Clint Bentley’s Train Dreams uses gorgeous imagery of the natural world, combined with an omniscient narrator quoting from the Denis Johnson novella the film adapts, to speak for a taciturn protagonist who struggles to understand, much less articulate, his place in the world. That approach has earned it the Terrence Malick comparisons that informed this pairing, but Train Dreams uses its own distinct lens to contemplate the ineffable and ephemeral nature of human existence. So after talking through our responses to the film’s big-picture ideas and small, telling details, we place Train Dreams alongside Days of Heaven to discuss the two films’ contrasting approaches to their overlapping elements, from persistent voiceover and big beautiful vistas, to man’s presumed dominion over nature and the biblical infernos that suggest otherwise. Then for Your Next Picture Show, Keith offers a Days of Heaven-inspired recommendation for very different film featuring a similarly memorable performance from Linda Manz, 1980’s Out of the Blue Please share your thoughts about Days of Heaven, Train Dreams, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Clint Bentley’s new Train Dreams uses the vast canvas of the natural world to frame a relatively tiny story of a single human life, a juxtaposition of story and visuals that’s reminiscent of the work of Terrence Malick, in particular 1978’s Days of Heaven. Set, like Train Dreams, in the midst of America’s Industrial Revolution, Days of Heaven takes an elliptical approach to a fairly straightforward narrative that is pure Malick, leaving us with much to discuss in terms of whose story this is, and what the film’s sparse dialogue and unusual narration leaves unsaid. Then in Feedback, we share some quick reactions to a handful on new releases we won’t be covering on the show, and address a listener suggestion for an alternate One Battle After Another pairing.  Please share your thoughts about Days of Heaven, Train Dreams, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Don’t be alarmed by the title of this week’s movie selection, this is not our final episode — in fact, it’s our 500th, a milestone none of us expected to hit when we started this podcast a decade ago. So in honor of all our past pairings, we’re devoting this one-off episode to a film we’ve never managed to find an excuse to cover on this show, despite naming ourselves after it: THE LAST PICTURE SHOW. You may think it counterintuitive, even perverse, to devote our anniversary celebration to a somber film about a dying town whose only movie theater shuts down — even one as great as Peter Bogdanovich’s 1971 coming-of-age drama — but as our discussion reveals, there are deeper connections between the film and this podcast than just a name. After that, we lighten the mood considerably with a very special game devoted to this podcast’s history and our collective inability to remember it, especially when points are on the line. Please share your thoughts about THE LAST PICTURE SHOW, The Next Picture Show, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Intro: 00:00:00-00:07:48 The Last Picture Show Keynote: 00:07:48-00:13:04 The Last Picture Show Discussion: 00:13:04 - 00:44:02 The Next Picture Quiz Show: 00:44:02-01:22:07 Next episode announcement and goodbyes: 01:22:07-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

From its nearly three-hour runtime to its deployment of some of the most deranged CGI you’ve ever seen committed to screen, Radu Jude’s DRACULA often feels like an extended act of trolling, but is it art? The answer to that question is inextricable from the film’s presentation of AI-derived art as grotesque, inhuman, and unsatisfying, and it makes DRACULA arguably more entertaining to discuss than it is to watch. So after attempting to pull some meaning out of what the critic in 8 1/2 might describe as DRACULA’s “series of gratuitous episodes,” we move into Connections for a study in contrasts between Fellini’s portrait of an artist struggling to make a personal work, and Jude’s evisceration of a charlatan trying to outsource artistry to a machine. Then in Your Next Picture Show, we discuss another film we considered as a DRACULA pairing that may not be quite as celebrated as 8 1/2, but we nonetheless recommend as another depiction of a filmmaker in creative crisis: Christopher Guest’s debut feature, THE BIG PICTURE. Please share your thoughts about 8 1/2, DRACULA, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Next episode: A celebration of Peter Bogdanovich’s THE LAST PICTURE SHOW, and 500 episodes of a niche film podcast named after it. Intro: 00:00:00-00:01:57 Dracula discussion: 00:01:57 - 00:27:20 Dracula/8 1/2 Connections: 00:27:20 - 00: 48:11 Your Next Picture Show and goodbyes: 00:48:11-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Radu Jude’s DRACULA is, technically speaking, yet another movie about one of the most depicted antagonists in all of cinema, but in actuality it’s about a different beast that has fascinated filmmakers for nearly as long: filmmaking. Within the grand tradition of “movies about moviemaking,” DRACULA’s surreal humor, combined with its focus on a struggling filmmaker fantasizing about the film he might make, gave us an excuse to revisit an all-time classic of the form, Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2. So this week we search for meaning within 8 1/2’s reveries of a blocked creative mind, interrogate the “semi” part of Fellini’s semi-autobiographical approach, and touch on some of the other films that exist in the shadow of this one. Then in Feedback, our recent pairing of RUNNING ON EMPTY and ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER inspires a supplementary-listening suggestion for the former, and a head canon explanation for one of our questions about the latter.Please share your thoughts about 8 1/2, DRACULA, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730.Intro: 00:00:00-00:05:128 1/2 Keynote: 00:05:12-00:11:398 1/2 Discussion: 00:11:39-48:26Feedback/outro: 00:48:26-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE is built on an undeniably hooky premise — a nuclear missile originating from an unknown source is heading right for us — but is that premise enough to support a successful movie? We’re joined once again by critic and author Jason Bailey to unpack that question, particularly as it applies to the film’s triptych structure and nervy ending gambit. That ending comes back into play when we reintroduce 1964’s FAIL SAFE for Connections, to see how Sidney Lumet’s Cold War thriller compares to Kathryn Bigelow’s modern-day nuclear scenario in their respective depictions of human connection — personal, professional, and adversarial —amid humanity-threatening catastrophe. Then we keep it in the nuclear family for Your Next Picture Show, with a recommendation for the 1983 TV movie THE DAY AFTER, as well as some of its pop-cultural fallout. Please share your thoughts about FAIL SAFE, A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Next Pairing: Radu Jude’s DRACULA and Federico Fellini’s 8 1/2 Intro: 00:00:00-00:02:33 A House of Dynamite discussion: 00:02:33 - 00:24:41 A House of Dynamite/Fail Safe Connections: 00:24:41-47:56 Your Next Picture Show and goodbyes: 00:47:56-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Kathryn Bigelow’s new A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE games out a scenario that filmmakers have been grappling with since the mid-20th century, in particular the year 1964, which saw the release of two very different classics of the nuclear-catastrophe genre: DR. STRANGELOVE, followed a few months later by the other half of this week’s pairing, FAIL SAFE. If the bleak realism of Sidney Lumet’s nuclear thriller made it a tougher sell to audiences back then, though, it also makes FAIL SAFE feel like a more fitting companion to Bigelow’s film than its satirical predecessor. We’re joined this week by critic and author Jason Bailey to discuss why FAIL SAFE still feels so immediately chilling decades removed from its Cold War context, and how Lumet makes a story that plays out mainly in a series of small rooms feel both grand in scope and human in focus. Then, in honor of our second Lumet feature in a row on this show, we turn Feedback over to a discussion of some of the prolific filmmaker’s lesser-known works. Please share your thoughts about FAIL SAFE, A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE, or anything else in the world of film by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Intro: 00:00:00-00:03:56 Fail Safe Keynote: 00:03:56-00:08:47 Fail Safe Discussion: 00:08:47-00:44:03 Feedback/outro: 00:44:03-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Paul Thomas Anderson’s ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER is a very different film in form and function than the other half of this pairing, RUNNING ON EMPTY, but it’s built on the same foundational questions as Sidney Lumet’s 1988 family drama: what does it mean to lead a revolutionary life, and how does one generation’s fight get handed off to the next? After talking through how ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER engages with those questions, as well as its more action-movie-oriented thrills (and hills), we bring in RUNNING ON EMPTY to compare how the two films depict coming of age while on the run from the feds, and parents attempting to safeguard their children from an unknown future. Then in Your Next Picture Show, we discuss some of the other films Anderson chose, alongside RUNNING ON EMPTY, for a recent TCM guest-programming selection inspired by ONE BATTLE. Please share your thoughts about RUNNING ON EMPTY, ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Next Pairing: Kathryn Bigelow’s A HOUSE OF DYNAMITE and Sidney Lumet’s FAIL-SAFE Intro: 00:00:00-00:01:40 One Battle After Another discussion: 00:01:40 - 00:32:37 One Battle After Another/Running on Empty Connections: 00:32:37-00:59:38 Your Next Picture Show and goodbyes: 00:59:38-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Paul Thomas Anderson himself cited 1988’s RUNNING ON EMPTY as a direct influence on the new ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER, and it’s not difficult to see the rhymes between these two films about former revolutionaries trying to protect their kids from the consequences of their parents’ past. We’ll get into those rhymes more next week, but first we devote some time to Sidney Lumet’s 1988 film, which is less cat-and-mouse chase than coming-of-age family drama, anchored by a remarkable River Phoenix as the teenage son of former anti-war protesters on the run from the law. Unlike with PTA’s film, there are no real bad guys in RUNNING ON EMPTY, only problems to negotiate within a rich family dynamic that is both delightful in its specificity and heartbreaking in its fragility. After that, we field some Feedback from listeners about our recent episodes on HIGHEST 2 LOWEST and THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON’T THEY? Please share your thoughts about RUNNING ON EMPTY, ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Intro: 00:00:00-00:04:58 Running on Empty Keynote: 00:04:58-00:09:39 Running on Empty Discussion: 00:09:39-00:44:26 Feedback/outro: 00:44:26-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It took decades in development hell for an adaptation of Stephen King’s THE LONG WALK to trudge its way into theaters, and now that it has, we’re of split opinions on how Francis Lawrence’s film goes about distinguishing itself from its source material, particularly in its graphic depiction of violence. There’s also the matter of the film’s very different ending, which we dig into once we move into Connections to compare how THE LONG WALK’s endurance contest compares to the one in Sydney Pollack’s THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON’T THEY?, in terms of how voluntary they actually are, what spectators get out of watching participants suffer, and what passes for victory in a contest where no one really wins. Then, in Your Next Picture Show, we devote a little time to revisiting a film franchise that came up repeatedly in our discussions of both these films: THE HUNGER GAMES. Please share your thoughts about THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON’T THEY?, THE LONG WALK, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Next Pairing: Paul Thomas Anderson’s ONE BATTLE AFTER ANOTHER and Sidney Lumet’s RUNNING ON EMPTY Intro: 00:00:00-00:01:59 The Long Walk discussion: 00:01:59 - 00:30:14 The Long Walk / They Shoot Horses Connections: 00:30:14-01:01:49 Your Next Picture Show and goodbyes: 01:01:49-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

It took decades for THE LONG WALK to make it to the big screen, in part because the Stephen King novel on which it’s based is so unrelentingly grim — but as we discovered this week, it may actually be less so than the other half of this pairing, THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON’T THEY. Set during the Great Depression and featuring a protagonist who is greatly depressed, Sydney Pollack’s 1969 drama about a marathon dance contest has little room for uplift, but it’s nonetheless full of interesting characters and performances, evocative filmmaking choices, and one of cinema’s all-time downer endings. After that discussion, we pick ourselves back up off the floor with the help of some feel-good Feedback from a long-time listener as we approach this podcast’s ten-year anniversary.  Please share your thoughts about THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON’T THEY, THE LONG WALK, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Intro: 00:00:00-00:04:32 They Shoot Horses, Don’t They Keynote: 00:04:32-00:09:38 They Shoot Horses, Don’t They Discussion: 00:09:38-00:50:10 Feedback/outro: 00:52:06-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Spike Lee’s HIGHEST 2 LOWEST is built on the rock-solid narrative foundation of HIGH AND LOW, but the “interpretation” of Akira Kurosawa’s 1963 crime-thriller classic he builds atop it can be shaky at times. We’re all in agreement that HIGHEST 2 LOWEST has flaws, but whether those flaws add up to ruin or simply provide texture to a singular filmmaker’s singular film is up for discussion in the first part of this week’s episode. Then we move into Connections to see where Lee and Kurosawa’s films align and diverge when it comes to high-low metaphor and imagery, the intersection of media and public opinion, and the value of police work. And in Your Next Picture Show, Scott recommends an earlier collaboration between Lee and HIGHEST 2 LOWEST star Denzel Washington that has only grown in his estimation since its 1998 release.  Please share your thoughts about HIGH AND LOW, HIGHEST 2 LOWEST, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Next Pairing: Francis Lawrence’s THE LONG WALK and Sydney Pollack’s THEY SHOOT HORSES, DON’T THEY? Intro: 00:00:00-00:02:02 Highest 2 Lowest discussion: 00:02:02 - 00:30:51 Highest 2 Lowest / High and Low Connections: 00:30:51-01:12:02 Your Next Picture Show and goodbyes: 01:12:02-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

The new HIGHEST 2 LOWEST includes an onscreen credit for “the master” Akira Kurosawa as inspiration for a film that has the same basic shape and mistaken-identity kidnapping premise of 1963’s HIGH AND LOW, but is still unmistakably a Spike Lee joint. So in order to better evaluate Lee’s modernization of a crime classic, we’re returning to the master’s version to see how Kurosawa himself reshaped HIGH AND LOW from its pulp-novel origins, utilizing a bifurcated structure and leading man Toshirō Mifune to challenge viewers’ assumed sympathies towards a villain and a victim on opposite sides of the class divide. Then in Feedback, a letter from a listener underlines a point about storytelling that HIGH AND LOW handily illustrates: the necessity of a three-act structure has been greatly exaggerated. Please share your thoughts about HIGH AND LOW, HIGHEST 2 LOWEST, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Intro: 00:00:00-00:06:18 High and Low Keynote: 00:06:18-00:13:10 High and Low Discussion: 00:13:10-00:52:06 Feedback/outro: 00:52:06-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Zach Cregger’s WEAPONS overlaps with Atom Egoyan’s THE SWEET HEREAFTER in both its broad narrative setup — a town grapples with the sudden disappearance of a group of children — and its non-traditional structure, but diverges considerably in its tone. Then again, WEAPONS diverges considerably from its own tone as it goes on, artfully shifting gears as it makes its way through a story that prioritizes entertainment value over horror allegory. We’re joined once again by Vulture movie critic Alison Willmore to talk about why that approach worked so well on us, and less so on the film’s detractors, before bringing THE SWEET HEREAFTER back in to discuss how each film’s broken timeline serves to reveal the intricacies of a community shattered by grief and anger. Then in Your Next Picture Show, we offer two recommendations for follow-up viewing, one for each half of this pairing. Please share your thoughts about THE SWEET HEREAFTER, WEAPONS, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Next Pairing: Spike Lee’s HIGHEST 2 LOWEST and Akira Kurosawa’s HIGH AND LOW. Intro: 00:00:00-00:02:14 Weapons discussion: 00:02:14 - 00:36:00 Weapons/The Sweet Hereafter Connections: 00:36:00-00:58:58 Your Next Picture Show and goodbyes: 00:58:58-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

As a story about a community shattered by the disappearance of its children, Zach Cregger’s WEAPONS lured us, Pied Piper-like, toward Atom Egoyan’s 1997 film THE SWEET HEREAFTER, which doesn’t have quite as many jump scares as Cregger’s film, but makes up for it in enveloping sadness as it explores the far-reaching effects of a school bus crash on a small Canadian town. So this week we’re revisiting Egoyan’s film with the help of Vulture movie critic Alison Willmore, to discuss how telling this story out of order shapes both the narrative and the characterization, where certain performances help fill in blanks left by the dialogue, and what we’re meant to take from the film’s ending. Then, in lieu of Feedback, we’re acknowledging a tough loss for the Chicago film criticism community by celebrating some of the critics and editors who helped shape it, and us. Please share your thoughts about THE SWEET HEREAFTER, WEAPONS, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Intro: 00:00:00-00:02:44 The Sweet Hereafter Keynote: 00:02:44-00:08:09 The Sweet Hereafter Discussion: 00:08:09-00:59:15 Feedback/outro: 00:59:15-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Akiva Schaffer’s new take on THE NAKED GUN sends up both the cop-story cliches that inspired the 1988 Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker original and the modern action tropes littering the filmography of star Liam Neeson, but at heart it’s less a genre parody than a spoof of nostalgia reboots like, well, this one. That meta layer is a major distinction between Schaffer’s film and the original, but it’s not the only one, so in between rehashing some of our favorite bits we attempt to determine where the new film’s ZAZ homage ends and its specific comedic sensibility begins. Then in Connections we use the many elements these two films share — bumbling cops and femmes fatale, a blend of timely and timeless humor, guns — to further distinguish between their approaches to satire, spoofery, and slapstick. And in Your Next Picture Show, our resident Quaid offers a recommendation for Schaffer’s podcast with his Lonely Island compatriots and Seth Meyers. Please share your thoughts about any and all NAKED GUNs, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Next Pairing: Zach Cregger’s WEAPONS and Atom Egoyan’s THE SWEET HEREAFTER Intro: 00:00:00-00:02:10 The Naked Gun 2025 discussion: 00:02:10 - 00:28:04 The Naked Gun 1988/2025 Connections: 00:28:04 - 00:55:54 Your Next Picture Show and goodbyes: 00:55:54-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

While technically a sequel, Akiva Schaffer’s new THE NAKED GUN is more accurately a reboot of the 1988 Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker cop-show spoof, which was itself a sequel-slash-reboot of their TV series POLICE SQUAD and would go on to spawn two sequels of its own. As circuitous as this IP has become over the years, though, THE NAKED GUN remains simple in both its approach and its appeal, which are essentially the same: lots and lots and lots of jokes. The original NAKED GUN was not unique in that approach, particularly within the spoof genre, but it is uniquely successful at it, so this week we’re parsing how it balances small comedic one-offs with drawn-out set pieces, contemporary references with timeless silliness, and broad mugging with underplayed straight-facedness. Then, in Feedback, a listener helps fill in some knowledge gaps from our recent F1 episode. Please share your thoughts about any and all NAKED GUNs, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. Intro: 00:00:00-00:03:59 Naked Gun Keynote: 00:03:59-00:10:01 Naked Gun Discussion: 00:10:01-00:45:29 Feedback/outro: 00:45:29-end Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

New pairing launching Tuesday, August 12th. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

By skipping the origin story and dropping viewers right into the action, James Gunn’s SUPERMAN avoids feeling like the franchise reset it is, and allows the director to get to work creating the sort of busy, quick-paced onscreen universe at which he excels. We’re joined once again by writer, podcaster, and Superman aficionado Chris Klimek to break exactly down why it works so well, as well as a few places where it doesn’t, before returning to the film that helped facilitate this shorthand approach, 1978’s SUPERMAN, to see how these different iterations of the title character — not to mention the familiar ensemble surrounding him — play in close proximity to each other. Can Superman be too corny? Is Lois Lane a good or terrible journalist? Why is Lex Luthor obsessed with land grabs, and what does his associate Eve Teschmacher actually add to these movies? We dig into all of that, then offer some options for Super-lementary viewing and reading in Your Next Picture Show. Please share your thoughts about either and all versions of SUPERMAN, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. 00:00:00. Intro 00:03:58. Superman 2025 discussion 00:30:12. Superman 1978/2025 Connections 01:00:12. Your Next Picture Show and goodbyes Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

James Gunn’s new SUPERMAN begins from the assumption that audiences already have a working knowledge of the Man of Steel’s origin story, his super-skill set, and his romance with Lois Lane. Gunn’s film benefits greatly from being able to skip past the basics, but it wouldn’t have been possible without Richard Donner’s franchise-launching blockbuster SUPERMAN, which codified those basics for the big screen. So this week we’re spinning the planet backwards to 1978 and revisiting filmgoers’ first introduction to The Last Son Of Krypton — who we don’t properly meet until nearly an hour in because, as it turns out, there are about four different movies tucked inside SUPERMAN. We’re joined by writer, podcaster, and Supes superfan Chris Klimek to discuss how it all holds together from a modern perspective, and whether Christopher Reeve’s definitive performance is enough to overcome all the film’s flaws, or just most of them. Then in Feedback, the SINNERS conversation lives on, with a listener detailing its many connections to another film that we considered for that pairing.  Please share your thoughts about either and all versions of SUPERMAN, or anything else in the world of film, by sending an email or voice memo to comments@nextpictureshow.net, or leaving a short voicemail at (773) 234-9730. 00:00:00 Intro 00:11:41 Superman Keynote 00:18:48 Superman Discussion 01:04:47 Feedback/outro Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices