Wuthering Heights Wuthering Heights

Entertainment

Now Playing: ‘Wuthering Heights’

Shared souls, broken choices

Published

on

I don’t quite recall the exact line, but there’s a scene in “Wuthering Heights” where Catherine (Margot Robbie) speaks to Nelly (Hong Chau) and finally verbalizes how she feels about Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi). She says they share the same soul. Or something very close to that.

I remember thinking how beautiful it sounded. Passionate. Honest. But also painful — because even as she admits it, she believes they can’t be together.

That felt like the key scene of the film. Everything that follows spirals out of that moment.

Love, class, and a half-heard sentence

Heathcliff isn’t just a romantic lead. He’s a servant in the Earnshaw household. He grows up alongside Catherine and Nelly, but he never truly belongs. They run wild together as children. They share a bond that feels deeper than friendship. But social class lingers in the background, quietly dictating what is acceptable.

On paper, Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif) is the right choice. He’s affluent. Proper. Stable. Choosing him preserves Catherine’s stature. Choosing Heathcliff, in her mind, would degrade it.

The tragedy is that Heathcliff only overhears part of this conversation. He hears Catherine say that being with him would degrade her. He doesn’t hear the part about shared souls. And that partial truth is enough. He leaves.

From there, the film unfolds like a prolonged consequence of a single misunderstood sentence.

Yearning that feels real

Margot Robbie plays Catherine with an earnest playfulness that makes her easy to love and frustrating at the same time. She’s energetic. Mischievous. She often pulls Heathcliff into compromising situations without hesitation. But there’s calculation underneath. She understands the world she lives in, even if she wishes she didn’t have to.

Elordi’s Heathcliff starts off reserved and protective. He doesn’t say much, but you feel how deeply he feels. Later on, when he returns, that restraint shifts. He gives in to his desires. His love turns into something sharper. Tunnel visioned. Almost self-destructive.

Nelly, meanwhile, operates in quieter ways. She observes. Nudges. And positions herself as concerned, but there’s a subtle self-centeredness to her actions. Not diabolical. Just human. Which makes the unraveling feel even more inevitable.

Frames that look like paintings

Visually, the film is dramatically composed. It rarely feels like a straightforward recreation of that time period. Instead, many scenes look like moving paintings. The frames feel intentional. Almost interpretive — like artists reimagining history rather than documenting it.

The contrast between households is especially clear. Wuthering Heights feels contained and middle class. The Linton estate is spacious and luxurious, even down to how distinctly their servants are dressed. The class divide isn’t subtle. It’s embedded in the architecture.

There are also transition shots that feel symbolic, even if I can’t fully unpack them after a single watch. The pig being slaughtered stands out the most. It lingers in a way that feels deliberate. There were several moments like that — images that seem to foreshadow something darker.

A runtime that never overstays

Despite its over two-hour runtime, I never felt the film drag. The montages used to signify time passing cut at the right moments. It never lingered too long, and it never rushed past something important. The pacing felt controlled.

Understandable isn’t the same as justified

After posting a quick exit reaction, I inevitably heard from friends who’ve read the novel. The responses were varied. Some were protective of the source material. Others were more open. As someone engaging with Wuthering Heights substantially for the first time, I can only speak to the film on its own terms.

And on its own, it works.

It even made me want to read the novel. Realistically, I might never get around to it. But the film did its job.

What I do worry about is how some viewers might walk away feeling that the protagonists’ actions were justified. They’re understandable, to a certain extent. The yearning Robbie and Elordi portray is so effective that it might transport you to a time when you felt overwhelmingly about someone.

But understandable isn’t the same as justified.

As the credits rolled, what stayed with me wasn’t the estates or the costumes or even the more dramatic confrontations. It was that earlier line about sharing the same soul. The idea that two people can recognize something that powerful — and still let it slip because the world, and their own decisions, get in the way.

That’s what lingered.

Entertainment

SEGA, Netflix announce Crazy Taxi film adaptation

1st in planned slate of film adaptations, including Sonic and STRANGER THAN HEAVEN

Published

on

SEGA and Netflix have announced a new Crazy Taxi film adaptation. This will usher in a new collaboration era with the parties also developing adaptations for Sonic and STRANGER THAN HEAVEN.

Such a slate of future adaptations reflects the range of SEGA’s library as it draws on Netflix’s experience bringing beloved game worlds to new audiences.

The first project features Crazy Taxi, which will be written by Dan Gregor and Doug Mand. The beloved writing duo was behind the 2025 reboot of The Naked Gun.

Also on board to help helm the production are the same visionaries behind the Sonic franchise: Neal H. Moritz, Toby Ascher, and Toru Nakahara.

Crazy Taxi has been an arcade hit since 1999, putting players behind the wheel of a fearless cabbie racing the clock through chaotic city streets.

There’s flying off ramps, dodging traffic, and chasing tips with punk-rock energy that has become the series’ signature.

The latest title in the franchise, Crazy Taxi: World Tour, is set for a 2027 release. You can watch its trailer below:

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Now Playing: Resident Evil

Horror and comedy join forces in Zach Cregger’s latest masterpiece.

Published

on

The intersection between horror and comedy is separated by a thin wall of air. In modern times, we’ve seen comedy legends, such as Jordan Peele and John Krasinski, make the successful jump into horror. Some have theorized that laughter is a pain response, which links it to the adrenaline-filled thrill of experiencing horror. Personally, I believe that mastering comedic timing also complements the timing of scary moments in horror. Comedy-trained directors just get it. That’s why the melding of the two genres is always something to look for, and that’s why Zach Cregger’s Resident Evil is a must watch.

Coming from last year’s Weapons, Cregger established himself in the annals of horror history, despite learning the art of filmmaking from cult comedy classics like Miss March and The Whitest Kids U’Know. Weapons (and Barbarian before it) expertly balances the essentials of horror with dark comedy. If you’ve seen either of these movies, then you know what you’re in for with Resident Evil.

Based on the games or the past movies?

Resident Evil is tagged as second reboot of the movie franchise after 2021’s disastrous attempt, starring Kaya Scodelario, which barely registered a hiccup in the oeuvre of Resident Evil films. However, like 2021’s failure, Cregger’s take bases itself primarily on the events of the games, specifically around the plot of Resident Evil 2.

Bryan, a medical courier played by Austin Abrams, is tasked with delivering a top-priority package to Raccoon City. Unbeknownst to him, the way leading into Raccoon City (and the fabled city itself) is already overrun with mutated monstrosities.

And so, Bryan, a courier inexperienced with combat (much less surviving against zombies), must fight his way into the city to deliver his charge.

A worthy protagonist

Over the years, the franchise has seesawed between capable action heroes, like Leon Kennedy, and those who can barely survive, like Biohazard‘s Ethan Winters. On that scale, Bryan falls deeply into Winters’s side of the spectrum. He’s ill-equipped to survive a zombie apocalypse. He even admits that his barebones knowledge of guns comes from videogames. He attempts to shoot locks, thinking they’d work as they do in games. He is not a character you’d want to follow if you’re looking for a gruff man gunning down hordes of zombies with a machine gun.

But that’s exactly what makes this horror film worth watching. Bryan is us. Though there were times I was screaming at the screen because he wouldn’t do the obviously logical thing of running away from blatant traps, our fragile protagonist mimics how we would all react in a horrific situation: a deer in the headlights stuck staring.

Every situation feels more frightful. You don’t know how you’d react. He doesn’t know how he’d react. We’re just stuck trailing along for his ride. If he lingers too long looking at a zombie about to bite him, you have no choice but to look along with him. As a horror protagonist, he’s perfect.

When a camera does the work

Of course, inept protagonists aren’t new to horror. Practically all good horror films will feature a helpless hero standing up to the monster. See: the “final girl” era of horror.

Resident Evil elevates this trope by allowing the camera to do the heavy lifting. The film’s expert transitions into first-person perspectives and over-the-shoulder ones amp up the frights. When Bryan sweeps a room with a gun, the camera takes you down to the muzzle. You become the one sweeping along with him. You see the darkness as he does. The style creates an impressive layer of immersion that brings you into his trauma. Plus, if we’re going with comparisons, the transitions feel like a game taking you from a cutscene back into control of your character.

And it’s not just the perspectives, too. The film mimics several tense moments oft found in horror games, like gingerly creeping through a thin ledge when one false move can mean plummeting to your death. Resident Evil also has scenes in a dark tunnel, the sewers, and an overrun hospital. It’s a veritable who’s who of horror settings. But they all just work. It’s like you’re in a Resident Evil game.

When goofy becomes scary

But that’s enough of how the movie was made. How scary is it?

Taking them from their respective contexts, each monster is goofy. There’s an infirm zombie spewing acid bile that Bryan just bullies around. There’s a seemingly innocent young girl with a tentacle foot. There’s a zombie katamari.

And if that’s not enough, the casting is filled with masters of comedic timing like Paul Walter Hauser, Zach Cherry, and Austin Abrams himself. The first two play bumbling representatives of Umbrella Corporation, people who are too incompetent to do their job. Abrams is the bumbling everyman who can’t make heads or tails of what’s happening. Comedy is a living, breathing presence in this film.

But that’s not to say that this is a comedy film. The horror is still top notch. Cregger just knows how to time everything right.

Unlike modern films today, like in The Conjuring universe, Resident Evil is not a scare-a-minute film. It will not bombard you with jumpscares.

Now, to be fair, there are a fair bit including fakeouts. In fact, under normal circumstances, I’d dislike how many there are. But here, each jumpscare comes with a lengthy period to catch your breath. The film gives you time to relax, to laugh, and, eventually, lower your guard for the next scare. It’s a balanced pace that’s kept up throughout the entire film.

This is exactly how you should pace a horror movie.

Should you watch Resident Evil?

Even with its uniquely comedic style, Resident Evil is one of the most faithful adaptations of a video game I’ve ever seen. Like a game, Cregger’s pacing knows when to let you, the viewer, breathe and when to thrust you back into its monstrosities.

Humor will always go hand in hand with horror. Though the responses to these two categories are technically different, they’re both genres about facing the unexpected. On the box, Resident Evil says that it’s a horror film, but it’s so much more. If you want to laugh, cry, and cower in fear all in the same movie, this is the movie to watch.

Continue Reading

Entertainment

Max vs 100 will feature Max Verstappen race against 100 go-karters

The live event will stream at midnight on September 17.

Published

on

As a child, one of my favorite thought experiments is to imagine who would win in a fight between my favorite characters at the time and a number of other random beings. For example, will Superman prevail against 100 Magnetos? Those are the ways I kept my young mind occupied. Now, as a former child, I still do the same thing but with more realistic people, like imagining if Steph Curry can win against 100 high schoolers. This week, ESPN and Disney+ are making one of those imaginary fights real: Formula 1 legend Max Verstappen versus 100 go-karters.

In an upcoming live event streaming exclusively on Disney+, Max vs 100 will pit the four-time world champion against 100 go-karters from everywhere in pop culture. This gaggle of 100 will include popular content creators such as Twitch streamer ExtraEmily, car photographer Larry Chen, and NBA shooting coach Chris Matthews.

All 101 drivers will race around one of the most iconic tracks in Formula 1 history, Silverstone in England. The track will be reconfigured to match the special race.

Of course, this is more than just a parade of go-karts. Max Verstappen will start at the back of the grid, meaning he has to overtake all 100 racers to win. Now, the Dutch driver is no stranger to winning from the back. In 2024, he won the Sao Paulo Grand Prix despite starting from P17 (out of 20 racers). Max vs 100, though familiar for the driver, presents a different challenge. Can he overtake 100 times to win the race?

Max vs 100 will stream live through Disney+ on September 17, 12:00am PHT.

SEE ALSO: Disney+ is moving to a global app experience

Continue Reading

Trending