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.
***
Vladimir Lenin <a href="https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/staterev/ch05.htm">quoted</a> Karl Marx as saying, “The oppressed are allowed once every few years to decide which particular representatives of the oppressing class are to represent and repress them.” When the modern oppressed looked deep inside themselves, much as the Ghostbusters <a href="https://youtu.be/2zhDfUAQSbs?si=wSyhYDRhh6Tbft9x&amp;t=101">did</a>, they tried to do good and instead failed, choosing <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2023/08/20/style/grown-up-theater-kids.html?unlocked_article_code=1.llA.kN9_.Oc99OV8afaU3&amp;smid=url-share">theater kids</a> rather than the Stay Puft Marshmallow Man. And if there’s one thing theater kids are going to do, it’s theater, which sometimes involves making films.
“I Love Boosters” is such a film, one <a href="https://x.com/alexchristy17/status/2055314091938390107">described</a> by “The Daily Show’s” Jordan Klepper as “&#8217;Pee-wee’s Big Adventure&#8217; if it were directed by Karl Marx with a bunch of Molly in the background.” It plunges you into a <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I1xZegSgN8w" target="_blank" rel="noopener">surreal world</a> centered on a group of boosters (people who steal clothes and resell them at a price significantly lower than retail) and their leader’s infatuation with fashion designer Christie Smith (Demi Moore). 
The Velvet Gang, as the group of boosters is known, regularly steals massive amounts of clothing from Smith’s stores. Then, the gang’s leader Corvette (Keke Palmer) along with henchwomen Sade (Naomi Ackie) and Mariah (Taylour Paige) sell the wares in apartments redesigned as shops and on the street, helping the less successful among us stay fashion forward. In that way, they’re like the Robin Hoods of haute couture, or at least that’s what the message seems to be. 
What I have just described boasts a <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_love_boosters#critics-reviews">92%</a> average from film critics on Rotten Tomatoes, though it only scores a <a href="https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/i_love_boosters/reviews/all-audience">72%</a> average with the actual audience. That’s impressive for a movie that leaves most people saying “huh?” when you tell them you went to see “I Love Boosters.” It’s so disjointed that even people who wanted to see it can barely get it out of C- territory. (As verified reviewer Ben wrote, “No idea what I just watched. A waste of time. I should have walked out of the movie and stared at a puddle of water instead, would have been more entertaining.&#8221;)
When your anti-capitalist/pro-communist film is only hitting with the bourgeoisie and not the proletariat, well, congratulations, I suppose, because that’s usually the target audience for communism. Though the bourgeoisie in “I Love Boosters” solely consists of billionaire Smith, with everyone else being part of the proletariat, except for a group of people who wear literal skin suits and a demon who sucks the souls from people in a manner that I will not be describing here. Suffice it to say, though, that the literal demon is a good guy, somehow. 
There’s also Jianhu (<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-miseducation-of-poppy-liu" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Poppy Liu</a>), a rival booster from a Chinese sweatshop where Smith’s clothing is made, though she’s not trying to sell fast fashion to the victims of the Chinese Communist regime, but instead lobbies for better pay and labor practices inside the sweatshop. This, of course, is also a very American communist bourgeoisie approach to Chinese atrocities, except actually they tend to lobby for <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/11/29/business/economy/nike-coca-cola-xinjiang-forced-labor-bill.html?unlocked_article_code=1.llA.bu6i.W5tmRya7K4xZ&amp;smid=url-share">continued atrocities</a>. Not that the pro-communist leanings of the movie are any more obvious while watching it than they would be while staring at a puddle of water. 
Mostly, it’s just a film that centers on Corvette’s anger with Smith, who refers to the Velvet Gang as “low class, urban b*tches,” which, okay? I’m not a communist, so perhaps I’m missing something, but theft isn’t something I associate with the middle or upper classes. 
If I were a communist, though, I could argue that the Velvet Gang members are merely victims of the capitalist system of oppression that prevents them from rising up into the ranks of the professional managerial class and stealing from the proletariat, and also that “urban” is just thinly veiled racism. (Fair, just don’t ask the modern communists why identity politics is <a href="https://jacobin.com/2025/01/elite-identity-politics-professional-class">actually bad for the cause</a>, comrade.) 
Also, Corvette is aggrieved because she failed to become a famous fashion designer, mostly because she’s afraid to give it a shot, other than posting some designs on Instagram, one of which Smith may have stolen. This is the most unintentional and hilariously revealing insight into the modern American theater kid’s envious rage against capitalism that the film offers, and would strike a blow to its premise if theater kids had any conception of irony. 
In any case, Corvette continues along, planning one final giant heist with her fellow gang members plus Jianhu, who has a teleporter/deconstructor/accelerator machine (don’t ask). They succeed. Chinese factory workers go on strike, win their concessions from the Chinese Communist Party, and get improved pay and working conditions in their sweatshop instead of being murdered for going against the paramount leader. This inspires global protests, the theater kids’ primary mode of communication. Presumably, there’s a glorious uprising that happens sometime after the movie ends. 
There may have been a post-credits Easter egg detailing the final five-year plan, but I wouldn’t know, as I didn’t stay for the full credits to roll. Granted, I am not the target audience for “I Love Boosters.” Critics are known for loving hot garbage, so they get a pass, but there are four- and five-star audience reviews on Rotten Tomatoes. There is praise for the anti-capitalist message. Several reviews mention love for the cast. Some people seem to genuinely love the rollicking, disjointed, confusing “plot.” That’s fine. We’re a pluralist country, and I used to pretend to like “Eraserhead.” I’m not totally innocent here. 
But as an anti-capitalist commentary, does it work? This is where I am sad to report that yes, it does, at least partly, and not in its intended way. Because if this is the type of art that capitalists, albeit the faux communist flavor of capitalists, are funding, then it may be time to eviscerate the bourgeoisie theater kids and bring forth a glorious uprising of whatever class it is that would rather stare into a puddle of water.
***
Rich Cromwell is a writer living in Northwest Arkansas. He produces the Cookin’ Up a Story podcast, which you can listen to <a href="https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/cookin-up-a-story/id1624969096" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>. You can also follow him on X: <a href="https://x.com/rcromwell4">@rcromwell4</a>.

“I Love Boosters” New York Special Screening

Leftist Hollywood Critics Drool Over Bizarre Anti-Capitalist Movie. Audiences Aren’t Buying It.

Capitalism

Communism

Culture

Hollywood

Movies

Upstream

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.
***
I&#8217;m not a tough movie critic, and it’s not that I don’t have taste. But just because I can appreciate “Marty Supreme” doesn’t mean I won’t laugh at the latest formulaic romcom that rolled off the streaming conveyor belt. Just as a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/american-travesty-a-chinese-company-just-bought-nathans-famous-hot-dogs">hot dog</a> is better at a ballgame than a plate of steak tartare, you wouldn’t want to watch “Schindler’s List” on an airplane.
I say all this so that you really believe me when I say that “Ladies First” is the worst movie ever made.
Netflix’s latest feature film stars Sacha Baron Cohen as Damien Sachs, an unbelievably misogynistic ad executive who finds himself in a gender-bent world where Alex Fox (Rosamund Pike), the long-suffering single mother who quit rather than suffer under Damien’s chauvinism, is his boss. In fact, in this alternate universe, women hold all the power, and men are the second sex!
Get it? It’s funny because of sexism.
Except, here’s the thing: The movie isn’t funny at all. Nor is it an effective or incisive commentary on the state of gender equality. And I’m not saying that because I disagree with the arguments the movie is trying to make. I’m saying that because it’s a poorly written, overacted lump of tropes that feels bloated at only 93 minutes.
In “Ladies First,” every man is either a villainous lothario or a beer-swilling, ball-scratching manchild who sits around lazily while their wives and mothers do all the work. The women, meanwhile, are all smiling through the stress as they cook, clean, work, parent, and try to have it all.
This may read like the upshot of any movie made in the last 30 years starring Vince Vaughn, but it’s so much worse. Consider the explosive scene that precedes Damien’s universe jump, wherein Alex — recently promoted to junior creative director to placate a client who demanded more diversity — sits through a pitch meeting on how to get more women to drink Guinness. Here’s some of the dialogue:
“You know St. Pauli Girl, right?”
“Heil Titler!”
“Right, so we create our own: Guinness Girl. But she’s so much hotter. And they make out!”
“And then she and the St. Pauli girl have a pub fight, and there’s Guinness, and there’s foam —”
“And they’re ripping each other’s clothes off!”
I mean, come on.
It’s not just that the writing is too ham-fisted to be either funny or biting, though it is. The real problem is that this is so unbelievable that it’s guaranteed to kill any interest in the ultimate plot twist. There are undoubtedly sexist ad execs in the world, but not even Don Draper would think to pitch women on a product with a campaign that amounts to “hurr durr boobies lol.” The idea that an ad executive in 2026 would have such a dumb idea strains credulity about as much as a multiverse designed to punish chauvinism.
Things only get worse as we enter the women-run world, where instead of being confronted with boss babes and gender equality, we get a literal swap: here, women are crass and vulgar, and men are sensitive and effeminate. Without context, the limp-wristed affectation of all the men in this film would certainly be seen as a gay joke, and the women belching with their hands down their pants just comes across as odd.
In case you missed the gender swap, they’ll remind you every scene in throwaway gags as subtle as dynamite. The books in Damien’s apartment are “Harriet Potter” and “The Lady of the Rings”; Victoria’s Secret sells testicle bras; there’s even a throwaway bit about a man’s “time of the week,” which is left mostly unexplained.
These moments, which could otherwise be the source of the movie’s biggest punchlines, fall entirely flat because they don’t make any sense. This is especially clear when it comes to the alternate universe women, who behave just as horribly as men in the real world.
This is where the already tenuous movie falls completely apart. Rather than become an advocate for gender equality in the alternate universe, Damien accepts the matriarchy and becomes a himbo: he dresses provocatively, undergoes cosmetic procedures, and sleeps with his boss, who goads him into bed with the promise of a promotion. What sets Damien free from his strange new reality is not accepting women as equals, but undergoing a humiliation ritual in which he is feminized and belittled.
The most bizarre scene in the alternate world comes when Damien repeats the aforementioned board meeting. This time, it’s Alex who makes penis jokes and pitches the world’s worst campaign to get men interested in Guinness while his cries fall on deaf ears. But while Alex cried sexism and quit, Damien started trying to crawl his way back to power. That is an unintentionally hilarious take on the differences between men and women.
This is the film’s ultimate failure: It has no sexual politics, or, to the extent that it does, they are so muddled that they make no sense. Of course, movies don’t always have to make grand points, but a movie like “Ladies First” clearly has one in mind. Failing to stick the landing on something as simple as “gender equality good” is just plain embarrassing.
In fact, if you really start thinking about “Ladies First,” you may find yourself coming up the other end of the horseshoe. The movie’s logic holds that there are certain traits and behaviors inherent to each sex, and that there are only two sexes. One of those sexes is naturally dominant, and its dominance seems tied to the fact that it is less emotional and more prone to action.
We’re obviously supposed to watch “Ladies First” and think “wow, gender roles are really messed up!” But it&#8217;s hard not to walk away from the film thinking, “Well, sure, in that world it makes sense that women are in charge!” By creating a society more patriarchal than reality and then immediately inverting it, “Ladies First” makes strict gender roles seem more, not less, reasonable.
But it’s important to note, ultimately, that none of this matters. By even drawing out these contradictions, I have spent more time thinking about “Ladies First” than it deserves. If you want an actually funny take on the film’s central trope, <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_KG08opmyzw">watch this one episode</a> of “The Mindy Project” and use the other 71 minutes to do something productive.
But if you want to spend 93 minutes bored out of your mind, regretting your decisions, and occasionally throwing up your hands in disbelief — just go to the DMV.

Ladies_First_RY_24-12-03_02727_R

‘Ladies First’ Accidentally Makes The Conservative Case On Gender Roles

Netflix

Parents who were excited about the villain of the next “Toy Story” franchise film are about to be disappointed. Film director Andrew Stanton explained during a recent interview that the rumors aren’t technically true.
The teaser trailer, released in November, indicated that the villain this time around is a new tablet called “Lilypad,” which 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 <a href="https://variety.com/2026/film/news/toy-story-5-aging-woody-lilypad-1236750424/">told</a> 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.  
Harris added that the filmmakers tried to make the narrative realistic, which in this case meant learning to coexist with tech. “We’re not getting rid of these devices, no matter how hard we try. I’m always going to have my phone. I’m probably going to be partially addicted to it. So it felt right for the toys to have to grapple with that nuance.”
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Toy Story 5 | Final Trailer | Get Tickets Now" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QftAW9TTmuQ?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>
While the minds behind “Toy Story 5” agree that tech is here to stay, they also revealed that the film relied on traditional animation techniques instead of straight AI.
“We’ve had machine learning since the beginning of Pixar as far as figuring things out for you occasionally, but it’s always been to make the tools work better. I have no interest in doing anything but working smarter, faster with another artist,” Stanton said.
Harris agreed, telling Variety, “Pixar is a technology company first, and so things are changing. Pixar is figuring out how to change along with it. But as far as our process on ‘Toy Story 5’ went, we had to figure it out ourselves, mainly because ultimately, what you’re seeing on screen is the work of a lot of awesome artists.”
The voice cast for &#8220;Toy Story 5&#8221; includes Tom Hanks, Tim Allen, and Joan Cusack, who return to their roles of Woody, Buzz, and Jessie. Greta Lee voices Lilypad.
The official synopsis says, “The toys are back and this time, Buzz Lightyear, Woody, Jessie and the rest of the gang’s jobs are challenged when they come face-to-face with Lilypad (voice of Greta Lee), a brand-new tablet device that arrives with her own disruptive ideas about what is best for their kid, Bonnie. Will playtime ever be the same?”
The full trailer was released on February 19. “Toy Story 5” hits theaters June 19.

Toy Story 5

‘Toy Story 5’ Plot Twist Set To Disappoint Parents

'Toy Story 5' Director Shares Plot Spoiler That Parents Won't Like

Animation

Children

Entertainment

Technology

Toy Story

Actress Milly Alcock is once again reacting to criticism of her upcoming female-led superhero movie, “Supergirl,” by blaming Christian dads and saying she’s glad to have triggered them.
The 26-year-old <a href="https://variety.com/2026/film/features/milly-alcock-supe">spoke</a> to Variety last week about backlash ahead of the film&#8217;s release next month, insisting much of the criticism stems from her being a woman.
“I guess women know that this is just how it’s always been, unfortunately,” Alcock told the outlet. “And it’s from a lot of people whose profiles have no photo, who are burner accounts. Or someone’s name and then ‘Dad of four, Christian,’ which is hilarious to me.&#8221; 
&#8220;But I mean, whose opinion do you really care about? If you’re p***ing the right kind of people off, you’re doing OK,” she added.
This led to more reactions on social media. 
“I miss the days when actors and actresses wanted you to see their movies. Now they do everything they can to make you not want to go. Sometimes even before the first scene is shot,” one person <a href="https://x.com/SimonPhoenix77/status/2057885125480792300">observed</a>.
“In other words, they&#8217;re preemptively creating the narrative that this movie&#8217;s failure was caused by fan backlash to these comments rather than the movie itself being terrible. Got it,” another <a href="https://x.com/ChristandGuitar/status/2057808024635359667">said</a>.
DC Studios co-chairman and CEO Peter Safran praised Alcock&#8217;s handling of the criticism.
“I called her and just said, ‘You’re doing great! You’re handling it beautifully. You’re never going to make everybody happy. Just be true to yourself,’” he told Variety. “And I really do think she’s handling it well. I would also recommend, don’t wallow in it. It never makes you feel good.”
The “Supergirl” star preemptively <a href="https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/story/milly-alcock-vanities">blamed potential criticism</a> of the film on misogyny during a Vanity Fair interview published in March in a tactic described as “pre-release critical armor.”
“It definitely made me aware that simply existing as a woman in that space is something that people comment on,” Alcock said when asked about the “inevitable backlash” she’d face. 
“We have become very comfortable having this weird ownership of women’s bodies. I can’t really stop them. I can only be myself,” Alcock added.
The remarks were compared to Rachel Zegler’s controversial comments ahead of Disney’s “Snow White” being released.
Alcock also described &#8220;Supergirl&#8221; as a more personal story centered on Kara Zor-El, who she says is “given this incredible responsibility and doesn’t know how to deal with it.” 
“She’s not trying to save the world — she’s just trying to save her own,” Alcock told Vanity Fair. “This film is an excellent reminder that the world can be crumbling around you, but you can be the hero of your own story.”
The interview inspired many negative reactions on social media, with critics calling out Alcock for complaining about backlash that hadn’t even happened yet.
“These movies are so bad that they have to start attacking the fans before the movie even comes out,” one person <a href="https://x.com/NewsPolitics/status/2039035489760460880">said</a> at the time.

Milly Alcock

‘Supergirl’ Star Says She’s Glad To Trigger ‘Christian’ Dads

Celebrities

Feminism

It was <a href="https://variety.com/2026/film/news/quinta-brunson-betty-boop-movie-1236754550/">announced this week</a> that actress Quinta Brunson will star as Betty Boop in an upcoming film adaptation, sparking spirited discussion over Hollywood&#8217;s trend of casting traditionally white characters with actors of different races. 
Daily Wire host Matt Walsh criticized the decision after Discussing Film shared the announcement on social media.
“There is only one reason to bring back an iconic piece of Americana just to race swap it like this,&#8221; Walsh wrote. &#8220;Even a faithful Betty Boop reboot probably wouldn’t sell many tickets. A race swapped Betty Boop has absolutely no chance of success. But they do it anyway out of spite.&#8221;
Walsh later claimed the account blocked him and disabled comments on the post after the backlash intensified.
“This is a pretty interesting way to have a discussion about film,” he wrote in a follow-up post.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
The account “Discussing Film” turned off the comments and then blocked me. This is a pretty interesting way to have a discussion about film. <a href="https://t.co/XIrQNOiL4w">pic.twitter.com/XIrQNOiL4w</a>
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/2057435837244035415?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 21, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
Daily Wire host Michael Knowles also weighed in on the controversy during his show on Thursday.
&#8220;Betty Boop is a white lady. And it changes the story if you try to change that,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We&#8217;re told that race doesn&#8217;t matter. It&#8217;s a social construct. It&#8217;s totally meaningless. So all the white characters can and really should be played by black people or Hispanic people or just non-white people. But surely no one&#8217;s ever casting Tom Cruise to play Malcolm X in the autobiography of Malcolm X.&#8221;
As the controversy lit up online, many commenters argued that Betty Boop was actually based on a black woman, but even the left-leaning outlet PBS admitted that is a misrepresentation. 
“A short item promoting PBS’ Black History Month programming suggested the Betty Boop cartoon character was based on a black performer of the Jazz Age,” the outlet <a href="https://www.pbs.org/publiceditor/blogs/pbs-public-editor/betty-oops/">posted</a> in 2021. “That’s not entirely true.”
The outlet noted that Betty Boop is widely believed to have been inspired by jazz performer Helen Kane.
Betty Boop debuted on August 9, 1930, in the Fleischer Studios cartoon short “Dizzy Dishes,” in which she appeared as an anthropomorphic dog. Kane later sued Fleischer and Paramount Pictures in 1932, claiming Betty Boop was a “deliberate caricature” of her “baby vamp” persona, the outlet noted.
Despite these facts, there are plenty of commenters who insist Betty Boop was inspired by the black singer Esther Jones, or, at the very least, that Kane was ripping off Jones the whole time, thereby indirectly contributing to the creation of the character.
Brunson, best known for creating and starring in ABC&#8217;s “Abbott Elementary,” is developing and starring in the film adaptation through her company, Fifth Chance Productions, which teamed up with Mark Fleischer, who is the grandson of Betty Boop creator Max Fleischer, according to a Variety <a href="https://variety.com/2026/film/news/quinta-brunson-betty-boop-movie-1236754550/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">report</a>. 
The outlet noted that the movie will trace the origin and evolution of Betty Boop through the perspective of her creator.
“Betty Boop is one of our nation’s most beloved cartoon characters, yet somehow still remains pleasantly niche,” Brunson wrote in a statement. “She has had a quiet but undeniable impact on culture for nearly a century. After Erin and I met with Mark and learned more about his grandfather’s creation of Betty, I realized there was a much deeper story to tell. One that could be explored in a way that feels refreshing, subversive, and timeless, much like Betty herself.”
Fleischer said, “When Quinta first approached me with the unique concept of a movie about the relationship of my grandfather, Max Fleischer, and his creation, Betty Boop, I was breathtaken. Quinta so embodies Betty’s love of life, intelligence, humor, sassiness and compassion that the relationship between her as Betty and Max burst into life at its mere mention.”

Betty Boop and Quinta Brunson

Hollywood’s Latest Race-Swap Debate Centers On Iconic Cartoon Character

Cartoon

Race

“Top Gun: Maverick” star Miles Teller explained this week why he avoided profile interviews for more than a decade. The 39-year-old star said it all traces back to writer Anna Peele from Esquire calling him a “d*ck” in her piece.
“That was so mishandled,” Teller <a href="https://www.indiewire.com/features/interviews/miles-teller-cannes-interview-paper-tige-1235194680/">told</a> IndieWire in Cannes as he promoted his upcoming film, “Paper Tiger.”
“The reason why I have not done profiles is because I said, ‘Wow, if I’m not doing this interview on camera, this person can misquote things or put things out of order or say things that didn’t happen.’ It felt like such a violation of what actually transpired.”
The 2015 <a href="https://www.esquire.com/entertainment/movies/interviews/a36894/miles-teller-interview-0915/">Esquire profile</a> in question opened with the line, “You’re sitting across from Miles Teller at the Luminary restaurant in Atlanta and trying to figure out if he’s a d*ck.”
Later, Peele concludes, “yeah, he is kind of a d*ck,” claiming Teller compared a highball glass to his genitals and generally acted arrogant during their conversation. 
Teller said the whole experience was enough to turn him off to profile interviews completely. 
“I told my team, ‘Guys, I don’t think I’m doing this again, because I’m reading this and this doesn’t sound like me to me. This is not life, so why would I ever want to be a part of something where they can just put that in?&#8217;” he continued. “So it’s unfortunate that being a good person, that doesn’t sell. People want to click on the negativity. If you go to bed and put your head on your pillow and how you treat people truly, that’s what matters. That [2015] interview was like 12 years ago.”
Teller said that in the end, “the actors, the directors, the crew and the producers” know the real him because, “you can’t hide who you are when you’re on set.”
The “Whiplash” star also reacted to the Esquire piece right after it came out, posting on <a href="https://x.com/Miles_Teller/status/629045612567248896">social media</a>, “Esquire couldn’t be more wrong. I don’t think there’s anything cool or entertaining about being a d*ck or an a**hole. Very misrepresenting.”
One year later, he addressed the incident during a conversation with The Guardian in 2016.
“Oh, I felt frickin’ helpless, I felt extremely misrepresented, I felt a little angry,” he <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/film/2016/aug/21/miles-teller-i-felt-extremely-misrepresented-war-dogs">told</a> the outlet. “For the average person, they are reading this article, they haven’t met you, they’re like, ‘Oh Miles is an a**hole. You didn’t hear it? You didn’t read that Esquire? Yeah, she said he was an a**hole – he must be!’
“I’d say that you get a little more guarded but I’m actually not,” Teller added. “Certain times I’ll choose my words very carefully and maybe come off a little more boring. But I also think that’s why people – certain people – do relate to me: because there is no agenda, honestly. I was raised middle-class in a small town. I have all my same friends from high school. I’m close with my family. I’m dating a normal girl. So I want to feel people think I’m a man of the people. Because I feel that way.”

Miles Teller

‘Top Gun: Maverick’ Star Reveals What Led To His Decade-Long Interview Refusal

Mainstream Media

Director Michael Bay is on tap to direct a movie based on the epic rescue mission to retrieve two downed American airmen in Iran.
Bay, in partnership with Universal Pictures, is developing a feature-length film based on an upcoming 2027 book by author Mitchell Zuckoff. The book — and by extension, the movie — will tell the story of the two U.S. airmen who went down behind enemy lines in Iran during Operation Epic Fury.
The project will describe how their F-15E Strike Eagle operating under the call sign &#8220;Dude 44&#8221; was shot down over Iranian territory in early April, just weeks after the United States and Israel launched a joint military operation in Iran.
According to the planned adaptation, the pilot, known as Dude 44 Alpha, was located and extracted within hours. But the plane&#8217;s weapon systems officer, Dude 44 Bravo, remained stranded in the rugged Zagros Mountains.
<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/daily-wire-explains-the-world-ep-8">DON&#8217;T WAIT FOR HOLLYWOOD: WATCH THE DAILY WIRE&#8217;S &#8220;RACE TO RESCUE&#8221; NOW!</a>
For nearly two days, the injured Dude 44 Bravo actively evaded capture by Iranian forces, hiding in the mountains and ravines while he waited for the rescue mission he knew was coming.
That eventual rescue came in the form of a daring night raid that included dozens of aircraft and hundreds of American special operations forces, all coordinating to fight off the Iranian forces — who were still desperately trying to locate the downed American first — and safely extract Dude 44 Bravo.
Bay may have gotten his start directing music videos — for everyone from Styx and Donny Osmond to Vanilla Ice and Meat Loaf — but he is no stranger to bringing heroic military stories to the silver screen. In 2016, he directed &#8220;13 Hours,&#8221; a film based on the siege of the American consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that took place on September 11, 2012.

TOPSHOT-IRAN-US-ISRAEL-CONFLICT

One Of America’s Most Dangerous Rescue Missions Is Becoming A Movie

Iran

Iran war

Media

Military

The latest Star Wars movie, “The Mandalorian and Grogu,” is being trashed by mainstream critics who would normally be the most sympathetic viewers.
It currently has one of the worst review scores of any &#8220;Star Wars&#8221; film on review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes as the film gears up for its Memorial Day weekend debut. As of Wednesday, it’s sitting at a 60% critical rating with 120 total reviews.
That makes it one of the worst of the 12 “Star Wars” movies at the moment, with only “The Phantom Menace” and “The Rise of Skywalker” getting lower scores.
The plot description says, “The evil Empire has fallen but Imperial warlords remain scattered throughout the galaxy. As the fledgling New Republic works to protect everything the Rebellion fought for, they enlist the help of legendary Mandalorian bounty hunter Din Djarin and his young apprentice Grogu.”
Many critics who saw it mentioned that it felt more like an extended, unnecessary episode of the Disney+ series “The Mandalorian,” which premiered in 2019. They argued it didn’t deserve a theatrical release at all.
“&#8217;The Mandalorian and Grogu&#8217; merely stitches together what is clearly three episodes of the previously planned fourth season of The Mandalorian and calls it a day. There’s not a whiff of effort here,” a review from The Independent <a href="https://www.the-independent.com/arts-entertainment/films/reviews/mandalorian-grogu-movie-review-star-wars-b2980000.html">said</a>. 
“As a mid-season arc for the character of ‘Pedro Pascal’s sultry voice inside a metal bucket’ and his tiny, puppet son, this might have been adequate, if uninspired. As a so-called feature film event, blown up to Imax with Sigourney Weaver roped in to deliver a few lines, it’s the dullest and most inconsequential Star Wars film ever made,” the reviewer added.
“There’s no reason for anything in this movie except the wish to make even more money,” the reviewer from Roger Ebert <a href="https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/star-wars-the-mandalorian-and-grogu-pedro-pascal-movie-review-2026">observed</a>, giving the film 1.5 stars out of a possible 4.
“The runtime saps energy and when it’s all done, the scrolling credits for all those special effects goes on a full five minutes. You used to leave a new &#8216;Star Wars&#8217; movie on a cloud. Here, that galaxy is far, far away,” the <a href="https://apnews.com/article/mandalorian-grogu-movie-review-star-wars-970e8562f8adf65c6cb03cb845f84b85">reviewer</a> from Associated Press wrote.
Even the good reviews weren’t that great. 
“Mandalorian and Grogu is, basically, four Mandalorian episodes wearing an IMAX trench coat,” one review said.
“The plot is non-existent and it really does feel like a fully CGI movie. But when it&#8217;s just Mando and Grogu going from A to B it&#8217;s such a sweet story,” another <a href="https://thefilmmaven.com/the-mandalorian-and-grogu-review/">wrote</a>.
The project was <a href="https://www.slashfilm.com/2172558/the-mandalorian-and-grogu-box-office-preview-star-wars-movie/">reportedly</a> relatively low-cost for a “Star Wars” film with a rumored budget of around $165 million, including a $21.75 million conditional <a href="https://www.gov.ca.gov/2024/02/26/star-wars-the-mandalorian-grogu-to-be-filmed-in-california-through-the-states-film-and-tv-tax-credit-program/">tax credit</a> by the California Film Commission. That would mean it needs to make around $400 million to break even. 
“The Mandalorian and Grogu” debuts in theaters nationwide beginning this Friday, May 22.

Mandalorian and Grogu

Even Mainstream Critics Hate The New ‘Star Wars’ Movie

Box Office

Disney

Star Wars

Amazon recently announced that it&#8217;s one step closer to finding the next Agent 007.
“The search for the next James Bond is underway. While we don’t plan to comment on specific details during the casting process, we’re excited to share more news with 007 fans as soon as the time is right,” Amazon MGM Studios said in a statement, per the James Bond X account.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Statement from Amazon MGM Studios: 
“The search for the next James Bond is underway. While we don’t plan to comment on specific details during the casting process, we’re excited to share more news with 007 fans as soon as the time is right.” <a href="https://t.co/ngND7VS83I">pic.twitter.com/ngND7VS83I</a>
— James Bond (@007) <a href="https://twitter.com/007/status/2055011724944986357?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">May 14, 2026</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The comments were filled with suggestions.
“The only person playing Bond should be someone you haven&#8217;t heard of, but also someone who has the charm and wit of Pierce Brosnan,” one person <a href="https://x.com/RajeezusBackup/status/2055025794481819728">wrote</a>.
“I would be extremely excited if Amazon wasn’t involved. I think it’s going to be milked for every penny like Disney did to Star Wars. I’m hoping I’m proven wrong. I’m hoping the quality remains high,” another person <a href="https://x.com/ItsMeChalks/status/2055226174045893034">agreed</a>.
Many of the commenters suggested Henry Cavill or Tom Hiddleston. The thread was filled with various names as fans suggested Amazon put out the statement because it was sick of being asked about who would play Bond next.
Former producers Michael G. Wilson and Barbara Broccoli surprised fans in 2025 when they announced they would step back from the James Bond franchise and give creative control to Amazon, as The Daily Wire previously <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/amazon-promises-fresh-exotic-new-chapter-for-james-bond-franchise">reported</a>.
The company purchased MGM for $8.5 billion in 2022 and, in doing so, acquired the rights to distribute all “James Bond” projects. But before now, Wilson and Broccoli had maintained creative control.
The role was last played by Daniel Craig, who retired from the franchise after “No Time To Die” in 2021. There has been a lot of speculation about who would be the next Agent 007, but now, with Amazon leading the charge, anything can happen.
“I think [the next James Bond] will be a man because I don’t think a woman should play James Bond,” Broccoli said in 2021. “I believe in making characters for women and not just having women play men’s roles.”
“I don’t think there are enough great roles for women, and it’s very important to me that we make movies for women about women,” she added. “He should be British, so British can be any [ethnicity or race].”

James Bond

Amazon Updates Fans On Its Search For The Next James Bond

Amazon

Actress Julianne Moore says she’s about done doing movies that have any major action elements or conflict, because the world is just too scary.
The 65-year-old “Hannibal” star made the revelation during a Kering Women in Motion Talk at Cannes on Saturday, as Variety <a href="https://variety.com/2026/film/festivals/julianne-moore-rejects-movies-guns-explosions-1236750786/">reported</a>.
“I’m less and less interested in tragedy, I would say,” she said while accepting Kering’s Women in Motion Award. “Particularly now at a time when things are rough globally, it’s hard for me to invest in a story that I think is pretend, where I feel like the depth of the emotion doesn’t measure up to what’s happening in the world.”
“I don’t like someone being murdered,” Moore added. “I don’t like explosions and guns. I don’t like histrionics. I don’t like things that raise the stakes without real feeling underneath. I mean, that actually bothers me because that’s like noise. I don’t know how to play it. I don’t want to watch it.”
Fans were quick to mock Moore not just for her stance, but for making her career on these exact types of films she now claims to despise. 
“I’ve lost count how many movies she’s done with guns,” one commenter wrote. 
“Funny how artists forget their own catalog until it’s time to virtue signal,” another agreed. 
A third person wrote, “That’s great! Now playback all the degenerate, violent entertainment Julianne has happily participated in throughout her career.”
At the same time, Moore said she is disappointed by a reported lack of representation of women in films and behind the scenes in the movie-making business and beyond, saying it’s “not endemic just to the film industry, it’s global.”
“I mean, there’s not representation in C-suites, there’s not representation in media, there’s not representation in higher education. There are lots of places where we don’t have the representation we deserve. So I feel like it’s a bigger problem,” Moore said of lead roles for females reportedly dropping by to 37% in the top-grossing movies of 2025, down 10% from 2024. 
She advocated for more women telling female-centric stories in Hollywood. 
“It’s like, we are the ones who have each other’s backs, we are the ones who hire each other, we are the ones that write stories about ourselves,” Moore said at Cannes. “And that actually goes back to point of view, too. Like, who is telling that story? Whose point of view is it? Is it a female point of view?”

Julianne Moore

A-List Actress Mocked For ‘Explosions And Guns’ Statement

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.
***
Ladies love the 1995 and 2005 film versions of &#8220;Pride and Prejudice.&#8221; Their timelessness has inspired a dedicated base of fans who prize the romantic, heartfelt relationships that have the time to build through character development and genuine affection. 
Both beloved films had very little kissing and zero sex scenes, as pro-life activist Lila Rose recently <a href="https://x.com/LilaGraceRose/status/2042280067758494013">noted,</a> yet they managed to become wildly popular. The 2005 &#8220;Pride &amp; Prejudice&#8220; starring Keira Knightley was a box office success, grossing $121.6 million over a $28 million budget. The 1995 &#8220;Pride and Prejudice&#8221; BBC miniseries starring Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle drew in about 10-11 million views per episode, selling 12,000 VHS copies within the first two hours of its release. 
But Hollywood’s latest attempts to take on 19th-century romance have repeatedly resulted in historically inaccurate, hypersexualized cinema that fails to hold up against the established classics.
The smutty Jane Austen knock-off show &#8220;Bridgerton&#8221; brags an expensive budget of $7 million per episode, but the sparkle of the show seems to be dwindling. Though the viewer numbers are still high, season 4 streams <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2026/02/11/bridgerton-season-4-viewership-drops-the-lincoln-lawyer-spikes-in-new-report/">dropped</a> 12% from season 3 as the repetitive “will-they-won’t-they have sex” plot becomes predictable to audiences.
&nbsp;
<div id="attachment_1096799" style="width: 310px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-1096799" class="size-medium wp-image-1096799" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/BRIDGERTON_406_Unit_11438R-300x200.jpg" alt="" width="300" height="200" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/BRIDGERTON_406_Unit_11438R-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/BRIDGERTON_406_Unit_11438R-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/BRIDGERTON_406_Unit_11438R-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2026/05/BRIDGERTON_406_Unit_11438R.jpg 1200w" sizes=" (max-width: 300px) 100vw, 300px" />Liam Daniel/Netflix</div>
In &#8220;Bridgerton,&#8221; the highlight of the season is often a dramatic sex scene for the main lovers, reinforcing in women’s minds that satisfying and steamy sex is the reward one should be looking for in a relationship. According to the show, a good love story is all about physicality and satisfying lust. But in faithful Jane Austen adaptations, physical touch is rare. 
Romance is Darcy offering his hand as Elizabeth gets into the carriage, palms meeting during a dance, and, ultimately, the good character of Darcy slowly being revealed, leading to a mutual declaration of love after recognizing one another&#8217;s character flaws. Physical chemistry means little without the quick-witted interactions, brutal honesty, and the realization that Darcy is willing to go to great lengths to protect Elizabeth (and her family’s) reputation, even after she rejects him. 
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet">
Mr. Darcy&#8217;s hand flex after holding Elizabeth&#8217;s hand 🥰<a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/PrideandPrejudice?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#PrideandPrejudice</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/JaneAusten?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#JaneAusten</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/romance?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#romance</a> <a href="https://twitter.com/hashtag/film?src=hash&amp;ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">#film</a> <a href="https://t.co/XJfdGi4Vse">https://t.co/XJfdGi4Vse</a> <a href="https://t.co/7FirXtmTqb">pic.twitter.com/7FirXtmTqb</a>
— Anonymous Galore / AG 🌺 (@AnonymousGalore) <a href="https://twitter.com/AnonymousGalore/status/1815717963175272450?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">July 23, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
The works of Jane Austen demonstrate a much deeper sort of love than what is seen on screens today, which is why those renditions have a longevity few modern series will have. While the wave of Austen adaptations produced in the &#8217;90s and &#8217;00s evoked the maturation of characters and realistic proprieties of the day, today’s pieces such as &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/hollywood-promised-a-love-story-what-it-delivered-was-something-else">Wuthering Heights</a>&#8221; or &#8220;Bridgerton&#8221; and its many copycats, prioritize graphic sex scenes and flashy costumes over story quality and true romance.
All of Jane Austen’s heroines have their own flaws, but there is character growth, usually brought about by the love interest of the heroine. Darcy highlights Elizabeth’s wrongful assumptions about him, and Elizabeth reprimands Darcy for his arrogance and pride. Austen understood that real love meant a willingness to call out one another’s misgivings and hold relationships to a higher standard. In the best relationships, both parties are bettered by each other. 
In &#8220;Pride and Prejudice,&#8221; Austen illustrates not only what good character in a man can look like, but also the type of love interest to avoid. Elizabeth’s younger sister Lydia causes a scandal when she runs away with the deceitful Wickham, thinking marriage will soon follow. How many young women today let themselves follow a man with the promise of a “one day” that is never to come?
Running off with a man you aren’t married to isn’t the scandal it was in the 1800s, but Austen seems to tell her readers they can hope for better than Wickham. A man may be charming, handsome, and flirtatious, but that’s not what makes him worthy. A worthy man recognizes his flaws, seeks to redeem broken situations, and protects the dignity and heart of the woman he loves. 
In an age where loneliness is on the rise and women are feeling disenchanted by dating and marriage, it’s time to evaluate what expectations are being promoted within our culture that may be leading them to feel unfulfilled or heartbroken. 
A &#8220;Bridgerton&#8221;-style relationship based on lust will not lead modern women to satisfying romantic relationships. Women need men with good character; they need men like those written by Jane Austen. The more we show healthy relationships in media, the better we are as a culture. Perhaps there’s a chance for life to imitate art?
***
Ali Holcomb is the communications adviser at Advancing American Freedom Foundation. Julia Jensen is the communications assistant at Advancing American Freedom Foundation.

GettyImages-56013323

What ‘Bridgerton’ Gets Wrong That ‘Pride And Prejudice’ Got Perfectly Right

Hollywood director and producer Adam McKay was very upset with “white liberals” during a recent podcast appearance, a demographic that he would arguably fall into himself.
The “Don’t Look Up” director made the comments during a recent episode of the “Urgent Futures” podcast released earlier this week.
“We are being hit with the high-grade marketing and no group is worse than white liberals,&#8221; McKay said. &#8220;I mean, they are the worst. I’ve tried to talk to them about the climate. They are so smug and captured. And it boils down to privilege. I mean, when you talk to white moneyed liberals, they’re getting a lot from this broken system.” 
The Hollywood mainstay said he can’t believe anyone is still supporting Democrats, who he deemed too permissive and not radical enough for his taste.
“It’s incredible to watch people this far down the road still saying, ‘You gotta stand behind the Democratic Party,’&#8221; he added. &#8220;The same party that wouldn’t convict Trump of a crime after he told a crowd, ‘Go to the Capitol’ [and] the same party where the previous presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, literally funded Trump’s campaign.” 
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Adam McKay: What They&#039;re Not Telling You About the Future (&#039;Don&#039;t Look Up&#039;) | Urgent Futures #73" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/vig_uhz_4eo?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>
“At some point, I realized these are bad-faith arguments and conversations,” McKay went on before saying Republicans and Democrats were essentially the same.
“Once you kind of flip that switch and realize white liberals are full-on right-wingers and the Republicans are extreme right-wingers, by any international definition of right/left wing, you can’t support a party that doesn’t want universal health care. The Democrats don’t have that in their party platform. Kamala, Hillary never brought it up,” he ranted.
“The level of damage those creeps [Bill Clinton and Barack Obama] have done to our country, white liberals don’t even want to hear about it, because it’s inconvenient and unpleasant. So yeah, I almost can say I despise American white liberals. They are the grossest of the gross,” McKay said.
McKay, whose credits include “Anchorman” and “Vice,” once considered himself a Democrat. But he announced in November 2024 that he was considering leaving the party after Trump was re-elected. He said he was thinking about joining the Green Party or the Working Families Party, per <a href="https://variety.com/2024/film/news/adam-mckay-time-to-abandon-democratic-party-trump-victory-1236202362/">Variety</a>.

Adam McKay

White Liberal Director Unloads On White Liberals: ‘Grossest Of The Gross’

Liberals

Politics

Menu