- Overlong Summer Romance “Every Year After” Is More Fizzle Than Sizzle (June 10, 2026)
It’s a truth universally acknowledged that summer is a season of romance. Full of long days, lingering sunsets, warm beaches, and often powered by a sense of nostalgia for the freedom and adventure of our younger days, it’s a season when anything seems possible, and the time is always right to fall in love. Or, at least, that’s clearly what Prime Video wants you to think. Hot on the heels of its hit college romance, “Off Campus,” comes “Every Year After,” another eight-part book adaptation that leans hard into many of the most familiar relationship tropes of the genre, all limned in the light of a magical summer sun.
Unfortunately, however, if you’re a romance fan looking for the playful charm of “Off Campus” or even the steamy yearning of “Heated Rivalry,” you won’t find either here. “Every Year After” skews decidedly more romantic drama than lighthearted rom-com, following its characters across two separate timelines as they make objectively ridiculous decisions, refuse to communicate clearly, and obsess about each other for reasons the show never fully bothers to flesh out.
Its dual timeline format means that the show often finds itself stuck in a strange storytelling limbo, with one half of its plot feeling fairly YA in tone, complete with high school-aged characters and typical coming-of-age problems, while the other is distinctly more New Adult, featuring more obviously grown-up concerns all wrapped up in the lingering emotional damage of youth. The two don’t mesh well—particularly because the show bounces back and forth between them so often—and the result is a series that feels weirdly directionless, paying lip service to ideas like character development without actually earning most of its various twists.
Blue Clarke as Young Sam, Juliette Hawk as Young Percy
Based on the book Every Summer After by popular romance author Carley Fortune, the show certainly has the prerequisite seasonal vibes down. Set in the picturesque Canadian town of Barry’s Bay, it positively oozes summer atmosphere, from its glittering lake and lush forests to quaint shops and residences. It’s also the kind of place where everyone knows everyone else, a warm and close-knit community where its residents support each other, but where they’re also fully up to speed on the minutiae of everyone else’s business.
The story follows Persephone “Percy” Fraser (Sadie Soverall), who spends every summer of her teenage years at her family’s cottage in Barry’s Bay, where she befriends her next-door neighbors, brothers Sam (Matt Cornett) and Charlie Florek (Michael Bradway). An awkward, somewhat lonely teen who loves horror movies, the Floreks help bring her out of her shell, particularly her younger brother Sam, who becomes her best friend.
As the summers pass, their relationship deepens and evolves, ultimately blossoming into a (surprisingly cute) romance. Concurrently, the series’s second timeline follows Percy as an adult, as she returns to Barry’s Bay for a memorial service and comes face to face with Sam, now an ex from whom she’s been estranged for the past ten years. How did their relationship fall apart? Who are they to one another now? And is there any hope for a second chance at first love?
Matt Cornett as Sam Florek, Sadie Soverall as Percy Fraser
These are all questions that “Every Year After” attempts to answer by way of an overly convoluted narrative format that winds the two separate timelines through and around each other. Sam and Percy’s youthful romance is intercut with scenes from their later adult lives, as her return to Barry’s Bay stirs up a lot of painful memories, largely surrounding a vague yet constantly referenced terrible mistake Percy once made that seemingly drove her and Sam apart.
Unfortunately, the relationship between Percy and Sam is actually the series’s weakest element. Soverall and Cornett’s damp chemistry never truly catches fire, and the convoluted web of break-ups and betrayals that unfold between them often seems like nothing so much as a fairly cogent argument about why they shouldn’t be together. (Sam seems to be a truly terrible boyfriend a lot of the time.) It also doesn’t help that, beyond a few helpful title cards and the occasional timely needle drop, there is precious little to help delineate where in the pair’s relationship timeline various scenes take place, or how the characters have changed in the gaps between them.
Fortune’s book is a story of regrets, second chances, and coming to terms with your past. Yet this adaptation often skews younger than its source material in ways that don’t really serve the larger story it’s trying to tell. The flashbacks to Percy and Sam’s summers together take place from the pair’s first meeting when they’re just thirteen, all the way to their final summer together at eighteen.
The Sam and Percy of the present-day timeline are grown adults in their thirties, ostensibly meant to have gained some of the perspective that comes with maturity. Yet, while “Every Year After” has plenty of drama and emotional angst, it doesn’t always feel as though the adult Sam and Percy are actually all that different from their high school selves, no matter how much time has passed. (Sam and Percy certainly haven’t learned any lessons about communication; that much is clear.)
Sadie Soverall as Percy Fraser, Aurora Perrineau as Chantal
The show is at its most compelling in its early episodes, which detail the origin story of Percy and Sam’s friendship, a warm and accepting bond that grows stronger in the sunshine alongside the lake. Young actors Juliette Hawk and Carson MacCormac, who play the young teenage versions of Percy and Sam, respectively, are adorably awkward in a way that makes it almost impossible not to root for their romance. Friends-to-lovers is an exceptionally popular trope for a reason, and, at least in its earliest episodes, “Every Year After” works to make their youthful connection feel realistic.
Unfortunately, that same care doesn’t often carry over to the pair’s adult storyline, where character development is in fairly short supply, and we’re forced to rely on exposition to fill in fairly important gaps of feeling and motivation. It’s also entirely too long, with episodes that simply repeat many of the same narrative beats without offering any new information or perspective.
To their credit, the cast tries their best. Soverall, in particular, makes for a compelling lead, and does some excellent work opposite Aurora Perrineau and Abigail Cowen, as Percy’s past and present best friends, who both have problems of their own to work through. And, of course, there’s Barry’s Bay itself, the sparkling locale that seems to reshape and reinvent everyone who steps within its borders, and is practically a character in its own right.
Still, “Every Year After” is a deeply frustrating watch for many reasons, but mostly because it so clearly didn’t have to be this way. There are moments sprinkled throughout the show’s eight episodes that hint at something deeper, richer, and more emotionally complex underneath all the unnecessary narrative flourishes, plot padding, and pacing problems. Should Prime Video choose to adapt the next novel in Fortune’s series, let’s hope the streamer finds a way to let that better version shine.
All eight episodes screened for review. Premieres June 10 on Prime Video.
- “Lego Batman: Legacy of the Dark Knight” is a Joyously Clever Romp (June 10, 2026)
The best Lego game in years dropped last month in “Lego Batman: Legacy of the Dark Knight,” a game that plays like a mix tape of the many iterations of Bruce Wayne and his alter ego that we have seen over the years. Instead of directly mimicking the Christopher Nolan or Tim Burton movies, or riffing off the comic books exclusively, the developers at Traveller’s Tales have created the ultimate Dark Knight mash-up.
There are elements of every single live-action version from Adam West through Robert Pattinson in “Legacy of the Dark Knight,” and these iconic portrayals have been filtered through gameplay that’s designed to recall the mechanics of the wildly popular “Arkham” games. The result is a truly joyous bit of fan service, one that juices the creative gameplay of Lego titles with hardcore-fan-level detail. Almost everything Batman is in here. Yes, even “Batman and Robin.”
At first, “Legacy of the Dark Knight” feels like it’s mimicking the Nolan trilogy, starting with Batman’s origin story and training/tutorial missions with the League of Shadows and Ra’s al Ghul, played by Liam Neeson in “Batman Begins.” As your version of Bruce Wayne navigates Nanda Parbat alongside Talia al Ghul, you’re reminded of the basics of Lego games: Destroy everything, collect studs, customize your characters/locations, and do it again. Combat here echoes the “Arkham” games with a combination of punches, parries, and dodges that you’ll use throughout the game. You’re also introduced early to Batman’s gadgets, which will come in handy in puzzle solving and combat.
And then you get to Gotham, and what felt like a linear Nolan riff becomes an open-world party. Working with Alfred Pennyworth and Jim Gordon to start, Batman learns the lay of the Gotham land, including a mix of story missions and mini-games that are scattered across the landscape like Riddler puzzles, randomly generated crimes a la “Arkham,” trophies/chests to find, and much more. You can spend hours just exploring Gotham, although many of the “side missions” found within the setting do get a bit repetitive early on. There’s an argument that there’s too much to do in the world of “Legacy of the Dark Knight,” but you can always dive back into the story missions when the dozens of icons on your mini-map get overwhelming.
That’s where you’ll find a series of missions, broken up into chapters, that incorporate just about every Batman character that you can think of. The story starts with busting up Carmine Falcone’s criminal empire, which includes defeating the Red Hood Gang and one Oswald Cobblepot, aka The Penguin. In this mission, you’ll meet Selina Kyle/Catwoman, who becomes a playable character with her own gadgets.
Every playable character in “Legacy” has different items that can be used to progress through story missions or might be needed to solve the puzzles scattered across Gotham. Over the course of the game, you’ll end up playing as Batman, Catwoman, Jim Gordon, Robin/Nightwing, Batgirl, and Talia, which might seem like a relatively small roster given how some Lego games thrive on numerous playable characters, but these aren’t just cosmetic swaps. Each one of the playable heroes in “Legacy” feels developed and essential to the overall plot.
As for supporting characters? How about almost all of them? Of course, Alfred and Lucius Fox play key roles, but it’s the way the rogues’ gallery is employed that makes “Legacy” so memorable, from Poison Ivy’s killer plants to Mr. Freeze’s icy lair. You’ll even take a trip to Arkham Asylum, battling enemies notable and minor. You’ll get Bane and Two-Face, but you’ll also have to tackle Condiment King and Kite Man. Bat-Mite runs stores throughout Gotham where you can buy items to personalize the Batcave and even new costumes for your heroes. Just the costumes alone hint at the depth of fan service here as you can play out your childhood fantasies as Batman Beyond, Batman ’66, Batman ’89, The Gray Ghost, or Vampire Batman. There are 43 costumes for Batman alone.
If it all sounds like a bit too much, you’re not entirely wrong. There are times when the excess of “Legacy of the Dark Knight” feels, well, excessive. When it becomes too much, the linear story progression holds together an otherwise chaotic experience. Although one should always remember the target audience for these games: kids and fans. The former love games with this kind of deep customization and an extreme number of collectibles to be found in the open world. They like games they can make their own, using them to express their creativity, which has always been essential to the Lego brand.
And as for the other group, fans of the Dark Knight can’t really complain about anything missing from this release. It’s an exhaustive journey through the legacy of one of comicdom’s most famous characters that manages to incorporate both Batdance and cries of “Martha!” It is playful, clever, and consistently something that (in an era of serious storytelling influencing the form) so many games forget to be: fun.
The Publisher provided a review copy of this title. It is now available on PS5, Xbox Series X/S, Windows, and will be released on Switch 2 on September 18.
- Humor Is a Weapon: A Conversation with John Waters (June 9, 2026)
Alternately known as Baltimore’s Pope of Trash and Prince of Puke, transgressive filmmaker, writer, actor, and artist John Waters is a true American original. Born when Truman was president, and raised in the atomic mid-century Eisenhower era, where rock and rolling teen rebels and anti-communist conservatives collided in a battle for America’s soul, Waters emerged as a paragon of bad taste, combining his love of arthouse and grindhouse cinema into surreal, post-modern film comedies all his own.
All of his early films were made in Baltimore, often in and around his parents’ suburban home, with his troupe of trusty friends and collaborators, known as the Dreamlanders, which included larger-than-life star Divine, as well as regulars like Mink Stole, Cookie Mueller, Edith Massey, David Lochary, Susan Lowe, and Mary Vivian Pearce.
Over the last decade, the Criterion Collection, the distribution company known for its definitive home video editions of “important classic and contemporary films,” has released half a dozen of Waters’ films, including “Multiple Maniacs,” “Female Trouble,” “Pink Flamingos, and “Polyester.”
This month sees the release of two films seemingly on widely different sides of the Waters filmic spectrum: “Desperate Living,” which in the audio commentary Waters calls “a monstrous lesbian fairytale movie about political corruption,” and “Hairspray,” his remarkably family-friendly musical about racial integration that launched the career of Ricki Lake, made Waters a household name, and became such a phenomenon it was adapted both as a Broadway and film musical.
In celebration of these new releases, RogerEbert.com spoke with Waters over Zoom about this unexpected Criterion double feature, why he doesn’t trust anyone who doesn’t have old friends, his storied multi-decade legacy, and how humor saved his life.
Photo credit: Greg Gorman.
I actually sold you movie tickets once upon a time at the Lumiere Theatre in San Francisco.
Oh, I miss that theater. I loved that theater. They played the best movies there, and everything. I always think of it when I ride the cable car, because I live not far from there.
Yeah, it was the greatest sort of rat trap art house to ever exist.
Yeah, it really had good movies. The movies I wanted to see always played there. What was playing?
You saw “The Imposter,” and you said the guy was one sick fuck. I remember that, because I thought, “Wow, he must have been really fucked up.” And you saw Christophe Honoré’s “Beloved.”
I used to go there a lot.
It was a great theater to work at. It had a very, I think, Dreamlander vibe to the crew. We were very scrappy.
And also liked and knew a lot about films. A lot of film buffs worked there.
Oh yeah. I was in film school at the time. It was the best place to work. I talked about more films with them than I did with my film school companions.
You learn more in the movie theaters than you do in class anyway.
I think so. I was reading an interview you did with my friend Juan a couple of years back, and you said that you thought “Desperate Living” would be the very last of your films to make it into the Criterion Collection.
I did, but then I would ask my audience which movie they wanted Criterion to release, and “Desperate Living” won a lot. Susan Arosteguy, who has produced all my movies for all my Criterion releases, was shocked at that. I assumed that “Hairspray” would be a great one to do. But I love the idea they came up with: releasing them together when they’re at opposite ends of the John Waters spectrum.
I thought that was fascinating, too. Then I watched them back-to-back, and they’re both very political films in very different ways.
They are. “Hairspray” was a sneak attack. I love “The Battle of Algiers” more than any movie, so I tried to put that together with “The Wizard of Oz,” and that was what I could come up with for “Desperate Living.”
It was shocking how much fascism, or anti-fascism, is in “Desperate Living.”
Oh my god, Edith Massey, today is torn from the headlines. I wouldn’t be surprised if Trump made us have Backwards Day. We’re living in Backwards Day anyway.
It feels like the White House definitely has more and more in common with the Mortville castle than it should.
There’s a Mortville in every city today. In Los Angeles, everywhere there’s a Mortville now. Many of them on every block in some neighborhoods. What’s so amazing about LA is that’s where it’s the worst is downtown, where most people don’t see it, but when you see it today, it’s block after block. It’s really shocking. It’s beyond Mortville, but no one ever sees it. Mortville was too. It was a hidden community. I got the idea for that film from the Herschell Gordon Lewis movie “Two Thousand Maniacs!” When the people go off the wrong road and end up in a town that’s filled with people who want to kill them.
Hairspray
In your audio commentaries, you often have a lot of different film references and other things that stew in your brain and then become these very singular films. Do you know how that fusion happens in your brain? Or is it just really intuitive for you?
I think it is. I’ve always loved extreme, underground, and exploitation movies, and I put them all together to come up with my genre, but even if you hate it, you have to give it to me. I kind of invented it. I always went to the movies. I still do. I have a 10 best list every year that’s now in New York Magazine.
I always look forward to that.
So, the film references, my audience is smart, they get stuff. My audience is film-smart, and I always say, “If they don’t get something, then do your homework.” Sometimes you have homework when you come to see my movies to figure out what the references are.
You also obviously tap into a lot of your memories, and you do so in your books. They’re very vivid stories that you recall. Do they stay in your brain, or do you write them out? Are you a diarist?
No, I don’t ever keep a diary. It’s just that I’ve had the same friends for fifty years across the four cities I’ve lived in. We stay in touch, and we tell each other tales, certainly. But I have had a pretty crazy life, in a good way. I keep friends. I’ve had many friends for fifty years. I don’t trust people who don’t have old friends. The only thing that’s sad is when I watch “Hairspray” or “Desperate Living.” When we’re restoring it, I think of all the people who aren’t there to be happy that these movies are still remembered and liked more than when they came out.
Desperate Living
I definitely think your films have a timeless quality that I’m sure you weren’t sure they had, but I think the best–
Nobody’s sure. Nobody makes a movie and says, “This is gonna last forever.” The executives who okayed my Hollywood movies, like “Serial Mom,” which is very well thought of today but was a flop when it came out, don’t care if it’s going to be remembered twenty years later. They got fired because it didn’t make money when they greenlit it that year.
Now that you are looking back, especially with each of these Criterion releases, or in talking to new audiences, do you have an idea of why you think your films are amongst the films like “Casablanca” that still–
I would never say that.
I think they speak to audiences in the same way, and those audiences return to them over and over.
Variety had the 100 best comedies ever, and they picked “Pink Flamingos.” It was in there with Buster Keaton and everything. Nobody, except maybe Barbra Streisand, thinks they are making a movie that’s going to be around forever. Nobody thinks that.
Do you have an idea of why your audiences are able to just keep dropping into your films and relating to them equally, or even more so, all these years later?
I think it’s because I’m not mean and I make fun of things that I love, not that I hate. And, at the same time, I make fun of myself. I have humor. I’m not a separatist, I don’t think gay is better than straight, you know. I even have Republican friends, and we all just have to make each other laugh. Humor is a weapon. Humor is how I got through high school without getting beaten up. Humor is how I managed to go to every country and have people like my movies. So, in a way, humor is what saved my life, and that is political, always.
I would agree with that. I also feel like you see the value in people in a way that few people do. For these two films, in particular, you have both Pia Zadora and Liz Renay, who are these women who are, you know, considered maybe a little ridiculous, but if you listen to them speaking… in your interview with Pia from 1985, she’s so well spoken and so sharp, and Liz Renay’s commentary for “Desperate Living” is so insightful.
Pia Zadora had such a crazy story. When “Butterfly” came out, her husband bought her everything. It played at the Berlin Film Festival, where she was roundly roasted, and I stuck up for her. I wrote and said that “Butterfly” is a really amazing movie if you see it. I was just always interested in… life. If you get arrested, I’m the first person who will call you in the morning. If you get a bad review, I’m the first person who will call you. If something horrible happens in your life, I will call you. I think you have to be there for friends.
I think sometimes people who are really amazing, like Pia Zadora or Liz Renay, who is an astounding woman, aren’t recognized right away, and they are made fun of in the beginning because they don’t have the same values as you, and they don’t believe in the same things that you do. But I’m fascinated by other value systems, even bad ones, because I’m amazed by how people think. I love to read the editorials in the Wall Street Journal, because I don’t agree with them, but I like how smart people who don’t agree with me think, too.
That’s a really open-minded way of going about the world that I don’t know most people do.
Well, I do. And then, when I want to read how dumb people think, I read The New York Post, which is a lot of fun.
The New York Post always gets me on Facebook. They’re always serving me these links with outrageous headlines, and I click ’em. I can’t help it.
Yeah, and now we’ve got the California version, too.
Hairspray
California is strange. I grew up in California. It’s very weird to see how its media perception has changed, because I feel like it’s always been kind of a mess.
Well, California has always had very…I mean, I remember The LA Examiner, there was a Hearst paper then that I remember, and I remember The LA Times. Still, I read The LA Times online every day.
I wanted to ask you about another connection between “Hairspray” and “Desperate Living” that I noticed on this re-watch. You mentioned that Chris Mason’s lesbian bar inspired “Desperate Living,” and she also did all the hair on all your films, including the amazing styles in “Hairspray.” I would love to hear a little bit about her.
Well, Chris was something. She was old school and probably would call herself a bull dyke. I mean, she was great. Ricki Lake always said, “God, usually the makeup person is so nice and a motherly figure, and she scared the shit out of me.” But they all loved her, they all really liked her. She was great.
Chris, she had a bar. Well, first of all, there was a really scary bar in Baltimore, a lesbian bar called Port in the Storm, that was so frightening, but I loved it. It was a redneck lesbian bar where the women looked like Johnny Cash. In Baltimore, they still look like Johnny Cash. So she was there, but then she started a bar called Sapphos, and they had a newsletter called Desperate Living, where I got the title.
I was the only man that they would let in there, and it was fascinating. Chris was a feminist, but at the same time, she hung around with straight people, too. She was one of the few lesbians who was a fag hag, too. A lot aren’t, so it was complicated. But Chris was a powerhouse. Her hairdos are so important in that movie, and she did those hairdos in real life, too. She was a beautician in East Baltimore. So that wasn’t an exaggeration. She did those hairdos on people all the time.
I love the story you tell about Pixie, who was rumored to have a cockroach in her hair and was the origin of that urban legend.
She was the main dancer on The Buddy Deane Show. I loved her. She was called Pixie. She was about four feet tall and had a hairdo that was two feet high. She quit the committee without having a last day or anything. And the rumor started all through Baltimore that she died because she had roaches in her hair, because she didn’t wash out the hairspray. It became so real that Buddy Deane had to go back on the air and announce that it wasn’t true. Later, I think she unfortunately had a sad ending with drugs. But she was always one of my favorite girls, Pixie. So I wrote about them in my book, Crackpot, which came from an article I did for Baltimore Magazine about the first big reunion of The Buddy Deane Show years after it happened.
I still go. I still see some of them that are left, and I still hang out with them, and hear the Buddy Deane gossip. They helped train the dancers and the choreographers for “Hairspray.” They very much rooted for “Hairspray.” Buddy Deane was alive when we made it and was just absolutely thrilled to see its success. It was a Baltimore thing that I gave a happy ending to, because in real life, the show went off the air.
They didn’t integrate because the parents just objected. It was all Black music, always, so it was ironic. It was all Black music, but they had a separate Black day. They called it Negro Day, which was not insulting then, and Fat Daddy was the best DJ in town. He did a song called “I’m Fat Daddy, I’m Santa Claus.” That was on my John Waters Christmas album. That is still a classic in Baltimore. I turned him into Motormouth Maybell, who was played by Ruth Brown. It was all based on real life. Amber’s mother was Edna in real life, kind of. I mixed it all up, but it was still based on a lot of truth, completely the truth, just exaggerated, but not much.
I have that Christmas album on vinyl. You have a fun intro on the sleeve. Your writing is always just really dynamic. It doesn’t matter whether you’re writing copy for a vinyl release or a whole book.
Really, that’s what I am, a writer. I write my movies, my books, my screenplays, my shows. I write. That’s what I do every day. I write every morning.
It shows. Your writing is so punchy, and it feels very open. It feels like you’re allowing us to see a little bit of yourself with everything you write, even if it is a three-sentence intro. I saw your Christmas show in Atlanta many years ago, and I have not laughed so hard in a concert venue in my life.
You should come again. I rewrite it every year. It’s always a new show.
I gotta go again.
It’s an endless process, right?
I wonder—
Can we talk about Roger Ebert?
Sure.
It’s a little ironic: I’m doing this interview for the Roger Ebert website because Roger Ebert wrote some of the meanest reviews of my movies ever, but when I’d see him, he’d say, “Hi, John, want to be on my panel?” And I was always so confused. I thought, “Well, I’m a professional, but am I a masochist?” He did one great thing, “Beyond the Valley of the Dolls,” which has one of the most brilliant soundtracks ever. I will say, he gave me a lot of bad reviews with his film criticism. But what did he leave behind? Thumbs up! That’s not enough. And the other one, Gene Siskel, he called me once and said, “John, take me to the set of a snuff movie, I know you know where a snuff movie is.” And he was really serious, and I just started laughing.
I’m trying to figure out how to follow up on that.
Basically, when Rex Reed died—he was the other one that wrote the meanest stuff about me—they could have had a double date.
I feel like critics today are definitely kinder.
Desperate Living
The thing today is, there are no critics who really have power. Roger definitely had power. Rex Reed did, they all did, and I miss the power of the critics because it was exciting to read, and there is no critic who has that much power in it.
Not really. I think it is because the monoculture has dissipated.
It used to be in The New York Times in the old days; if you had a hard film and got a rave review, it was a hit. If you got a bad review, it died. Today, if you get a rave review, it doesn’t mean it’s a hit, but if it’s a bad review, you still die. I miss print ads. I miss when Roger certainly… the whole Russ Meyer connection was so amazing. I wrote about Russ Meyer a lot. In Chicago, “Vixen!” was the biggest hit ever. I was just with Erica Gavin recently. I hadn’t seen her for years, and it was great to see her. She’s the last Russ Meyer girl alive, really.
It’s funny you bring up Russ Meyer, because my friend and I had seen “Hairspray” and “Cry-Baby,” and then her older brother introduced us to “Pink Flamingos” when we were much younger than we probably should have been.
I heard you were eight.
Yeah, that’s true. And I laughed, so what does that say about me? But he’s also the one who showed us “Faster, Pussycat! Kill! Kill!” He had a really good taste in movies.
There’s a really good documentary about Tura Satana, who is no longer alive.
She was another one who had a larger-than-life life. You said you are a writer, you write every day–
I’m not writing tomorrow.
Oh, yeah, weekend. But your films are so visual, and I know from reading your books and some of the old video interviews you’ve done that you are kind of a collage person, too. You keep images. I wondered if that’s something you still do, collecting images and things that inspire you?
I have a board where I put stuff, and I have folders. I have cubby holes and pads everywhere in my house. If I get an idea, I throw it in one. This cubbyhole is for a book; this cubbyhole is for a movie; this cubbyhole is for speech. I gotta write, so I still get five or seven newspapers delivered every day, and I read about ten or fifteen a day. I don’t read every word; I read what I need to get out of it. I still get 100 magazines delivered, but they’re thinner and thinner every time. I can get fifty magazines now that feels like what one used to be. So I still do spend a lot of time with the media, and I don’t hate it. I could have been a journalist, a psychiatrist, or a defense lawyer. Those would have been my three other jobs if I didn’t do whatever it is I do now.
Everyone says you’re very charming in the room, so I feel like you would have been a great defense lawyer.
I would do it to those who did the worst things and were guilty.
I mean, that’s the American right, though, to have a good defense.
It is.
I guess the last thing I wanted to ask you is: with these two films coming out and, a few years ago, the Academy Museum exhibit, how does it feel to see your legacy codified as one of the great American originals? How does that feel?
I’m incredibly proud. I look at it with no irony, and I’m really happy that I’m lucky to live to see that, because often you don’t. So, I’m proud of it, and I thank God that my parents, for once, knew that they weren’t wrong to back my early movies that they were horrified by.
Desperate Living
I love that you filmed in their bedroom. I feel like there’s definitely something there.
I noticed the other day that one of the little quilts that’s in my mother’s room, I think I still have that in my house in Provincetown, right where I am now.
There’s definitely something really handmade about all of your films, even the ones with a bigger budget, and I think it’s because you bring so much of yourself to everything you do.
My friends and I and actors that I really, I know you’re not allowed to, I don’t understand why you can’t say the word actress anymore. Why is that wrong? But I always had, the people that I picked, even the Hollywood people, were people I really respected, and I give them great credit for taking a chance to come with us and do these movies, because it was a chance. They had a good sense of humor about themselves to even do it, and in reality, even if the movies got bad reviews, they didn’t. The critics kind of gave them credit for having the nerve to do it.
I think you are an underrated actor’s director, because you get very specific kinds of performances, which are unique and wonderful, regardless of the subject of the film.
Line reading is the worst thing a director can do, and this year, I put out the audio version of six of my screenplay books. I play every single character.
Oh, wow. Okay, I need to listen to that.
You’re not ever supposed to do that. It’s nine hours long, no one could listen to it, but it did come out this year.
- Once More, With Feeling: Anthony Head (1954-2026) (June 8, 2026)
It all started, funny enough, over a cup of coffee. Anthony Stewart Head, the venerable British actor who spent generations on our televisions in one iconic role after another, passed last week at the age of 72 from complications from pneumonia. And yes, he left behind a variety of unforgettable performances in numerous long-running TV shows (and at least one cult-favorite film). He’s played assassins, mentors, prime ministers, aliens, demons, and the worst villain of them all: A vindictive ex-husband. But it was his work in the Nescafé Gold Blend commercials through the 1990s that first put him on the map, and in the hearts of many a Briton.
Though most audiences wouldn’t really catch up to Head until he was the middle-aged mentor of Sarah Michelle Gellar’s Buffy on “Buffy the Vampire Slayer,” he built a notoriety as one half of the so-called “Gold Blend couple” (alongside costar Sharon Maughan), who spent years chasing a serialized courtship in 40-second bursts over cups of instant coffee. The pair were magnetic, Head flashing that dimpled smile and sweeping Maughan off her feet with his effortless charm (not to mention that distinctive reedy baritone). When you have only half a minute to make an impression, the fact that Head did so effortlessly is a testament to his immediate presence.
Born in 1954 to documentary filmmaker Seafield Laurence Stewart Murray Head and actress Helen Shingler, Head decided quickly he’d follow his family into show business. “When it’s in your family, it’s a choice, it’s there. It’s not a jump to say: ‘I want to act,'” He told Metro in 2013. “When I was six I was in a little show my mother’s friends organised, playing the Emperor in The Emperor’s New Clothes. I remember thinking: ‘This is the business, this is what I want to do.”
And that he did, starting out in theater with roles like Freddie Trumper in Chess (his brother, Murray, played the part in the original cast) before studying at the London Academy of Music and Dramatic Art. From there, he’d continue his work in shows like Godspell (alongside Su Pollard) in the late 1970s, while also testing his vocal chops in the band Red Box and, post-Gold Blend, a turn as Frank N. Furter in The Rocky Horror Show on the West End. (His musical prowess will become important later.)
But international audiences likely know him best as Giles, the bespectacled grownup who kept the Scooby Gang of “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” in line for six of the show’s seven seasons. Amid all the emotional tumult and supernatural ass-kicking that Buffy Summers and co. had to contend with, Giles was always there in the library, purring out one bon mot or helpful piece of advice after another. Of course, when he got to let loose on the show, it was a delight: See season three’s “Band Candy,” where cursed chocolate bars turn Sunnyvale’s adults into hormonal teenagers, Giles included; there, he gets into fights and sports a tight white T-shirt with cigarettes rolled into the sleeve, all greaser charm. And in the inimitable “Once More, With Feeling,” he showed off his pipes once again as he sang about the torment of realizing his paternal protection of Buffy was holding her back, and he needed to leave.
Springboarding from that role, Head would find himself firmly ensconced in the genre well, cropping up in all manner of sci-fi and fantasy TV shows, particularly in Britain. He long hovered around the titular part in “Doctor Who” in the 1990s, eventually appearing in some audio dramas, a webcast, and, in 2006, an honest-to-God episode of David Tennant’s first season as an alien school administrator with devilish plans for his students. He spent four seasons on BBC’s “Merlin” as King Uther Pendragon, lending gravitas to its low-budget tale of swords and sorcerers.
Through all of these parts, Head carried himself with that beautiful mixture of stentorian warmth and brutal coldness that personified the British character actor; in many ways, he was the platonic ideal of such a figure. Which made, of course, his dips into comedy that much more effective, as when he played the Prime Minister (and object of David Walliams’ infatuation) in the long-running sketch series “Little Britain” or BBC Radio comedy “Bleak Expectations.” He could deadpan with the best of them, throwing in a devilish smirk to land a joke just as easily as he could recite Shakespeare.
But that smirk turned into a sneer in one of his most memorable film roles, as overprotective dad/organ repossessor Nathan in Darren Lynn Bousman’s midnight-movie hopeful “Repo! The Genetic Opera.” Born of Bousman’s background in underground LA theater, and buoyed by his work on the successful “Saw” sequels, “Repo!” saw him update the homespun show into a modestly-budgeted bid to become a 21st-century “Rocky Horror,” and it was so smart to put Head smack dab in the middle of that. He gurns and growls with relished commitment to every corny bit and bob, wailing that rock-tenor through tracks like “Legal Assassin” and “I Remember,” trying as he might to lend the deliciously adolescent mayhem on display some pathos. “Repo!” may be remarkable for its charming shagginess, but Head is the Atlas holding it all on his shoulders.
Of course, even his later career would be marked by consistent work; he’d dip back into the musical well with the short-lived, unfairly forgotten medieval musical “Galavant,” and he made turns on “Bridgerton” and the sitcom “Motherland.” His last major role, arguably, was as devious, two-faced ex-Richmond owner Rupert Mannion on “Ted Lasso,” whose role elevated from thorn in Hannah Waddingham’s side to full-on rival in the third season. He offered a perfect counterpoint to Ted’s unfailing faith in the goodness of people; he was just kind of unstoppably bad, even as Head’s performance hinted at jealousy and possessiveness that at least explained his villainy.
It’s fascinating that he’d play so many villains and tricksters and men of devious motive since, by all accounts, Head was a delight as a human being and a costar. In tributes to the star, his Gold Blend costar Maughan called him “a lovely man,” and Buffy herself, Sarah Michelle Gellar, wrote on her Instagram: “‘Tell Giles I figured it out and I’m ok’ Well I don’t have it figured out and I’m not ok. But I know I’m the lucky one because I knew you.”
Despite the romantic tumult of many of his characters, Head seemingly found his happily ever after with his longtime partner, Sarah Fisher; the pair remained together, though they never married, until Fisher died in December 2025. And now, with Head’s passing, he, too, is mourned not just by generations of fans but by the people who were blessed to work alongside him. His ubiquity, more than anything, is a testament to that reputation; that he could have such a long, comfortable career juggling sex appeal and silliness feels like a rare achievement.
- British Comedy “Alice & Steve” Leaps Over the Age Gap (June 8, 2026)
Hulu’s “Alice & Steve” is wild, uneven, very funny, and surprisingly insightful, even if it’s the kind of show you think you might hate.
The first episode establishes the premise: Alice (Nicola Walker) and Steve (Jemaine Clement) are longtime friends now in their fifties. He’s recently divorced, and she’s married with two kids, one in high school and one in her late twenties. The friends are not exactly rule followers—that first episode includes an emergency trip to the vet after Steve’s dog eats part of the 50-somethings’ cocaine.
That first episode has a rollicking tone with physical humor, off-color gags, and the leads’ charisma jumping off the screen. It ends after Steve sleeps with Alice’s grown daughter, Izzy (Yali Topol Margalith), who tells her mom the first chance she gets, promising that her May-December romance is the real deal.
It’s hard to see any chance this show could handle the intricacies of this setup. The tone is too wild, the relationship too gently handled—if you could set up such an age-gap in the most positive way possible, that’s what “Alice & Steve” does. But it’s hard to escape the ick of a grown man sleeping with a person 20+ years his junior, whom he has watched grow up since she was a baby.
It’s “Woody Allen and Soon-Yi Previn” bad. And yes, the 6-part series does go there. You see, because as sure as the pilot will make you think this premise was unredeemable, the show proves you wrong.
The next two episodes are a thoughtful romp, challenging Steve in all the ways it needs to while keeping Izzy’s agency and Alice’s rightful fury in the forefront. Alice is right about Steve needing to leave her daughter alone. But she is delightfully wrong about pretty much everything else. She’s mean to nearly everyone, including her kind husband, played here by a pensive Joel Fry. She delights in drama, curating scenes to make everyone uncomfortable around her.
Meanwhile, Steve is as oddly charming as you’d expect for Clement, whose schtick has been charming for decades (though “Flight of the Conchords” hasn’t aged as well as one hopes). Izzy calls him “weirdly hot,” and that continues to be true, even as Alice sets up a generational conflict that, yes, includes Steve’s thoughts on Woody Allen. That debate happens over Trivial Pursuit, in the kind of set piece that could come off as horribly clichéd in the wrong hands. But with a script by Sophie Goodhart of “Sex Education,” this series totally pulls it off.
This push-pull between my (Alice’s, her husband’s, and maybe a little bit Izzy’s friends’) judgment of Steve’s action and the beauty of their budding relationship could have powered the whole season. Maybe two!
But instead, in episode four, the show feels a need to juice the plot. Like the first installment, those 31 minutes are a hackneyed snooze. If you allow yourself to guess the most cliched plot points to occur next, just know they’re coming at the series’ midpoint.
But “Alice & Steve” surprises you yet again. When it’s not focusing on setting up its plot, this show is delightfully unhinged, managing to say quite a bit about our human condition—about stunted growth, family, and love.
Alice does not become a better person, per se, but she does grow, and we do come to understand why these people love her. Steve manages to actually take a hard look at himself from his own point of view, no longer outsourcing too many of his decisions to Alice or whatever other strong woman is around to lead him.
And Izzy, well, she remains mostly an idea, but one played with an alluring depth by Margalith. Which is good because the three central performances had to work if this show had any chance to succeed—and they really do. Clement is attractive, recalcitrant, wounded, and wrong in ways that make his character feel sympathetic even when he clearly knows better than to be doing what he’s doing.
In title, “Alice & Steve” is a two-parter, but really this is Walker’s show. She inhabits her chaos-agent role with such gusto and such vulnerability that you’ll want to reach through the screen and hug her or slap her. She’s helped by how the camera lingers on her face in both good lighting and bad, showing us what 50 actually looks like in a dynamic, impulsive woman who’s blowing up her life in a bid to protect her grown daughter from something she is actively (and consensually) pursuing.
It’s all somehow smarter than it should be and just as funny as you’d hope. Watch at your own risk.
Full season screened for review. Currently streaming on Hulu.
