really have to sit with the question of what excites you. We were lucky enough to get 80 episodes of “Schitt’s Creek,” and I knew how much I loved working on it — I wanted that same love for whatever I did next. I never go into something assuming it’s just going to be one season, so I needed to find an idea that would excite me enough to keep telling the story. I just kept thinking about being blackmailed into crime. It scares the shit out of me; I would not do well if I ever found myself in that situation. And at its core, a random person finding themselves blackmailed into crime is just endlessly entertaining. I wanted a buddy comedy, a brother-sister dynamic, a whole new family story — and I knew I wanted a female perspective on Morgan. I called up Rachel Sennott, who I just assumed would also not fare very well in the face of organized crime. She said yes, we spent six, eight months figuring out the show, brought it into Netflix, and they loved it. And that was it.

You’re clearly a fan of Rachel Sennott’s. Any chance we’d ever see you on her show “I Love L.A.”?

I don’t even know what I would play on that show.

Anything — anything would be believable. 

If she ever wants to write me in, just say the word. I’ll do it.

Why was the family dynamic so important to carry over from “Schitt’s Creek”?

I just think family dynamics are the funniest. Families in times of insane crisis — that can be the funniest times. I’m often laughing in times of insane crisis, so I’m endlessly fascinated by it. I think it’s also just a really excellent way of revealing character. So I knew I wanted to make another family show. And that’s also why I wanted to involve Rachel, because I love her comedy, I admire her comedy, but it’s a little bit different than mine. Our voices overlap, but they’re also very different. So I wanted to really push the possibility of what the tone of this show could be. Between the two of us, we found this really nice place of chaos and comedy and suspense. I do think there has to be some comedic thread to the way that I write. I just love dialogue.

The show balances the crime world against something as comparatively mundane as a local mayoral race — and somehow both feel equally high-stakes. How did you connect that?

This is a family that has inherited anxiety from their mother’s mother. You see Nona pass away in the first episode — that’s sort of where it all stemmed from. She was nuts, and it’s all trickled down through the family tree. A lot of this show is an examination of what we inherit from our family, from our parents, from their parents. We are a byproduct of our family tree. So anxiety runs rampant in this family. Not handling stress runs rampant in this family. Linda running for mayor, and Natalie helping her — that is the be-all, end-all for them. There is nothing more important, and the stakes are high. And I just found there to be a lot of comedy in that as well. The more seriously people take things, the funnier it is.

Nicky and Morgan keep failing upward — the worse they are, the more indispensable they become. Was that dynamic intentional?

As much as they wanted to get out, it’s like an undertow. The more you swim towards shore, the more you’re pulled out. The worse they were, the better they got at their jobs, and the more they were needed. And then by the end, they are fully in.

You mentioned you already know how the entire series ends. How mapped out is this world?

There is a very pre-planned criminal path that has already been laid out. We just need the opportunity to get there.

You’ve talked about circumstance shaping character — how does the crime world change Nicky and Morgan specifically?

I love the idea that circumstance makes people better. On “Schitt’s Creek,” moving to a small town made that family a better family. In the same way, I hope that parts of this world will make Morgan and Nicky more fully realized versions of themselves. For Morgan, she’s always been a rebellious person. She’s always wanted the spotlight, always wanted attention — and I think she’s getting it in this world. There’s a part of her that really enjoys it and gets thrills out of it. For Nicky, he’s not there yet. But my hope is that at some point it’ll force him out of his shell a little more, give him more confidence, make him feel a little more accomplished.

The season-ending reveal — Annette as the crime boss — is a big swing. When did you and Rachel decide that was where the story was going?

Rachel and I knew from the start of developing this season.

I didn’t see that coming. Were there signs that I missed?

I think if you were to go back and watch knowing how it ends, there are signs. Annette is a very savvy businesswoman, and when you operate in organized crime, you need to get your fingers in a lot of political pots. As soon as the tide turned on the election, she knew exactly who was going to be at the forefront of that race, and that’s when certain things shifted and she came on board. My hope is always that if someone chose to rewatch, there would be a lot there for them — we did weave in a lot of little hints. But I mean — your in-laws being a huge crime boss.

What does Season 2 for Morgan and Nicky look like then?

A Season 2 would just be: There’s no way out now.

That kind of negates my point that Nicky and Morgan kept succeeding due to their own charisma. In actuality they survive because Annette says so, and because of Morgan’s relationship to her son. Does Max know any of this?

She needs to keep him happy. Morgan and their dynamic, their relationship, is a great way of keeping her son happy. She can’t mess that up. And also — Nicky and Morgan know too much now. So even if they wanted to leave, they have a lot to answer for.

So Max has no idea.

[Levy shrugs]

This interview has been edited and condensed.