Entertainment
'Pavements' review: A slanted, enchanting documentary-biopic-prank
Every band has its biggest fans. The ’90s slacker/alt rock group Pavement is probably the greatest, most vital musical group in existence to someone, but right from its opening frames, Alex Ross Perry’s Pavements deflates the grandeur of this idea, sarcastically overstating the band’s stature in its opening text. In an age of musical biopic plenty, this semi-ironic, postmodern take — which runs through Perry’s part drama, part documentary, and part mockumentary — may be just what the doctor ordered.
To those with only passing knowledge of the Stockton, California, rockers — Stephen Malkmus, Bob Nastanovich, Scott Kannberg, Steve West, and Mark Ibold — this approach to the band’s concert footage may seem counterproductive, but it also perfectly embodies their lackadaisical, experimental facade. The unique form of Perry’s film has its strengths and drawbacks. However, like Pavement itself, what sets the film apart is its outright refusal to adhere to tradition. It is, for better or worse, unique.
What is Pavements about?
Through split screens that contrast the group’s late-’90s breakup with its 2022 reunion, Pavements establishes a sense of visual and narrative duality early on. While the film eventually chronicles the lives of its members (and the band’s life as a whole) in slightly more linear fashion, this contrast establishes what appear to be the film’s dramatic parameters: an early success story later granted a new lease on life. However, the strange nature of the band’s revival soon begins fading into view, revealing just how idiosyncratic this movie truly is.
Much of the movie unfolds in side-by-side split screen, which has become a common technique in musical docs, from Todd Haynes’ Rothko-inspired The Velvet Underground to the self-generating, new-each-time Eno. However, Pavements uses this visual cue for tongue-in-cheek purpose early on. On one side, the band’s frontman Stephen Malkmus espouses his youthful, perhaps naive philosophies in a decades-old video. On the other, actor Joe Keery (Steve Harrington on Stranger Things) begins reciting the very same words, with remarkably similar intonations. This reveals — amusingly, and acerbically — that the movie’s real subjects exist alongside fictitious versions of them, a group of young actors (including the likes of Nat Wolff and Griffin Newman) who have been cast in a film called Range Life, a prestige biopic practically designed to win awards.
The doc veers between presenting the making of this satirical project and presenting it as a movie within a movie, whose footage is sprinkled sporadically throughout Pavements (rife with its own “For Your Consideration” watermark, as though it were a screener for award voting). Perry really did direct and exhibit this feature-length, Bohemian Rhapsody–style satire in New York last year — starring seasoned performers like Jason Schwartzman and Tim Heidecker in biopic stock roles, like the band’s manager and a record executive — with the intention of including this premiere footage in the documentary.
Soon, Pavements begins documenting not just the band themselves, but the development of three parallel art projects that go hand in hand with the band’s recent reunion: the aforementioned movie, a museum installation dedicated to the group, and Slanted! Enchanted!, a Broadway-style jukebox musical starring Michael Esper and Zoe Lister-Jones that pulls from the band’s discography.
Pavements takes a multifaceted approach to its subjects.
The film cuts between its four aforementioned trajectories — the band and its performance, the biopic and its making, the museum, and the show, each with its own dedicated, roughly equal screen time — with reckless abandon. However, these subjects can be paired up along two interesting axes. On one hand, old footage of the band, when contrasted with their museum commemoration, serves to contrast the past and present, and eventually creates a chronology, albeit non-chronologically. On the other hand, the biopic project is tongue-in-cheek, as though it were more about the biopic genre than about Pavement themselves, and thus, it embodies the group’s ironic musings. But this could not feel more different from the musical theater project, which draws from the group’s lyrics and melodies to create a sincere story (this show also really did premiere, in 2022).
While Pavements might seem like it meanders for the first of its two hours, cutting rapidly between these four trajectories helps weave together a complete fabric — about the band’s story then and now, and about the conflict between their approach and the meaning behind their work. While watching the movie, you may not feel like you’re learning anything about the group or its members, but all that really means is you aren’t learning things according to the linear, straightforward language that most music docs and biopics have established.
However, the film’s most entertaining segments are undoubtedly those featuring Keery, which chronicle his fictitious preparation process in meticulous detail. More than anything or anyone in Pavements, the actor seems to embody the group’s spirit through his Borat-like pranks, in which he sits down with accent coaches to prepare for his role as Malkmus and meets up with various people he thinks might be able to help him stay in character. Fittingly, the only music film Pavements resembles in any fashion is Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping.
What does Pavements actually have to say about the band Pavement?
The film, amidst its head-spinning montage approach, goes to ludicrous lengths with its movie-in-a-movie, all but presenting it in full during its runtime. However, this extended lark isn’t really about the band, per se, the way the other segments are — none of which are individually sufficient to make any viewer a Pavement expert. Beyond a few dates and events, you’re unlikely to come away from Pavements knowing much more about its members and their college disc jockey days than when you went in, which understandably elicits the question: “What’s the point?”
The point, it would seem, lies in the making of the film itself, as an anti-biopic that runs counter to everything a standard Hollywood biopic is — or rather, what it represents. If Pavement was an anti-institution band, then Pavements is its anti-institution movie made with their participation. In presenting a hilariously schmaltzy vision of what a straightforward biopic might have looked like, Perry helps them avoid an overly serious canonization.
In a way, he helps keep them young. Bands, when they reach a certain age or threshold, become nostalgic cover acts for themselves, and Pavements is determined to prevent this from happening at all costs, even if it means crafting a movie on the verge of avant-garde that might alienate half its audience.
Still, even when the various narrative threads in Pavements start to meander, the movie remains an entrancing sensory experience, given just how much screen time is dedicated to performance footage, both real and re-created. At the end of the day, despite the tricks and pranks Perry pulls, he knows full well that the reason people show up to musical biopics in the first place — and the reason they’re made to begin with — is music that connects with people’s sensibilities. This, he delivers in spades, all while maintaining a reverence for Pavement by being, well, irreverent.
Pavements does not currently have a theatrical or digital release date.
UPDATE: Sep. 25, 2024, 4:51 p.m. EDT Pavements was reviewed on Sept. 7, 2024, out of its World Premiere at the Venice International Film Festival. This post has been updated to toast its New York Film Festival premiere.
Entertainment
NYT Strands hints, answers for March 1, 2026
Today’s NYT Strands hints are easy if you’re not on. your best behavior.
Strands, the New York Times‘ elevated word-search game, requires the player to perform a twist on the classic word search. Words can be made from linked letters — up, down, left, right, or diagonal, but words can also change direction, resulting in quirky shapes and patterns. Every single letter in the grid will be part of an answer. There’s always a theme linking every solution, along with the “spangram,” a special, word or phrase that sums up that day’s theme, and spans the entire grid horizontally or vertically.
By providing an opaque hint and not providing the word list, Strands creates a brain-teasing game that takes a little longer to play than its other games, like Wordle and Connections.
If you’re feeling stuck or just don’t have 10 or more minutes to figure out today’s puzzle, we’ve got all the NYT Strands hints for today’s puzzle you need to progress at your preferred pace.
NYT Strands hint for today’s theme: Dressing down
The words are related to discipline.
Mashable Top Stories
Today’s NYT Strands theme plainly explained
These words describe ways to chastise.
NYT Strands spangram hint: Is it vertical or horizontal?
Today’s NYT Strands spangram is vertical.
NYT Strands spangram answer today
Today’s spangram is The Riot Act.
NYT Strands word list for March 1
-
Braidup
-
The Riot Act
-
Scold
-
Castigate
-
Reprimand
-
Admonish
Looking for other daily online games? Mashable’s Games page has more hints, and if you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now!
Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.
Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Strands.
Entertainment
New Scream Movie Is Only For Diehard Fans
By Chris Snellgrove
| Published
In 1996, iconic director Wes Craven rejuvenated the slasher genre with Scream, a film that served as the perfect deconstruction of horror movies. Scream was ahead of its time in many ways, predicting modern phenomena like true crime obsession and paradoxical relationships. At the same time, it worked as a perfect scary movie, one that transformed the entire genre for the better.
However, Scream was delivering diminishing returns even before Wes Craven died, and the franchise later re-oriented itself around a new pair of leads with Scream (2022). Unfortunately, the studio lost both Melissa Barrera and Jenna Ortega, which necessitated the return of original franchise icon Neve Campbell for Scream 7. The new movie is directed by original Scream scribe Kevin Williamson, and while it provides competent kills and fun moments for returning cast members, the sloppy plotting results in a film that only diehard fans will really enjoy.
Sydney’s Coming, And Hell Is Coming With Her
The basic premise of Scream 7 is that a new killer (or is it killers?) is gunning for Sydney Prescott, and they are claiming to be the original Scream villain, Stu Macher. Syd is skeptical and thinks Stu’s taunting video calls are just an AI fabrication, but the danger is all too real when her daughter and her daughter’s friends become targets for the attacker. Now, Sydney must team up with Gale Weathers and other returning allies, but even their combined strength may not be enough to defeat the one type of foe they have never fought before: one who refuses to follow any kind of rules.
The Stu Macher stuff is mostly an excuse to bring fan-favorite actor Matthew Lillard back into the fold, and his taunting video calls to Syd are easily one of the best parts of the film. Unfortunately, his presence is also evidence of the worst part of the film: namely, that Scream 7 is much more interested in wallowing in nostalgia than really building anything new. This is a franchise that once deconstructed the entire horror genre, and every movie was fair game. Now, the latest Scream is only interested in its own lore, and with nothing left to really deconstruct, all director Kevin Williamson can really do is play the hits of yesteryear.
Like Mother, Like Daughter
On paper, that happens through a loose reconstruction of the first film: Sydney now has a daughter of her own, one who is the exact age that Syd was when the Woodsboro murders went down. She’s got a slightly creepy boyfriend who likes to climb in her window for surprise snuggles and a group of hapless friends that soon become cannon fodder for a marauding masked killer. The police (including her dad, the chief) are helpless to stop the carnage, forcing these plucky teens to take matters into their own hands lest they get picked off one by one.
A remake (or requel, or whatever we’re calling all this crap now) of the first film works well on paper, but the essential problem of Scream 7 is that it can’t decide which characters to focus on. We start out with an uneasy balance of newer and older actors, but the film soon focuses almost exclusively on legacy characters like Sydney Prescott, Gale Weathers, and even Scream 5 and 6 veterans Chad and Mindy. While that leads to some great fan service for returning audiences, it creates one of the film’s biggest problems: we don’t really get to know almost any of these younger characters before Ghostface is picking them off.
Ghostface Is Back For More Blood Than Ever Before
Fortunately, the kills in this movie are some of the nastiest and most memorable in the entire franchise, and Ghostface is as viscerally scary as ever as he dispatches victims in increasingly grotesque ways. Accordingly, your enjoyment of Scream 7 will largely hinge on your primary motivation for watching slasher movies. If you’re here for killers looking cool (the kids call it aura farming) and pretty faces dying ugly deaths, this latest franchise entry delivers all that and a bloody bag of chips. If you prefer to get to know the virtual victims before they are transformed into raw meat, you’ll likely find Scream 7 to be the weakest movie in the entire series.
Speaking of weak, the reveal of the killer (or is it killers? Don’t worry, I’m keeping this spoiler-free) is particularly disappointing because the motivation for stalking Sydney comes out of nowhere. In the first movie, Stu Macher and particularly Billy Loomis had tangible reasons for stalking Syd, and discovering who the killers were felt a bit like solving the puzzle of a whodunnit. Like Scream 6 before it, Scream 7 tries too hard to surprise fans with the reveal, and this came at a cost: namely, the killer’s motivation makes no real sense, and it comes in the form of an exposition chunk so thick it threatens to choke the climax of the movie.
Killer Performances From Actors Old And New
Aside from the cool kills, Scream 7 does a few other things very well. The new additions to the cast are awesome: Community’s Joel McHale is weirdly perfect as Sydney’s top cop husband, and the character steals his handful of scenes with McHale’s trademark rogueish charisma. But I was even more pleasantly surprised by Isabel May, who convincingly gives Sydney Prescott’s daughter an aching vulnerability whose pain masks ice-cold reserves of hidden strength.
As you might imagine, the returning actors all do a great job, starting with Courtney Cox: her Gale Weathers is as fierce and funny as ever, and she has taken the characters played by returning actors Mason Gooding and Jasmin Savoy Brown under her wing as journalistic interns. Those younger characters continue to provide humorous, Randy-like commentary on the violent proceedings around them. But the actor truly giving it her all is Neve Campbell, whose Sydney reluctantly saddles up for one last fight with the ghostly demons of her past.
When You Stare At The Past, It Stares Right Back
Ultimately, how much you like Scream 7 will depend on how much you enjoy the franchise as a whole. As for myself, I’m a superfan: I saw the original in theaters, I’ve listened to the cast speak at multiple conventions, and I’ve got a house filled with way too much Ghostface merchandise. From the perspective of a superfan, the film is decent (good, not great) in bringing back our favorite characters and wrapping up its derivative story in the bloody packaging of some truly innovative kills.
If you’re not a Scream fanboy, though, it’s worth waiting to catch this on streaming, assuming that you catch it at all. Kevin Williamson wrote the legendary first film in this franchise, but now that he’s in the director’s chair, he created a movie that only complete franchise diehards will really enjoy. As for everyone else, let’s just say that if Ghostface calls, Scream 7 will never be the answer to this franchise’s age-old question: “what’s your favorite scary movie?”
Entertainment
Wordle today: Answer, hints for March 1, 2026
Today’s Wordle answer should be easy to solve if you believe in coincidences.
If you just want to be told today’s word, you can jump to the bottom of this article for today’s Wordle solution revealed. But if you’d rather solve it yourself, keep reading for some clues, tips, and strategies to assist you.
Where did Wordle come from?
Originally created by engineer Josh Wardle as a gift for his partner, Wordle rapidly spread to become an international phenomenon, with thousands of people around the globe playing every day. Alternate Wordle versions created by fans also sprang up, including battle royale Squabble, music identification game Heardle, and variations like Dordle and Quordle that make you guess multiple words at once.
Wordle eventually became so popular that it was purchased by the New York Times, and TikTok creators even livestream themselves playing.
What’s the best Wordle starting word?
The best Wordle starting word is the one that speaks to you. But if you prefer to be strategic in your approach, we have a few ideas to help you pick a word that might help you find the solution faster. One tip is to select a word that includes at least two different vowels, plus some common consonants like S, T, R, or N.
What happened to the Wordle archive?
The entire archive of past Wordle puzzles was originally available for anyone to enjoy whenever they felt like it, but it was later taken down, with the website’s creator stating it was done at the request of the New York Times. However, the New York Times then rolled out its own Wordle Archive, available only to NYT Games subscribers.
Is Wordle getting harder?
It might feel like Wordle is getting harder, but it actually isn’t any more difficult than when it first began. You can turn on Wordle‘s Hard Mode if you’re after more of a challenge, though.
Here’s a subtle hint for today’s Wordle answer:
A coincidence.
Mashable Top Stories
Does today’s Wordle answer have a double letter?
There are no recurring letters.
Today’s Wordle is a 5-letter word that starts with…
Today’s Wordle starts with the letter F.
The Wordle answer today is…
Get your last guesses in now, because it’s your final chance to solve today’s Wordle before we reveal the solution.
Drumroll please!
The solution to today’s Wordle is…
FLUKE
Don’t feel down if you didn’t manage to guess it this time. There will be a new Wordle for you to stretch your brain with tomorrow, and we’ll be back again to guide you with more helpful hints. Are you also playing NYT Strands? See hints and answers for today’s Strands.
Reporting by Chance Townsend, Caitlin Welsh, Sam Haysom, Amanda Yeo, Shannon Connellan, Cecily Mauran, Mike Pearl, and Adam Rosenberg contributed to this article.
If you’re looking for more puzzles, Mashable’s got games now! Check out our games hub for Mahjong, Sudoku, free crossword, and more.
Not the day you’re after? Here’s the solution to yesterday’s Wordle.
Hannah Green wins her 2nd HSBC Women's World Championship
Cards extend manager Oliver Marmol through '28 season
