The reviews are in, and while “Toy Story 5” is getting high marks, it currently holds the lowest critic score out of all the mainline films in the franchise. 
The latest installment, which hits theaters this Friday, June 19, has a 94% critics’ rating on the review aggregator <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/toy_story_5">Rotten Tomatoes</a>.
In “Toy Story 5,” the gang must contend with children who are enamored with technology and what it means for the future of play. Woody, Buzz, and the others are all highly skeptical of a new tablet named Lilypad.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Toy Story 5 | Official Trailer | In Theaters June 19" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/c51ND9Hdbw0?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
“As a piece of family-entertainment content it has the unblemished sheen of a brand new smartphone. But at heart, it has gone dead,” the reviewer from the Guardian <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2026/jun/16/toy-story-5-review-pixar-franchise-needs-new-batteries">wrote</a>, giving the new film just two stars out of five. 
“For all the intensive, high-energy creative work that has clearly gone into this film’s every frame, the jeopardy, the novelty, the ideas and the passion are lacking; the crucial Toy Story theme of mortality feels underpowered.”
“Alas, Toy Story doesn’t follow through on its initial thesis that technology has turned humankind into a bunch of cruel, narcissistic zombies &#8230; But we have enough of that in the real world, so consider this movie an escape of sorts,” the Boston Globe reviewer <a href="https://www.bostonglobe.com/2026/06/16/arts/toy-story-5-review-lilypad/?p1=StaffPage">wrote</a>.
“The studio naturally holds back from portraying Lily as an all-out villain — more a misguided soul, merely concerned with what’s best for Bonnie. But the film fails to drum up any kind of meaningful conclusion on the matter, even if it’s a nuanced one,” said the <a href="https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/toy-story-5-review-release-pixar-b2997450.html">review</a> from the Independent.
Not all the reviews were negative, however, with the reviewer from Variety saying, “It’s a sublime summing up, a movie that reflects the whole series in its magic mirror, and (just maybe) a perfect ending.” But even with the support, it fell behind the rating of the original “Toy Story” and the other three sequels. The next lowest-rated installment is “Toy Story 4,” which has a 97% rating. “Toy Story” and “Toy Story 2” each have a perfect 100%. 
Film director Andrew Stanton explained during a previous interview that Lilypad is not the villain of the movie in the traditional sense.
The teaser trailer, released in November, indicated that a new tablet called “Lilypad” steals main character Bonnie’s attention as she forgoes playing to scroll. This recognizable storyline immediately resonated with parents and helped justify the idea of yet another “Toy Story” sequel.
“[Lilypad] is [the villain] to the toys because they’re understandably intimidated,” Stanton told Variety while clarifying the iPad stand-in is not meant to be the overall bad guy.
“She’s just the next phase in Bonnie’s life. She’s built like a toy in the sense that she wants to help the kid go forward, but she’s got very different skills and zero experience, whereas Jessie has nothing but experience and is probably unprepared for what to do.”
Co-director McKenna Harris told the outlet that several “Toy Story 5” creators pushed to turn Lilypad into a true villain, but that idea was ultimately shot down.
“Lots of people at the studio wanted her to be a villain, and it was so hard to strike the balance because I think we all come in with such loaded emotions towards devices. At the end of the day, it never made sense,” she said.

Toy Story 5

‘Toy Story 5’ Breaks The Wrong Kind Of Record For Pixar

Animation

Entertainment

Movies

Toy Story

Actor Russell Crowe said he rejected doing a sex scene in the popular historical drama “Gladiator” (2000) and stuck to his guns when he got pressured.
The actor discussed what happened during an appearance at Taormina Film Festival, per <a href="https://www.instagram.com/reels/DZm5EDqAJQg/">Deadline</a>.
“When we were shooting that film, there was a lot of pressure. The studio, the producers [thought] there should be sex between Maximus and the female characters. I just kept pushing back,” he said.
“This is the story of a man avenging the death of his wife and his child,” Crowe continued. “There cannot be a moment in that journey where he stops and has sex with somebody. It doesn’t make any sense because then that destroys the journey.”
The actor said he &#8220;stuck to my guns,&#8221; despite the fact that director Ridley Scott would have &#8220;loved a sex scene between me and [lead actress] Connie Nielsen.” 
The “Gladiator” star said sticking to his convictions led to Scott coming to his side and agreeing there was a “moral core of the film.&#8221; That bet paid off, as Crowe took home the Academy Award for Best Actor, and the film won Best Picture.
Crowe was not part of the sequel, which was released in 2024. The actor blamed the lackluster response on the film not having a moral code. 
“For them, in a second movie to destroy that moral center … it’s very interesting, because the second movie barely took the same box office that the first movie took. But, that’s 20 years later,&#8221; he said. 
&#8220;When you apply how much of a change there’s been on the value of a dollar, they failed,&#8221; Crowe went on. &#8220;And they failed because they didn’t understand why [the original movie] was successful — it was successful because it had a moral core.&#8221;
Crowe had discussed his frustration with the sequel before. He said in 2024, “I’m slightly uncomfortable with the fact they’re making another one — because, of course, I’m dead and I have no say in what gets done. But a couple of the things I’ve heard I’m like — no, no, no, that’s not in the moral journey of that particular character. But I can’t say anything, it’s not my place.”

Russell Crowe

Russell Crowe Reveals Why He Refused To Do A Sex Scene For ‘Gladiator’

Celebrities

Hollywood

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/introducing-upstream-a-lifestyle-and-culture-section-of-the-daily-wire" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream,</a> The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
For decades, He-Man occupied a bizarre corner of pop culture. Eternia wasn&#8217;t just fantasy, nor was it just science fiction. It was an unapologetically expansive fusion of barbarian heroes, laser rifles, ancient castles, flying vehicles, monsters, robots, and cosmic magic. It looked unlike anything else and was incredibly popular for it. Unfortunately, “Masters of the Universe” sands off most of those rough edges.
The biggest problem with the movie isn&#8217;t that it&#8217;s bad. Instead, it&#8217;s frustratingly average, due to an aversion to making strong stylistic decisions.
As a standalone action-adventure film, the movie is perfectly serviceable. The fight scenes are entertaining, the performances are generally solid, and there are enough nostalgic callbacks to keep longtime fans engaged. As a little kid, my Dad put on He-Man cartoons when he got fed up with watching whatever was on Nick Jr. with me, so I have a lot more nostalgia for the iconic 80s franchise than most people my age.
But as an adaptation of one of the strangest and most visually distinctive toy properties of its era, “Masters of the Universe” never figures out what it wants to be. The result is a film caught between reverence and embarrassment.
Rather than embracing the eccentricity of the source material, the filmmakers largely transform Eternia into a familiar modern blockbuster setting. The world often resembles a generic fantasy kingdom with slick science-fiction elements sprinkled on top. Outside of a few standout designs, much of the visual identity that made the 1987 &#8220;Masters of the Universe&#8221; memorable is absent.
That lack of commitment extends beyond the production design. The film never decides whether it wants to celebrate the original cartoon or parody it. Either answer would’ve been more acceptable, and certainly more interesting, than what we got.
Serious emotional moments are frequently interrupted by jokes, nostalgic scenes are undercut by irony, and designed comedic interactions (that are frequently quite funny) feel out of place during major narrative beats when the serious story is being advanced. Worst of all, characters are rarely allowed to sit in heroic moments before the script feels obligated to remind the audience not to take any of it too seriously.
Modern blockbusters have developed a habit of apologizing for their own premises, and &#8220;Masters of the Universe&#8221; certainly falls into that trap. Which is particularly noticeable in its treatment of the heroes.
In the original cartoon, Prince Adam&#8217;s secret wasn&#8217;t that he became a hero when he transformed into He-Man. He was already a hero. The transformation simply gave him greater physical strength. Adam had the courage, wisdom, and self-sacrifice that make a good hero even when he couldn&#8217;t rely on the Sword of Power.
The movie reverses that equation. He-Man often feels like an extension of Adam rather than the culmination of Adam&#8217;s character. It makes the hero more relatable, perhaps, but also less aspirational. He-Man should feel larger than life, instead, he frequently feels like a generic Marvel-esque protagonist wearing He-Man&#8217;s armor.
Nicholas Galitzine does admirable work with the material he&#8217;s given. This is a demanding role for an actor making his debut as a major action lead, and he generally succeeds. Camila Mendes also delivers a solid performance as Teela, though the script doesn&#8217;t give her enough meaningful interactions with her father, Man-At-Arms, to fully sell their familial relationship.
The standout performance belongs to Idris Elba. Initially, Elba&#8217;s Man-At-Arms appears destined to become a one-note tough-guy authority figure. Instead, he develops into one of the film&#8217;s most human characters. Since he is not given much screen time with just his daughter, Man-At-Arms&#8217; scenes mentoring Adam are among the movie&#8217;s strongest emotional moments and provide a glimpse of the richer character work the film occasionally hints at.
Jared Leto&#8217;s Skeletor is less successful; most of that stems from inconsistent characterization. The original Skeletor worked because he was simultaneously threatening and ridiculous. He was often the comic relief while the heroes remained earnest. Here, Skeletor becomes the primary source of dramatic tension while many of the heroes are tasked with delivering jokes. That may make sense according to modern blockbuster logic, but it misses something essential about the source material. The change strips away part of what made the character memorable.
Longtime fans may also be disappointed by how many supporting characters receive minimal attention. Beast Man barely speaks, Trap Jaw functions only as a mini-boss, Tri-Klops effectively disappears, and Battle Cat is sidelined until the last 20 minutes of the film. Several fan favorites are absent altogether. While no adaptation can include everyone, Eternia loses a lot of its personality when so many colorful characters are reduced to background decoration or silent antagonists with no actual character.
The movie is at its best whenever it fully embraces style. The Snake Mountain sequences are excellent: bathed in torchlight, deep reds, blue shadows, carved serpentine architecture, and dramatic color contrasts, they finally feel like the world of Eternia. The action choreography throughout the film is similarly impressive. Rather than relying entirely on standard blockbuster brawling, many fights embrace the exaggerated, almost cartoonish physicality that the source material demands. Those moments stand out because they reveal what the movie could have been.
The soundtrack follows a similar pattern. The original cartoon&#8217;s iconic theme is absent until the end in favor of new material that works well enough but lacks the same emotional impact. A few synth-heavy moments hint at the glam-metal energy that could’ve defined a modern Eternia&#8217;s soundscape, but the film never fully commits to the earnest &#8217;80s vibe. Several licensed song choices are distractingly on-the-nose, undercutting scenes that might have landed more effectively with a lighter touch.
Ultimately, “Masters of the Universe” suffers from a lack of conviction. Whenever the film makes a bold stylistic choice, it works. Whenever it fully embraces the bizarre world that made He-Man famous, it works. Whenever it trusts the audience to take its heroes seriously, it works.
The problem is that those moments are constantly competing with safer, corporate, more familiar blockbuster instincts. The result is a movie that is better than the infamous 1987 live-action adaptation but still falls short of becoming the definitive modern He-Man story fans have waited decades to see.
As an action movie, it&#8217;s enjoyable enough. As a He-Man movie, it&#8217;s harder to recommend without reservations. Fans of the franchise will likely find enough here to justify a trip to the theater. There are genuine crowd-pleasing moments and several sequences that capture the spirit of Eternia. Casual audiences, however, may be better served waiting for streaming.
Grade: C+

masters-of-the-universe-motu_dom1_marketing_stills01_g_r709_20260114.086694_R_rgb

What The New He-Man Movie Gets Wrong About Heroes

Upstream

Steven Spielberg’s new alien thriller, “Disclosure Day,” is leaving some moviegoers laughing their way out of theaters. This is an issue for the legendary filmmaker, as that movie was never intended to be a comedy.
The film’s official logline says, “If you found out we weren’t alone, if someone showed you, proved it to you, would that frighten you?”
Starring Emily Blunt, Josh O&#8217;Connor, Colin Firth, Eve Hewson, and Colman Domingo, &#8220;Disclosure Day&#8221; has earned average but not great reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. But the vibe on social media is decidedly more negative, with commenters saying they believe Spielberg has lost the golden touch that made films like “Jurassic Park” and “E.T.” so magical.
“So&#8230; is Disclosure Day meant to be a comedy or something? Because I was laughing my ass off during most of it,” one X user <a href="https://x.com/thecriticaldri2/status/2065099752694296781?s=43">wrote</a>. 
Other commenters mentioned how the film was rumored to run counter to the Christian faith, which they said was ultimately ineffective.
“Just got back from Disclosure Day. I went with the intention of debunking what I heard was a manipulation of Christian theology to leave room for aliens in God&#8217;s creation,” another person wrote. 
“I expected a high-quality movie with a dangerous messaging that would be planting a seed for the Great Deception. What I watched was an embarrassingly bad movie. Predictable. Cliche. The climax was laughable. It would have been semi-shocking two decades ago. The only thing that sort of saved it was the great acting despite the horrible script.”
The commenter went on, “As for debunking it spiritually, no need. It was so ham-fisted with its attempt to work aliens into theology that none of the elect could easily be swayed. I wasted two-and-a-half hours.”
“145 minutes for pretentious overacting in scenes intended for Oscar nomination clips. Disclosure Day was made by people who enjoy sniffing their own farts, and, boy howdy, did this movie sh*t the bed,” <a href="https://x.com/reallifefakewiz/status/2065266433659974050?s=43">echoed another</a>. “Pack it up, Grandpa. Spielberg is done.”
&#8220;It was mid at best. Jumbled, predictable, unbelievable, a garbage soundtrack, plot holes a plenty, and good acting. I’ve rewatched so many of Spielberg movies joyfully. This is a one and done,&#8221; another <a href="https://x.com/Variety/status/2065443513190187102">wrote</a>.
The movie debuted on June 12. It currently has an 82% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and a 74% audience score. 
Spielberg previously mentioned how the discovery of intelligent extraterrestrial life could challenge people&#8217;s understanding of faith. 
“The movie takes the position of the believers, or the curious, the ones that have been deeply affected by this,” Spielberg said in an <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/disclosure-day-director-steven-spielberg-on-alien-visitations/">interview</a> with CBS News. “And the movie also takes the position of the church. What does this do to the fundamental beliefs that many of us have? Is God our God only on this planet? Or is God a god for every system where there’s civilization and intelligent life, and even developing life?”
However, faith leaders and religious folks are pushing back on that idea, saying the existence of aliens wouldn’t be a faith-shaking moment even if the movie were perfectly executed. And they say it’s just not.

Disclosure Day

Spielberg Said ‘Disclosure Day’ Would Challenge Christian Faith. Instead, Many Find It Laughable.

Christianity

Steven Spielberg

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
“Every line will be crossed,” promises the poster for “Scary Movie,” the sixth entry in the horror-spoof franchise and the first proper Wayans-family installment in more than two decades. What passes for edgy comedy in 2026 was, not very long ago, simply called comedy. “Scary Movie 4,” released in 2006, featured fake Japanese dialogue consisting of lines such as “Karate judo sumo samurai?” and “Mitsubishi Subaru” — the sort of flippant gag we used to chuckle at collectively.
That is the odd tension running through the new “Scary Movie.” The film arrives in a culture that pushes ideological puritanism alongside libertinism in almost every other direction. We have already seen every variation of the genitalia gag, but a mere preferred-pronoun joke in the trailer inspired the usual online indignation, even as some<a href="https://x.com/drlisastein/status/2061879809572217059"> commenters complained</a> that the film did not instead make fun of Charlie Kirk’s murder. For many such critics, comedy is not so much an art form as a political tool to wield against perceived adversaries.
To their credit, Shawn and Marlon Wayans try to poke that landscape. The film features jokes about transgenderism, pronouns, Black Lives Matter, ICE raids, streamers, OnlyFans, and modern race relations. Nothing is technically off the table. The problem is that putting something on the table is not the same as properly cooking it.
In one scene, a police officer argues with his daughter, who presents as a transgender boy. After asking him to treat her as “one of the boys,” she smacks him across the face. The scene abruptly ends, cutting to the father nodding in baffled acceptance. I am no Hollywood comedy writer, but surely the joke lands better if the film follows its own premise to the obvious absurd conclusion: if she wants to be treated like one of the boys, then Dad should at least be allowed to react as though she is one and throw a punch back. Instead, the film flinches precisely where the gag should escalate.
The narrative is your usual “Scary Movie” premise. Ghostface is back, this time targeting the teenage daughter of Cindy Campbell (Anna Faris). The legacy cast now has children, and the killer is after them. That is the plot, stretched across a 90-minute montage of sketches, callbacks, and horror references. The film swings from “Scream” to “Smile,” “Get Out,” “Sinners,” “Longlegs,” and even “John Wick” for an entertaining final act, cutting from one gag to another with the attention span of a TikTok addict.
In this “throw everything at the wall and see what sticks” approach to comedy, some material works well. In one skit, a grim conversation about a stabbing unfolds against the backdrop of a “Final Destination” theme park, branded as the place “where everyone dies.” As characters discuss the attack, roller coasters fly off their rails behind them, killing hundreds. There is another great gag in which Ghostface calls a teenager asking whether anyone else is home. The teen replies that his father is out, but the plumber, gardener, and pool boy are all around. Ghostface suggests he look out the window, where ICE agents are arresting them all. It is crass and sharply constructed, and the sort of thing I wish the film did more often.
The racial humor is occasionally overdone, but it also produces memorable highlights. In the opening skit, a cameo from Teyana Taylor has her standing in a ritzy bar, bellowing “I’m black” in an exaggerated Harlem accent, prompting the camera to cut to a white woman frantically trying to swallow her pearl necklace. The gag works because the film is, at its best, an equal-opportunity offender, skewering both the performance of racial identity and the vacuity of polite white liberalism.
However, some references feel forced, as if the writers wanted to include them but had no idea what to do once they got there. The film’s riff on Jordan Peele’s “Get Out” recreates the hypnosis scene with Ghostface twirling the china teacup, but it does little beyond dangle the reference in front of the audience as a cinematic “’member this movie?” 
Still, there is pleasure in seeing Cindy, Brenda, Shorty, Ray, and Doofy again. Faris remains wonderfully committed to Cindy’s vacant sincerity, and the cast’s broad comic affectations transport you back to the 2000s.
The Wayanses have not made a cowardly movie. That alone distinguishes “Scary Movie” from much of modern comedy. Fearlessness, however, is not the same as excellence. The film crosses contemporary taboos, only to arrive on the other side with no sharper insight than “remember this?” before scurrying on to the next thing. Every line may be crossed, as the poster promised, but too few are crossed with any real purpose.
***
Harry Khachatrian (<a href="https://x.com/harry1t6">@Harry1T6</a>) is a film critic for the Washington Examiner. He is a software engineer, holds a master’s degree from the University of Toronto, and writes about wine at <a href="https://www.betweenbottles.com/">BetweenBottles.com</a>.

scary-movie-SCRY_THEATRE_OnLine_Teaser_One_Sheet_2025x3000_04.30.26_rgb

How ‘Scary Movie’ Got Stuck Between Funny And Safe

Comedy

Horror Movies

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
The funny thing about the new “Masters of the Universe” movie is that nearly everyone seemed determined to misunderstand it before it premiered.
The trailer features a <a href="https://ew.com/he-man-pronouns-in-masters-of-the-universe-trailer-spark-conservative-outrage-11891874">shot</a> of the main character, Adam, at his desk behind a nameplate that says “He/Him.” Of course half the internet panicked while the other half preened, and almost everyone walked straight into the bit. Conservatives saw the clip and assumed another childhood franchise had been stuffed into a DEI binder. Leftists were happy to claim another cultural trophy. Both missed the joke.
Apart from being a nostalgia filled blast, the new “He-Man” movie works because it understands something Hollywood usually treats like a thought crime: Evil is not defeated by a group therapy session. The movie isn’t an endorsement of that worldview, but a mockery of it.
The live-action “Masters of the Universe,” released theatrically June 5, stars Nicholas Galitzine as Prince Adam/He-Man, Jared Leto as Skeletor, and Idris Elba as Duncan/Man-At-Arms. Amazon’s own description frames the story around Adam saving “his family and his world” from Skeletor’s rule. That matters because the film’s central jest is not just cultural; it’s moral.
Beneath the explosive, nostalgia-fueled spectacle, “Masters of the Universe” is a thinly veiled satire of the modern corporate grievance complex. It pokes fun at HR culture, it mocks the blue hair brigade, and it skewers the childish postmodern fantasy that every conflict is just a misunderstanding waiting to be resolved by therapy speak.
Skeletor is not waiting for someone to validate his trauma and invite him into a restorative justice circle. He does not care about your shared emotional space. Skeletor is a genocidal maniac.
This is the key to the whole movie. Its moral universe is not complicated in the lazy, modern way so many blockbusters now pretend to be complicated. It makes clear that evil exists, evil chooses evil, and evil sometimes loves being evil. And when evil refuses to stop, refuses to negotiate, and keeps coming for your home and your family, the moral response is not weakness dressed up as compassion. The moral response is courage.
This is where the film becomes more than a joke at the expense of corporate wokeness. It becomes the defense of something older, deeper, and much more important: strength ordered toward the protection of the innocent.
Elba’s Man-At-Arms drives this point home as he trains a young Adam. The lesson is not that masculinity means cruelty, nor that a man should go looking for violence. The lesson is that a man has a duty to stand between danger and the people he loves.
That is what He-Man represents. He fights because there are things worth defending. He protects because protection is one of the foundational duties of manhood. And that, more than anything, is what makes the movie feel almost radical in the current cultural moment.
For years, audiences have been told that traditional heroism is suspect. Fathers are fools, warriors are dangerous, courage is primitive, protection is patronizing, moral clarity is simplistic. Every villain needs a grievance dissertation, and every hero needs to learn that the real battle was inside himself all along. “Masters of the Universe” does not play that game.
But the movie is not merely a rebuke to the woke Left. It’s also a rebuke to the woke Right, or the New Right, whatever we’re calling them now. I mean the perpetually online, performative “Right” that mistakes reflexive isolationism for wisdom, “swagger” for strength, and cynicism for seriousness.
The Left’s error is obvious: It thinks evil can be managed by language, empathy, and institutions that specialize in avoiding reality. But the woke Right has developed its own mirror-image error. It sees real evil abroad, in Iran or in the imperial ambitions of Russia&#8217;s Vladimir Putin, and responds with a shrug masquerading as prudence. It looks at tyrants who have already told the world what they want and insists that the truly sophisticated move is to pretend they don’t mean it. That is not prudence. Prudence begins by seeing reality as it is.
Iran is not a misunderstood actor seeking emotional validation from the international community. Nor is Putin’s war against Ukraine an unfortunate misunderstanding caused by insufficient empathy. Iran is the world’s leading state sponsor of terrorism, and the Ukrainian conflict is an imperial war waged by a man who wants territory, control, and submission.
This is what evil looks like in practice. It doesn’t always announce itself with a skull for a face and a horned staff. Sometimes it arrives in a suit, gives speeches about historical destiny, bombs apartment buildings, demands territory, and calls the whole thing peace.
But whether in Eternia or the real world, the moral principle is the same: When a regime has built its identity around revolutionary domination, terrorism, and the pursuit of weapons that would alter the balance of civilization, you don’t defeat that regime by pretending that your refusal to act is a moral strategy.
And here the woke Right makes the same mistake as the woke Left, with different branding. The woke Left says, “Surely we can defeat evil with empathy and feelings.” The woke Right says, “Surely evil will stop if we simply declare it none of our business.” Both positions are fantasies, and they both allow evil to continue while the people who should know better congratulate themselves for being &#8220;above the fight.&#8221;
That doesn’t mean America should rush blindly into every conflict. It doesn’t mean every foreign crisis requires American troops. And it doesn’t mean every enemy is best answered with bombs. Prudence, strategy, cost, and national interest all matter.
A strong country, like a strong man, does not fight because it enjoys fighting. It fights when fighting is necessary. It arms allies when allies are standing between civilization and conquest. It deters enemies before deterrence becomes war. It understands that weakness invites aggression and that the time for talking eventually ends when the other side uses every negotiation as a pause between attacks.
In this way, He-Man’s line lands heavy during his final battle with Skeletor: “The time for talking is over.”
This is not a rejection of reason. It’s the recognition that reason has already been rejected by the other side. It’s the realization that mercy cannot mean surrender to tyranny. And that seriousness is exactly what so much of the online commentary missed.
“Masters” also offers a clean break from the fake masculinity peddled by <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/andrew-tate">Andrew Tate</a> and his imitators. Tate-style masculinity is not strength. It sells young men the idea that being a man means becoming unaccountable and unburdened by anyone else’s needs.
It’s also not a coincidence that Tate was recently glazing Russia and Putin. Fake masculinity is often drawn to fake strength. It sees a strongman and mistakes him for a strong man.
He-Man understands that his strength is not ordered toward conquest. It’s ordered toward protection. His masculinity is not chest-thumping or cruelty. It’s duty. It is love strong enough to become dangerous when the people he loves are threatened. That is the part Hollywood keeps missing. And it is the part the online woke Right too often misses as well.
A man who refuses to protect his family is not enlightened. A country that refuses to recognize evil until it arrives at the doorstep is not wise. It’s asleep.
The appeal of “Masters” and of He-Man is not complicated. Audiences are tired of heroes who need to be deconstructed before they are allowed to be heroic. Sometimes the good guy should simply be good. Sometimes the bad guy should simply be stopped. Sometimes the lesson really is that a man protects his family, defends his home, and refuses to let evil win.
He-Man wins because he understands the truth our culture keeps trying to forget: When evil will not stop, good men must make it stop.
***
Justin Siegel is the executive producer of The Ben Shapiro Show.

Nicholas Galitzine stars as ‘Adam’ in MASTERS OF THE UNIVERSE.

The New He-Man Movie Exposes A Dangerous Lie The Left And Right Both Believe

Hollwyood

Iran

Masculinity

Putin

Wokeness

The art director for the surprise hit movie “Obsession” has ignited a major controversy online after taking to social media to complain about how much she was paid.
Sally Choi said in the post shared late last week that she debated whether to publicize her thoughts “for a long time” but ultimately decided to let the world know how upset she was.
“I’ve been holding a lot of weight over the past two years since the production of ‘Obsession,’ so I’m going to say it as it is,” Cho wrote in an Instagram post.
She explained that the film was made for “$750K and is projected to make $250M. How much I made: $300/day as Art Director. This came out to $6741.36 after taxes. No mileage.”
“I did know the rate beforehand and agreed to it, but atp I was living paycheck to paycheck. This is the reality of most filmmakers especially those who work below the line. We become a line in the budget sheet to keep as low as possible,” she went on, adding that she and other crew members did more work than what they signed on for because it was an indie production.
Choi ended the lengthy post by encouraging other filmmakers to share their rates in the hopes of “turn[ing] a tide in the industry.”
<blockquote class="instagram-media" style="background: #FFF; border: 0; border-radius: 3px; box-shadow: 0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width: 540px; min-width: 326px; padding: 0; width: calc(100% - 2px);" data-instgrm-captioned="" data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/DZLeFTmSEh2/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" data-instgrm-version="14">
<div style="padding: 16px;">
&nbsp;
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; align-items: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 40px; margin-right: 14px; width: 40px;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 100px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 60px;"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 19% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: block; height: 50px; margin: 0 auto 12px; width: 50px;"></div>
<div style="padding-top: 8px;">
<div style="color: #3897f0; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: 550; line-height: 18px;">View this post on Instagram</div>
</div>
<div style="padding: 12.5% 0;"></div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: row; margin-bottom: 14px; align-items: center;">
<div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(0px) translateY(7px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; height: 12.5px; transform: rotate(-45deg) translateX(3px) translateY(1px); width: 12.5px; flex-grow: 0; margin-right: 14px; margin-left: 2px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; height: 12.5px; width: 12.5px; transform: translateX(9px) translateY(-18px);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: 8px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 50%; flex-grow: 0; height: 20px; width: 20px;"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 2px solid transparent; border-left: 6px solid #f4f4f4; border-bottom: 2px solid transparent; transform: translateX(16px) translateY(-4px) rotate(30deg);"></div>
</div>
<div style="margin-left: auto;">
<div style="width: 0px; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-right: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(16px);"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; flex-grow: 0; height: 12px; width: 16px; transform: translateY(-4px);"></div>
<div style="width: 0; height: 0; border-top: 8px solid #F4F4F4; border-left: 8px solid transparent; transform: translateY(-4px) translateX(8px);"></div>
</div>
</div>
<div style="display: flex; flex-direction: column; flex-grow: 1; justify-content: center; margin-bottom: 24px;">
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; margin-bottom: 6px; width: 224px;"></div>
<div style="background-color: #f4f4f4; border-radius: 4px; flex-grow: 0; height: 14px; width: 144px;"></div>
</div>
&nbsp;
<p style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; line-height: 17px; margin-bottom: 0; margin-top: 8px; overflow: hidden; padding: 8px 0 7px; text-align: center; text-overflow: ellipsis; white-space: nowrap;"><a style="color: #c9c8cd; font-family: Arial,sans-serif; font-size: 14px; font-style: normal; font-weight: normal; line-height: 17px; text-decoration: none;" href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DZLeFTmSEh2/?utm_source=ig_embed&amp;utm_campaign=loading" target="_blank" rel="noopener">A post shared by °•°sally•°•♡ (@kiwisupreez)</a>
</div>
</blockquote>
<script async src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>
While the art director for “Obsession” did have some support in the comments, most reactions centered on how Choi wasn’t the one taking the risk, and because she didn’t have the same financial stakes, she didn&#8217;t deserve a higher cut in the profits. They also said her ungrateful reaction would all but guarantee she’d never succeed in the industry.
“One year total experience. Only credit pre-Obsession is a single short film. Sign on to a low budget indie. Agree to rate. Movie explodes. You&#8217;re suddenly the Art Director [for] the most talked about film of the year,” one X commenter <a href="https://x.com/lukebarnett/status/2063024041322303814?s=43">wrote</a>. “If this ever happens to you, let me give one piece of advice. Embrace it. Use the credit to fight off offers, get a BTL agent, turn those difficult three weeks into an incredible career.” 
“Do NOT cut every connection you have to the filmmakers, put out tweets about how you wish you&#8217;d shut down their production, and complain about the rate you agreed to,” the post continued. 
“When I worked in fashion casting every model knew the Condé Nast rate was $150 / day and they were lining up down the hall. Bc it meant they could potentially get a $25k / day campaign and it was good for their book,” another person <a href="https://x.com/amandamilius/status/2063363350143369709?s=43">agreed</a>.
“In [the] film industry there is no universe where a second time art director isn’t doing it for their reel off the bat and the $ second. And also no universe where an investor, top of the line credit, distributor etc are sharing profits w someone who put zero $ INTO the film in some way and had no risk exposure, unless contracted prior.”
“As someone who freelances, this is just the game. She agreed to the pay and did it. And now that the film has done well, I&#8217;m not sure what she expects. Retro active pay beyond what she agreed to? She has her name attached to a highly successful film. She could market herself for future projects where she could make more,” a third commenter <a href="https://x.com/thebasicexpert1/status/2063623049753305191?s=43">observed</a>. “Instead, I think with this attitude, she&#8217;s going to make future producers think twice before they hire her despite her work on this successful film.”
“This post is a cautionary tale of how victimhood mentality is poison,” another said. “The very nature of low budget independent filmmaking is working long hours, wearing many hats, and helping each other out. You do it because it’s what you love. But this is the entitlement culture we live in: Someone thinking that just because they showed up and did their job for the agreed upon salary, they’re entitled to the sun, the moon, and the stars, simply because the work was demanding.” 
After so many people weighed in, Choi <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/DZS9VjuvYiw/">responded</a> with a follow-up Instagram post. “I feel no obligation to clear any misunderstandings from my last post … What I posted struck a nerve, not because it was a singular story of being overlooked, but because this happens everyday, in and out of the film industry.”
“It is finally time to speak your truth. Do not be afraid; we face the powers that &#8216;were&#8217; together,” she concluded.

Obsession

The Real Drama Behind ‘Obsession’ Started After The Credits Rolled

“Masters of the Universe” is on target to be a gigantic flop despite a massive production budget and huge marketing effort, and now the film’s producer Steve Tisch is under scrutiny again for his reported ties to Jeffrey Epstein.
Tisch, who is also co-owner of the New York Giants, denied that he was ever close with Epstein despite frequent email exchanges, including conversations about a 20-year-old Ukrainian woman Epstein was allegedly trying to convince to date the NFL owner. Tisch <a href="https://www.wsj.com/us-news/inside-nfl-owner-steve-tischs-brief-association-with-epstein-0f3f407a">said</a> that he only had a “brief association” with the convicted sexual predator.
“As we all know now, he was a terrible person and someone I deeply regret associating with,” he said.
Interestingly, the filmmakers didn’t hide the association with Tisch as producers. They did appear to downplay Leto’s involvement despite him being one of the film’s stars. This comes at a time when the NFL is being <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/athletic/7012707/2026/02/01/steve-tisch-giants-epstein-files-nfl-owners/">criticized</a> for remaining quiet on Tisch’s ties to Epstein while Hollywood isn’t coming under the same kind of scrutiny. 
Blame is already being placed on one of the movie’s stars, Jared Leto, due to sexual assault allegations. <a href="https://gizmodo.com/masters-of-the-universe-knows-its-got-a-skeletor-problem-2000762641">Rumor has it</a> he was banned from promoting the movie at all, which has movie fans questioning why he was selected to play the main villain, Skeletor, in the first place.
“Scary Movie” took top spot at the box office over the weekend while “Masters of the Universe” slid into second with a lackluster $29.3 million opening weekend in North America and just $25 million overseas. It’s nowhere near close to recouping the amount spent to make and promote the film.
“This is a soft opening for an action adventure with franchise and series potential,” industry expert David A. Gross <a href="https://variety.com/2026/film/box-office/box-office-scary-movie-franchise-best-opening-masters-of-the-universe-flops-1236765638/">told</a> Variety of the box office results. “[R]ight now, the only fantasy heroes doing strong business are the biggest and most established superheroes, like Spider-Man, Deadpool, Wolverine, and Superman.”
Horror movies continued to dominate, including “Scary Movie” and runaway hits “Obsession” and “Backrooms,” which were both produced on small budgets. Both films have been showcased as examples of how moviegoers are hungry for original stories and not franchise films.
“Masters of the Universe” is an adaptation of the popular He-Man franchise featuring the hero Prince Adam (Nicholas Galitzine), alter ego He-Man, attempting to defeat the evil Skeletor (Leto) on the planet Eternia.

Steve Tisch

Box Office Bust Puts Spotlight On Film Producer’s Epstein Connections

He-Man's $29M Bust Puts Spotlight On Steve Tisch's Epstein Connections

Box Office

Jeffrey Epstein

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Much has been <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hollywoods-worst-nightmare-is-already-here">written</a> about how great the new independent horror movie &#8220;Obsession&#8221; is. With a budget of just $750,000, <a href="https://deadline.com/2026/06/box-office-obsession-record-1236949178/">it’s already earned</a> $224 million. The success is entirely deserved; it’s a phenomenal film. Yet, the most important thing about it is not what it shows, but what it says.
&#8220;Obsession&#8221; resonates because it combines two deeply human tropes. The first is this: A character gets the thing he&#8217;s been striving after for so long, and it doesn’t satisfy him the way he thought it would. Be careful what you wish for, the grass is always greener on the other side, and all that. The second is unrequited love. The pain of falling for someone who doesn’t like you back is something that most people experience. There’s a reason why it’s been fodder for so many stories and so much art.
If there’s a moral to &#8220;Obsession,&#8221; it’s this: When you have feelings for someone who isn’t willing to give you a shot, the best place for them isn’t with you.
The film follows “Bear” (Michael Johnston), a 20-something man who’s shy and deeply in love with his coworker and friend, Nikki (Inde Navarrette). Unable to admit his feelings for her and ask her on a date, he goes to a crystal shop and buys a “One Wish Willow,” which advertises that it will grant one wish upon being broken. When Bear does so and wishes that Nikki would love him more than anything in the world, her demeanor immediately changes. The love of Bear’s life finally loves him back, and everything is great — until what’s actually happened becomes apparent: This Nikki isn’t quite who Bear thinks she is.
Many have suggested that Bear is the villain of the story. That goes too far. Bear did what so many of us do: He inadvertently meddled with another person’s feelings without regard for how it would affect her and was completely unprepared for the consequences. Yet he did so by doing what so many of us have also done: by hoping against hope that our special someone really does like us back.
He reacted to Nikki’s seeming about-face how you’d expect a shy guy who had the girl of his dreams throwing herself into his arms would act: shock, confusion, and stopping her advances to see if she’s okay. Only when she seems to indicate that she really does want him does he relent. While we, the audience, know that there’s this magic spell that’s been put on her, the characters of &#8220;Obsession&#8221; seem to inhabit the same sort of world as ours and treat magic the same way we would. So it’s understandable, at least at first, that Bear doesn’t quite comprehend or accept that what he’s dealing with is something other than sudden-onset true love.
If Bear has moral fault, it’s not so much for the willow itself but for the reasoning he displays. There is a deliberate shot of him looking at the toy immediately after Nikki’s behavior changes. It’s clear that he has a growing suspicion that something is very wrong, but he’s so taken by the situation that he doesn’t examine it too closely until it becomes unignorable. This is somewhat defensible at first, but Bear eventually does become fully culpable for his choices.
<div id="attachment_1108483" style="width: 417px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1108483" class=" wp-image-1108483" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/obsession-OBS_FP_00039_R_rgb-300x169.jpg" alt="" width="407" height="229" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/obsession-OBS_FP_00039_R_rgb-300x169.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/obsession-OBS_FP_00039_R_rgb-1024x576.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/obsession-OBS_FP_00039_R_rgb-768x432.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/06/obsession-OBS_FP_00039_R_rgb.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 407px) 100vw, 407px" />Courtesy of Focus Features</div>
This is exemplified when Bear asks pseudo-Nikki if her dad really does have cancer. This was the story she told to get him to stay with her the night he made the wish and is therefore foundational to their entire relationship. After her “no, no, no, I thought we were having a nice date” reaction <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UWVznyWUS-E">that’s gone viral on social media</a>, pseudo-Nikki says, “What does it matter?” Tellingly, Bear agrees. That’s the question that’s at the heart of &#8220;Obsession.&#8221; It matters because it’s the truth. The truth about whether Nikki really does like Bear matters, but Bear seems not to want to question his seeming good fortune.
If there’s one point where Bear slides into the wrong, it’s when he has a conversation with the “real” Nikki, who’s briefly able to slip out. She begs him to kill her, and it’s apparent she’s suffering a lot.
Bear doesn’t kill her, and there are good reasons for that. There still might be a way to break the spell, and also because, as far as the world would see, he would just be murdering his devoted, if slightly odd, girlfriend while she slept. No, what’s bad is not what Bear does, but what he says. Specifically, he asks, “What&#8217;s so bad about being with me?” 
It’s at this moment that many might wonder why Bear is making this about himself. Nikki is the one suffering here, and Bear caused it. At the same time, it’s a very human thing to wonder. I wish I could say I had never uttered any variation of Bear’s question before. Nikki’s response, the real Nikki’s response, is the perfect counter: “I’ve never been with you.”
It’s not that loving Bear would have been bad, it’s that Nikki didn’t love him. Loving Bear was simply not compatible with Nikki, so what’s happened instead is that Nikki has been possessed by this demon who is obsessed with Bear.
What makes the tragedy worse is that Bear had other options: He seemed to have real chemistry with another character, Sarah. But by pursuing Nikki, he foreclosed what would have probably been a good relationship.
When pseudo-Nikki tells Bear that everything is all his fault, she’s not wrong. His fundamental moral flaw is passivity. Had he just told her how he felt early on, he would have gotten the “no” he didn’t want but definitely needed, and none of this would have happened. But he was scared. That’s a very human feeling: There’s a reason why <a href="https://www.mystateline.com/news/national/almost-half-of-young-men-have-never-approached-a-woman-romantically-study/">45% of young men have never</a> asked out a woman in person before. Candidly, I saw a lot of my younger self in Bear.
Funny enough, the film taught me something in real time. As I was sitting down in the theater, I noticed that just about everyone else was sitting in twos. Even in the pitch darkness, I felt very conspicuous. Great, I thought. Everyone here has their person, and I don’t. Why didn’t I have someone who loved me who was by my side?
But I, too, was indulging in the misunderstanding that I would see enacted on screen. When pseudo-Nikki breaks the willow to make Bear obsessed with her in the finale, she knows very well what she’s doing. It shows that while she’s obsessed with him, she doesn’t actually love him. Or rather, she has the same superficial understanding of what love means that many of us do, in a more intentional, malicious way.
Love isn’t just wanting affection from someone. It’s wanting the best for them. And pseudo-Nikki doesn’t want what’s best for Bear. In fact, when she realizes that he doesn’t feel about her the same way she feels about him, she’s perfectly willing to use the willow on him. She’s fine with making him suffer in order to get the validation that she thinks she needs from him. You could call that a lot of things, but it’s not love.
While Bear did the same thing earlier, he did it with the same sort of misunderstanding that a lot of us do. It came from loneliness and wishful thinking and from not really understanding the consequences of what he was asking. As a sort of vague yearning, wanting somebody to love you is human and earnest and largely harmless. However, what the film shows us is that if you’ve ever wanted your unreciprocated crush to love you back, no you don’t — because this is what it would look like.
Love is not something you can manufacture, and if it were, the consequences would be horrifying. Bear would have really benefited from hearing the old saying, &#8220;if you love something, set it free.&#8221;
***
Stephan Kapustka is a writer at the American Spectator. Follow him on X <a href="https://x.com/SteveKapustka" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@SteveKapustka</a>.

obsession-OBS_FP_00073_R_rgb

The Dating Advice Hidden Inside The Year’s Biggest Horror Surprise

Dating

Relationships

This article is part of <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/upstream" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Upstream</a>, The Daily Wire’s new home for culture and lifestyle. Real human insight and human stories — from our featured writers to you.
***
Last weekend marked a historic turning point at the box office that should give every normal American a reason to cheer. Two lower-budget horror films rooted in YouTube and online culture, &#8220;Obsession&#8221; and &#8220;Backrooms,&#8221; dominated the charts and delivered a powerful rebuke to Hollywood&#8217;s tired establishment. And just months before, independent movie &#8220;Iron Lung&#8221; did the same.
&#8220;Obsession,&#8221; directed by 26-year-old Curry Barker, is a supernatural psychological thriller about a hopeless romantic who makes a Faustian bargain to win his crush&#8217;s heart, only for the wish to spiral into a terrifying nightmare. Shot in just 20 days on a shoestring budget under $1 million, the film opened to $17.2 million and then grew an impressive 39% in its second weekend to $23.9 million. As of early June 2026, it has crossed $105 million domestically and $150 million worldwide. Barker previously honed his skills on YouTube via &#8220;That&#8217;s a Bad Idea,&#8221; teaming up on a successful horror short called &#8220;The Chair.&#8221;
&#8220;Backrooms,&#8221; helmed by 20-year-old Kane Parsons, adapts his viral internet creepypasta into a mind-bending found-footage horror experience where people fall through reality into endless, unsettling yellow rooms filled with existential dread and lurking horrors. Built from Parsons&#8217; massively popular YouTube series, the film cost around $10 million and opened to a staggering $81 million domestically and $118 million globally, setting records for A24 and making Parsons the youngest director ever to land a number one movie.
&#8220;Iron Lung,&#8221; written, directed, starred in, and self-financed by popular YouTuber Markiplier (Mark Fischbach), is a claustrophobic sci-fi horror thriller based on the indie video game. It follows a convict piloting a rickety submarine through an ocean of blood on a distant moon in a desperate search for survival. Made for roughly $3 million, the film opened to $17.8 million domestically and has grossed over $51 million worldwide, proving a massive success for a self-distributed indie project.
Together, these YouTube-bred films crushed bigger studio fare and proved that fresh, unfiltered storytelling can capture audiences sick of being preached to. This success came from normal dudes focused on craft, hard work, and actual storytelling over identity politics. All three tested material directly with real viewers and improved based on honest feedback and hard data. They wisely skipped the conformity enforcers and built loyal audiences from the ground up through merit and persistence.
YouTube success forced Hollywood to pay attention. &#8220;Obsession&#8221; triggered a fierce bidding war and landed with Focus Features and Blumhouse. &#8220;Backrooms&#8221; earned A24&#8217;s full theatrical backing and the support of iconic horror producer James Wan. &#8220;Iron Lung&#8221; succeeded largely through grassroots fan power and self-distribution, in which Markiplier’s audience sent letters directly to theaters demanding that they play the movie and promising to show up in big numbers.
The gatekeeper problem
Sundance and the rest of the festival circuit have long been elitist echo chambers pushing progressive orthodoxies, identity dramas, climate hysteria, and attacks on masculinity and traditional values. The result? Taxpayer-subsidized flops that alienated everyday Americans and accelerated Hollywood&#8217;s theatrical decline.
Barker, Parsons, and Markiplier wisely skipped that entire rigged game. YouTube democratizes storytelling through algorithms that reward watch time, talent, and effort, not politics or DEI checklists. Creators can experiment cheaply using phones, free software, and online tutorials while testing ideas in public. Viewers respond instantly, and the analytics are brutally honest. What emerges is a system that rewards material people want to watch, not whatever happens to satisfy an ideological trend or leftist activism. By the time creators arrive at studios, they often already own their IP and bring a loyal audience with them.
Anticipating the critiques
Of course, the gender goblins will dismiss all this as &#8220;privilege&#8221; or &#8220;regression.&#8221; The goofs over at SlashFilm whined that the pipeline only works for &#8220;cishet white guys&#8221; due to algorithmic biases and other excuses. A Defector review sneered at these &#8220;YouTubers-turned-feature-horror-directors&#8221; as &#8220;barrel-scraping trend-chasing&#8221; with derivative work lacking depth.
That attitude only exposes how disconnected they are from normal people. Audiences want escapism, tension, and fun. YouTube&#8217;s transparent metrics prove anyone can compete if he has the drive. Entry barriers have never been lower, rewarding persistence over a victimhood mindset. The &#8220;anti-intellectual&#8221; smear collapses when their theory-obsessed approach keeps producing expensive flops that ignore what real Americans want.
Virality proved massive demand before any studio help arrived. This is authentic public validation, not insider favoritism.
A call to action for conservative filmmakers
This moment is bigger than three horror movies. It is a blueprint for taking back cultural ground that has been surrendered for far too long. Conservatives have complained about Hollywood&#8217;s leftward bias for decades. Now the path to change is clear and open.
Start simple: buy tickets for movies like &#8220;Obsession,&#8221; &#8220;Backrooms,&#8221; and &#8220;Iron Lung,&#8221; bring friends, and talk about them afterward. Markets notice momentum. Every dollar spent on entertainment that respects the audience starves the propaganda machine and rewards creators who prioritize story over sermons. These young directors bring raw ingenuity and a sharp instinct for what resonates with Gen Z, without the propaganda.
But passive support is not enough. It is time for conservatives to create. Young men and women with talent, faith, traditional values, and a strong work ethic should pick up cameras, write scripts, and launch YouTube channels. Experiment fearlessly. Test ideas with real audiences instead of seeking approval from leftist gatekeepers. The tools have never been cheaper or more accessible.
Barker, Parsons, and Markiplier did not wait for institutional permission; they built audiences first and forced the industry to notice. Conservatives who care about culture should think the same way. Start channels that celebrate Western values. Make short films that promote individual responsibility. Find collaborators who care about craftsmanship and conviction. Over time, real creative networks form — and eventually, so do lasting institutions.
Pursue excellence relentlessly. Reject victimhood and mediocrity. The cultural battlefield belongs to those willing to show up and compete. If conservatives commit to creating compelling art at scale, we can reclaim the stories that shape the next generation.
The opportunity is here already; in many ways, the rebellion has already begun.
***
Albert Hanover is the pseudonym of a film executive who requested anonymity for this article.  He has worked in Hollywood for nearly three decades.

obsession-OBS_FP_00039_R_rgb

Hollywood’s Worst Nightmare Is Already Here

Actor Elijah Wood posted a rant on X detailing his negative experience with a QR code menu at the cinema chain Alamo Drafthouse.
The “Lord of the Rings” star made a sarcastic dig while describing the new food ordering process, which he called “truly awful.” Wood demanded a return to physical menus.
“For the first time yesterday, I experienced the new Alamo Drafthouse QR code ordering system and I can tell you it’s truly awful,” the actor shared on X.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
For the first time yesterday, I experienced the new <a href="https://x.com/alamodrafthouse?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">@alamodrafthouse</a> QR code ordering system and I can tell you it’s truly awful. Rather than making ordering food and drink more efficient, it actually adds steps to the process AND if you want to order additional items during the…
— Elijah Wood (@elijahwood) <a href="https://x.com/elijahwood/status/2061849244915622015?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">June 2, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.x.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
“Rather than making ordering food and drink more efficient, it actually adds steps to the process AND if you want to order additional items during the film you HAVE to open your phone,” the post continued. “No, your cute reference to that irony in your How To Alamo video doesn’t negate how ridiculous this is. Please don’t cut corners with your staff and revert back to physical menus and order cards.”
WATCH FROM TODAY&#8217;S EPISODE OF MORNING WIRE:
  <iframe style="aspect-ratio: 16/9; max-width: 100%; width: 100%; border: 0; height: auto;" title="DW Player" src="https://public.dailywire.com/preroll-player/embed.html?playback-id=4Em02g02OVySl5DDTjCdv01tFj87a8yTL7w&amp;ad-tag-url=https%3A%2F%2Fpubads.g.doubleclick.net%2Fgampad%2Fads%3Fiu%3D%2F61914415%2Fdw.video.article%26description_url%3Ddailywire.com%26url%3D%26tfcd%3D0%26npa%3D0%26sz%3D640x480%26min_ad_duration%3D5000%26max_ad_duration%3D60000%26gdfp_req%3D1%26unviewed_position_start%3D1%26vpos%3Dpreroll%26output%3Dvast%26plcmt%3D1%26env%3Dvp%26vpa%3Dclick%26vpmute%3D0%26impl%3Ds%26correlator%3D%5Bcachebuster%5D" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen"></iframe>
&nbsp;
Alamo Drafthouse is a popular cinema chain known for combining new releases and cult classics with full in-theater dining. They are also notorious for a strict &#8220;no talking or texting&#8221; policy, which is one of the reasons that the QR code ordering was met with such disdain by customers. 
The company <a href="https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/alamo-drafthouse-layoffs-1236108753/">laid off</a> 15 corporate employees in 2025, roughly 9% of its support staff, and an unknown number of hourly cinema workers in January last year.
Per <a href="https://www.thewrap.com/creative-content/movies/elijah-wood-hates-alamo-drafthouse-qr-code-ordering/">The Wrap</a>, a spokesperson for the Alamo claimed that the change would not lead to future layoffs and said all staffers who previously helped with ordering had new positions in the company. That unnamed spokesperson also reportedly said that 85% of guests placed food orders before the movie began.
The theater chain introduced the <a href="https://drafthouse.com/news/our-shift-to-qr-ordering?srsltid=AfmBOorvMzuushpKmnLMu2g1i_cKlxfEiANtAKwQiPrPEjXrC9FrEptN">QR code ordering system</a> earlier this year. The company <a href="https://drafthouse.com/news/our-shift-to-qr-ordering">website</a> said it was done in an effort to “reduce distractions (goodbye check drop during the climax) and, in the long term, make the experience even better.”
“Putting ordering control directly in our guests’ hands allows us to move faster and more efficiently, creating a smoother, more responsive experience without added distraction,” the original announcement said.
The company also said as the policy was introduced that “only a small percentage” of orders were made during films. It also stressed that the no cell phone policy for texting and personal use would remain as a “custom-built, dark-screen system” that’s “designed to minimize distractions” would be used for taking orders.
Social media users were not impressed.
“They terminated my fiancée and all the others on the IT team who tried to warn management that the company’s infrastructure couldn’t handle it and that the customer base didn’t want it. It’s all about Sony’s bottom line,” one of the commenters on Wood’s post <a href="https://x.com/yeoldethotticus/status/2061872363529019422">said</a>, prompting the actor to reply, “Ugh. I’m sorry.”
“I took someone [to Alamo Drafthouse] for their first time not knowing they changed it and apologized to them,” echoed <a href="https://x.com/AllieGoertz/status/2061880788224999824">another</a>. “It used to be so special, I don&#8217;t know what happened.&#8221;
“Experienced this a few weeks ago. Add the zero tolerance policy on using phones during movies, so stuck with no napkins and no water- no service, no call button. The bill comes with an 18% service fee added on then expects additional gratuity- insanity,” a third commenter <a href="https://x.com/nanleejewelry/status/2062157528641814578">agreed</a>.

Alamo Drafthouse

Elijah Wood Posts Rant About Popular Cinema Chain’s ‘Awful’ New Policy

Technology

Legendary director Martin Scorsese is getting mixed reviews online for his decision to team up with and promote Black Forest Labs, an AI company focused on building visual intelligence.
The company just released a promotional video featuring the 83-year-old Hollywood mainstay discussing how AI can be used in the movie-making process. 
The video shows Scorsese using an AI model to help storyboard a scene for “GoodFellas.” The promo shows him discussing how each moment of the scene featuring mobster Henry Hill (Ray Liotta) going through the Copacabana nightclub had to be staged, and said AI would have made the whole process smoother.
“If you have a tool like this, you could figure it out much, much quicker and you could save production time, and also less wear and tear on the crew,” Scorsese said in the video.
Scorsese is officially an advisor for Black Forest Labs. It has not been confirmed whether he has a financial stake in the company. 
“Cinema is a young medium, only around 125 years old, so we have to be open to how it can evolve,” Scorsese <a href="https://bfl.ai/martin-scorsese-bfl-advisor">said</a> in a statement posted on Black Forest Labs’ website. “I utilized 3D with ‘Hugo’ and de-aging technology for ‘The Irishman.’ Now, with this tool, I can share what I’m visualizing more clearly and efficiently to my creative team — the production designer, art designer, and cinematographer — for them to build on to enrich cinematic intelligence.”
He echoed these sentiments in a <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/02/business/media/martin-scorsese-artificial-intelligence.html">statement</a> provided to The New York Times on the topic, saying, “I’m interested in the intersection of technology and storytelling, and seeing how that can push the bounds of creativity to create deeper and richer experiences for audiences.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Martin Scorsese x Black Forest Labs" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/N4jl4htAcuM?start=6&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Commenters were divided on whether the promo release was a dig at creatives who had worked for Scorsese in the past, or was simply an inevitable part of the future of entertainment. 
“The storyboarding part doesn&#8217;t bother me at all. The whole point of storyboarding has always been to help other people see what&#8217;s in the director&#8217;s head. If AI can help someone like Scorsese show his cinematographer or production team what he&#8217;s imagining more quickly, I don&#8217;t really see the issue,” one person <a href="https://x.com/Saliu_ade/status/2061864007859048701">argued</a>. “At that point, it feels less like replacing creativity and more like giving the creative process a better tool.”
“Using AI to visualize ideas is very different from using AI to replace creativity. Interesting perspective from Scorsese,” another X user <a href="https://x.com/NikLearning/status/2061903962182476057">agreed</a>.
Some storyboard artists were not convinced. Karla Ortiz, a concept artist who worked on multiple Marvel projects, <a href="https://x.com/kortizart/status/2061859111155949991">wrote</a>, “He throws every single storyboard artist he’s ever worked with under the bus … To use his legacy and power for this is just so disgusting.”
Samuel Deats, director of animated TV series Castlevania, agreed. He <a href="https://x.com/SamuelDeats/status/2061865840090251575">replied</a>, “There is absolutely no reason to need AI built on the stolen work of millions of artists to storyboard your vision, have some damn pride and respect your peers.”

Menu