The Narcissist’s Playbook

The Narcissist’s Playbook

Posted on August 29, 2026 at 9:50 pm

B +
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Not rated
Profanity: Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: References to alcohol and drugs
Violence/ Scariness: Discussion of emotional, physical, and sexual abuse
Diversity Issues: None
Date Released to DVD: August 29, 2026
The Narcissist’s Playbook

One of the most unnerving twists of the year occurs about two-thirds of the way into “The Narcissist’s Playbook,” a documentary about people who are incapable of empathy and, because they do not feel love, compassion, tenderness, or joy, often inflict abuse on others to feel powerful or just to feel anything at all.

It begins with a telling perspective-shifting quote from someone we will spend a lot of time with over the course of the film, Sam Vaknin, the Israeli author of books including Malignant Self Love: Narcissism Revisited. He says that it is not the evil of the narcissist that fools us; it is our own humanity projecting onto everyone else the emotions that feel so essential to us we cannot imagine there is anyone who cannot care about other people.

It is not surprising that director Mark Vicente would be drawn to this subject. He became first an accolyte of NXIVM and its founder, Keith Raniere, and then a whistleblower who helped bring the organization and its leader down, including a criminal trial ending with a 120 year sentence.

Most people think of narcissists as egotists who are consumed with their own status and their own needs. This film uses the term to mean what in non-clinical terms we might call psychopaths or sociopaths or borderline personality disorder, people we think of as doing whatever makes them feel safe or powerful, no matter who gets hurt.

It is structured like a typical documentary, with a lot of talking heads — experts and survivors of relationships with narcissists from seven different countries. But some elements are unusual. Four of the experts are themselves, according to the film’s press materials, “self-confessed, self-aware malignant narcissists.”

Vaknin earns our sympathy and his own credibility right away, confessing that he went to prison for securities fraud, and he is now doing his best to educate others about what narcisissm is and how to protect ourselves.

We also hear from actress Evan Rachel Wood, who at 18 met punk rocker Marilyn Manson, then in his mid-30s. He quickly persuaded her to move in with him and then, she tells us, he isolated and abused her. It was only when she played a character on the HBO series “Westworld” that she located within herself the courage to leave him. (Manson denies her allegations.)

We learn from the academic experts that what Wood describes is typical of the narcissist, who begins by “love-bombing,” telling victims how special they are, how only he or she really sees and understands them, how much they need each other. It is “fast, intense, magical.” Step 2 is isolating the victim, separating them from their friends and family. Wood says, they want us to know “the only safe place is with them.” Next, they counter all of the building you up by tearing you down, first by devaluing you, destabilizing you so you try to regain that fast, intense, magical, and SAFE feeling again. And, when someone tries to leave or expose them, the accusations start. Non-narcisssist are looking for peace; narcissists live for chaos.

Step 4 will be familiar to anyone who has seen Ingrid Bergman’s Oscar-winning performance in “Gaslight.” You don’t have time to doubt the relationship because this step has you doubting yourself, even your own ability to discern reality. And then comes the discord, drama, distractions, and lies. Another victim describes his marriage, which followed exactly this pattern.

Those who have a hard time understanding people whose underestanding extends only to their own interests tend to look for causes, abusive families, past traumas. Their first impulse may be to try to be reassuring, to feel sorry for narcissists who say they do not know what it feels like to feel love or happiness and want to heal them. But, as one of the experts points out, many people experience abuse and trauma and do not become narcissists. We are told fairly early that a true crime investigative reporter is searching for a particular narcissist who has hurt many women by posing as a therapist, but we do not find out until much later who that person is and what he will do when he is exposed.

Anyone who watches this film will think of people who fit the pattern. And everyone who watches will come away prepared to recognize and block anyone who tries those tactics.

Parents should know that this film includes discussions of physical and emotional abuse and trauma with very strong language.

Family discussion: What did you learn from this film? What should people do to protect themselves from predators?

If you like this, try: the NXIVM documentary, “The Vow”

Related Tags:

 

Documentary Illness, Medicine, and Health Care Illness, Medicine, and Health Care movie review Movies -- format Movies -- Reviews VOD and Streaming
Billie Eilish: Hit Me Hard and Soft – The Tour Live in 3D

Billie Eilish: Hit Me Hard and Soft – The Tour Live in 3D

Posted on May 7, 2026 at 5:50 pm

B +
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
MPAA Rating: Rated PG-13 for strong language and suggestive references
Profanity: Strong language and sexual references in song lyrics
Alcohol/ Drugs: None
Violence/ Scariness: None
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters: May 8, 2026
Copyright 2026 Paramount

If you don’t know better, when you see Billie Eilish come on stage by herself in a huge area, looking like she is wearing the clothes she slept in, bopping a bit as she walks around the perimeter of the stage that juts into the audience, you might think she is winging it. There may not be a sequin in sight, no choreography with spangled dancing girls, very few digital effects and just two back-up singers, simply dressed in polo shirts and pleated skirts. But Eilish is in control of every detail including meticulously staged lighting effects, a floating platform (reassuringly, she is tethered to it), and bursts of flame. As we will see, that also includes a powerful connection with every individual in the two gigantic arenas that are the settings for this 3D IMAX documentary concert film co-directed by Oscar-winners James Cameron and — I did say every detail — Eilish herself. She even used a camera to shoot some of the footage.

For a moment, I was annoyed at what I thought was the hands blocking the screen from the row in front of me. Then I realized they were not blocking the screen; they were on it. Cameron, the man behind the “Avatar” franchise, knows how to create a truly immersive experience. Like most concert films, this one has brief interviews with fans expressing their adoration and images audience members happily sobbing as they sing along as well as some backstage moments, in this case mostly with Cameron interviewing his co-director in an atmosphere of utter comfort and respect. One of the movie’s sweetest moments has Eilish looking through her window to see fans camped out below. She holds up a hand-lettered sign telling them she loves them and they of course go wild.

And one of the documentary’s most touching moments is when Eilish, who is in such confident command on stage, tells Cameron that while she loves performing “more than anything,” she was worried that she would not be able to because she was not comfortable in what she thought of as the expected presentation of young women singers (see the above references to sequins and choreography). Learning that she could be not just accepted but cherished for presenting herself as is (she smiles that she does her own hair and make-up, both minimal) is as important to her as the understanding and appreciation her fans find in her music. Over and over we hear them say that it is the generosity and insight in her music that makes them feel seen in a way that gives them hope and self-acceptance.

Early in the film, Eilish receives flowers and a loving note from her brother, Finneas, wishing her well on her first tour without him. That makes it all the more meaningful when he shows up late in the film to join her on stage. The relationship between them as siblings and musicians is a joy to watch, as is seeing Eilish play the audience as though it is a musical instrument. She is a truly remarkable performer. At one point, she lies down on the stage, cautioning her audience to stay as quiet as possible for just a minute so she can create a series of vocal loops requiring astonishing precision in a studio setting, near-unthinkable in live performance.

Her dedication to the fans is endearing, musing about the cuts and scrapes on her hands from trying to be in literal touch with as many as possible, and explaining that she wants to be the kind of performer her younger self would like to have been a fan of. As we are on stage with her, a part of these concerts, we can assure her that she has.

Parent should know that this film begins with a warning that it includes a lot of bright, flashing, and pulsing lights that may create problems for some viewers. Eilish’s lyrics have some strong language and sexual references.

Family discussion: Why did Billie Eilish think she would not be able to be herself on stage? What performers do you most admire and why?

If you like this, try: other concert films including performances by Taylor Swift, The Band, The Talking Heads, the Rolling Stones, and U2.

Related Tags:

 

3D Documentary IMAX movie review Movies -- format Movies -- Reviews Musical
Steal This Story, Please!

Steal This Story, Please!

Posted on April 30, 2026 at 5:37 pm

B +
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
MPAA Rating: Not rated
Profanity: Mild language
Alcohol/ Drugs: None
Violence/ Scariness: Scenes of real-life violence, people injured and killed
Diversity Issues: A theme of the movie
Date Released to Theaters: May 1, 2026

Civil rights activist Bayard Rustin popularized the phrase “Speak truth to power” as a foundational tactic of holding authorities accountable and progress toward a more just society. And H.L. Mencken is often credited with the obligation of the journalist: “To comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable.” No one has exemplified that directive with more passion over more time than Amy Goodman of Democracy Now! She has more than earned the exclamation mark at the end of both the name of her organization and the name of this documentary about her life and work reporting the news from the perspective of ordinary people.

Steal This Story, Please!
Copyright 2026 Exceptional Communications

As the movie opens, it is 2018 and she is literally chasing after P. Wells Griffith III, then the Trump administration’s climate advisor in his first term, currently Senior Advisor in the Bureau of Political-Military Affairs, at the U.S. Department of State, and one-time a managing director at one of Washington DC’s most powerful K Street “communications” firms working on behalf of the oil industry. He insists that he has to rush to a meeting as she peppers him with questions about what he is doing there. “You weren’t running late when you were just standing there.” He accuses her of harassing him and tells her to set up an interview. But when she tries to follow up with his aide, they literally shut the door in her face.

We then see her asking then-President George H.W. Bush, “What do you say to those who say that you’re a war criminal?” And a provocative question for her, “You’re an activist and journalist. Can you do both?” Stephen Colbert, on “The Colbert Report,” jokingly calls her a communist. Rush Limbaugh, not joking, calls her a radical leftist. And we see her reporting, over decades, from every part of the world where people in power are putting people without power at risk, from Haiti to Gaza and all over the United States. Her reporting helped to free a wrongly imprisoned individual in Louisiana after 38 years. She was beaten and held at gunpoint when Indonesian military fired on civilians at an independence rally in East Timor.

Another journalist admits that some journalists do not ask tough questions because they fear losing access. But Goodman never pulls her punches. Every bit of her is fully committed. She even named her dog after an anti-Nazi group in occupied France.

The archival material from her childhood is illuminating and endearing. When she was growing up, her brother David started a family newspaper, reporting on events in their home. When their mother tried to censor a story about Amy getting a spanking, “he really cried censorship, because he was only eight years old.” The newspaper even had letters to the editor “where the whole family fought about issues,” and one from the Goodman children’s grandfather gently disagreed with David’s position on the war in Vietnam, and David responded, “I love you but your views on the war are stupid.”

Goodman is generally considered left-wing, but that is not entirely fair. Unlike some of her competition, who are selective in framing and choosing stories they report, even to the point of having to pay millions of dollars to settle defamation cases, with “local, independent” reporters who are reciting identical scripts from corporate HQ, Goodman has consistently reported the facts from the perspective nearly all other journalists overlook, the impact of the news on ordinary people. When she gets in trouble, it is not about spin, but about the Rustin and Mencken standards for reporters. This movie is a welcome reminder that it is the irritating, provocative, relentless journalists who are an indispensable foundation for democracy.

Parents should know that this film includes depiction of violence and conflict.

Family discussion: If your family had a newspaper, what stories would it include? What news sources do you think are most trustworthy and why?

If you like this, try: listening to Goodman’s reporting and other documentaries about pioneering journalists, like “Writing With Fire,” “Bad Press,” “The Most Dangerous Man in America,” and “Cover-Up”

Related Tags:

 

Documentary Journalism movie review Movies -- format Movies -- Reviews Politics
Lorne

Lorne

Posted on April 16, 2026 at 5:05 pm

B
Lowest Recommended Age: High School
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language and a sexual reference
Profanity: Very strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: References to drinking and drug use
Violence/ Scariness: References to sad deaths
Diversity Issues: Diversity issues raised
Date Released to Theaters: April 17, 2026
Lorne

There are three problems in trying to make a documentary about Lorne Michaels, who created and continues to run “Saturday Night Live” (except for five years) now for more than half a century. The first is the many, many documentaries already made about the show and the people who have appeared on it, including Steve Martin, John Belushi, Chris Farley, so this latest one is a small addition to a big jigsaw puzzle. It goes over events that have been thoroughly covered elsewhere, with some new archival material, like Michaels’ brief appearances as a performer himself in Canada when he was in his 20s and from a brief substitute for “SNL” that lasted less than a dozen years.

Second, Lorne Michaels really did not want to have a documentary made about him. As his close friend Paul Simon says to director Morgan Neville in the film, “You’ll capture a guy who is not happy.” So the movie is not about guy who is not happy, but about a guy who isn’t happy to have a cameras on him. Michaels likes his life, his job, and especially his home and family very much and he is, as anyone in that job would have to be, very even-tempered.

Third, because he is so even-tempered, and often downright dull, he is not a dynamic film presence, and because his job is “SNL” that is a gigantic contrast with EVERYONE ELSE on screen. Neville tries to jazz it up a bit with some animated segments, but we have to keep coming back to Michaels, who is not introspective beyond saying how much he loves nature or analytic about what does and does not work in the show (we see him re-arrange the order of the sketches but we don’t know anything about why).

I’ve watched “SNL” since the very first episode and have stuck with it through all of the ups and downs that are documented or in many cases glossed over quickly or ignored entirely in this film. I’m enough of a fan that I enjoyed it, though it is in no way an indispensable or particularly valuable addition to the record. Any serious fan has seen plenty about the early days, the “is ‘SNL’ past its prime” headlines the rocketing unknown-to-megawatt star trajectories (Eddie Murphy) and the “wait, what’s that one’s name again” cast members, plus the firing of Norm MacDonald (here’s a great take with David Letterman).

One benefit of surrounding himself with some of the most brilliant impressionists and comedians in the world is that most of them have a take on Michaels’ slightly stentorian delivery (and on his disappointed sigh). It is a lot of fun to hear so many of them almost subconsciously slip into his voice. And it’s a lot of fun just to hear them talk about him, his quirks (the entire schedule is built around his preferring to start the day at 4 pm and he is constantly munching on popcorn). The best moments are just listening in on a conversation with comedy legends John Mulaney, Bill Hader, and Fred Armisen, or the comments from Conan O’Brien, writer Jim Downey (see the documentary about him), and Paul Simon. Mulaney, hyper-perceptive as always, tells the film’s most illuminating story.

We know, as we watch the archival footage, how many of those people have died. But there’s hardly any sense of how those losses affected him. We hear about the pressure to revitalize the show, but not what steps he took. Instead we hear him fretting about whether host Ryan Gosling has a doctor for his raspy throat. The other documentaries, the books about “SNL,” or any given episode of the show will tell you as much and be more entertaining.

Parents should know that this film has references to drinking and drug use.

Family discussion: What are some of your favorite “SNL” sketches and stars and why?

If you like this, try: the four documentaries celebrating the show’s 50th anniversary, especially the one from Questlove about the music.

Related Tags:

 

Documentary DVD/Blu-Ray movie review Movies -- format New on DVD/Blu-Ray Understanding Media and Pop Culture
Man on the Run

Man on the Run

Posted on February 26, 2026 at 7:08 pm

B +
Lowest Recommended Age: Middle School
MPAA Rating: Rated R for language
Profanity: Strong language
Alcohol/ Drugs: Social drinking
Violence/ Scariness: References to the murder of John Lennon, depression
Diversity Issues: None
Date Released to Theaters: February 27, 2026
Date Released to DVD: February 27, 2026
Man on the Run
Copyright 2026 Amazon/MGM

Imagine that the little band you put together in your teens exceeded every possible dream of success, worldwide fame, rave reviews, unprecedented adoration from fans, buckets of awards, and money money money. Then, it all ends, the band breaks up, the complications from business managers and lawyers and hard feelings create intense misery. And you’re only 27 years old.

That is what happened to Sir Paul McCartney as the 1960s were ending. This film, produced by Sir Paul, tells the story of what he did next.

The first thing he did next was a combination of unwinding and despair. Sir Paul, his wife Linda and her daughter from her first marriage moved to a remote farm that seemed like it was at the end of the world. He tells us he thought he would never write another note.

The peace of the farm is healing. He likes the sheep. He becomes a vegetarian. Linda has a baby. And then he returns to music with the McCartney album, the one with, in my opinion, one of the greatest love songs of all time, “Maybe I’m Amazed,” and then Ram with “Too Many People,” what today we’d call a diss track about John Lennon (not discussed in the film).

He wants to go. back to his roots, start a new group. Linda agrees to join. “Well, that’s two, then,” Paul says. His plan is to play at small venues and have the kind of band the Beatles was in the days of the Cavern Club and Hamburg, where, in his mind, everyone was equal. Much has been written about whether the Beatles was equal with two people writing most of the songs and making most of the decisions, but whether it was or not, four teenagers performing in their home town of Liverpool is not the same thing as an international superstar assembling (hiring) a new band.

It is a lot of fun at first, traveling around and playing for small groups who are more surprised and curious than appreciative. Like a Supreme Court justice arguing your ticket in traffic court or George Takei showing up to act in your fanfic “Star Trek” movie. This is what Sir Paul loves, playing music with his mates for an audience who isn’t drowning out the music with screams.

Documentarian Morgan Neville has assembled archival clips, including some endearing home movies, in an impressionistic, occasionally whimsical, mosaic. Sir Paul, who produced, is famously cheerful (compare his Christmas song to Lennon’s, and recall that he wrote “You have to admit it’s getting better” and Lennon added “Can’t get no worse”). His oddly cool reaction the day Lennon was murdered is included, though sympathetically portrayed as a response to an unforgivably rude question. In this film he allows himself to get more introspective than usual, talking about how he and John were estranged but never stopped loving each other and about how Linda and his children helped bring him back to music. When Wings breaks up, he knows he can start again. And if he never reaches the heights of the Beatles era, that’s fine. As a fan of Sir Paul for decades, who’s seen him in concert twice, I found this a pleasure.

Parents should know this film includes some strong language and social drinking.

Family discussion: What would you do if everything you had worked for suddenly stopped? What is your favorite Paul McCartney song?

If you like this, try: “A Hard Days Night” and “Get Back”

Related Tags:

 

Documentary movie review Movies -- format Movies -- Reviews VOD and Streaming
THE MOVIE MOM® is a registered trademark of Nell Minow. Use of the mark without express consent from Nell Minow constitutes trademark infringement and unfair competition in violation of federal and state laws. All material © Nell Minow 1995-2026, all rights reserved, and no use or republication is permitted without explicit permission. This site hosts Nell Minow’s Movie Mom® archive, with material that originally appeared on Yahoo! Movies, Beliefnet, and other sources. Much of her new material can be found at Rogerebert.com, Huffington Post, and WheretoWatch. Her books include The Movie Mom’s Guide to Family Movies and 101 Must-See Movie Moments, and she can be heard each week on radio stations across the country.

Website Designed by Max LaZebnik