Steven Soderbergh has spent the better part of the last few decades operating less like a traditional Hollywood auteur and more like a restless cinematic mechanic. He is the kind of director who will follow up a massive, star-studded studio hit with a micro-budget experiment shot entirely on a mobile phone, seemingly just to see if he can pull it off. This unpredictable streak makes his filmography incredibly erratic, but it also means that when he hits the sweet spot, the results are wildly entertaining. With his feature, The Christophers, working from a razor-sharp script by Ed Solomon, Soderbergh manages a particularly tricky tonal pivot. On paper, the project looks like a standard, slick art-world heist movie. In execution, however, it transforms into an intimate, blackly comedic chamber piece that cares far less about the mechanics of the crime than it does about family trauma, artistic ego, and the transactional nature of modern relationships.
The narrative introduces us to Julian Sklar, a former titan of the 1960s London art explosion who has spent the last few decades curdling into a broke, reclusive misanthrope. Julian lives in a massive, decaying Bloomsbury townhouse that is actively falling apart around him. He hasn't produced a meaningful piece of art in years, and he keeps his lights on by filming incredibly bitter, deeply insulting birthday shout-outs on Cameo for pocket money. This miserable routine is shattered by his estranged, deeply indebted adult children, Barnaby and Sallie, who are terrified that their father will die penniless and leave them without an inheritance. They hatch a desperate, highly illegal scheme to secure their financial futures. They hire Lori Butler, a technically brilliant but cynical young painter whose own artistic career was derailed years earlier after a brutal public humiliation courtesy of Julian himself. Lori is sent into the house under the guise of a standard personal assistant, but her real objective is much more specific. She needs to locate, access, and secretly forge the completion of a fabled, long-abandoned third series of portraits known as The Christophers. If she can finish the canvases before Julian kicks the bucket, the children can auction them off for millions.
What makes the film work so beautifully is that Soderbergh entirely resists the urge to turn this setup into a conventional, high-suspense thriller. A lesser director would have focused heavily on the ticking clock, the constant threat of Lori getting caught red-handed in the studio, or the intricate details of mixing paints to mimic an old master's brushstrokes. Instead, Soderbergh treats the central conflict as a slow-burning comedy of manners. The narrative is allowed to breathe, prioritizing character dynamics and long, winding philosophical arguments over plot progression. Soderbergh is famous in the industry for his insanely fast shooting schedules and his habit of editing the day's footage in his hotel room every single night. That rapid, immediate creative feedback loop is incredibly evident here. The movie has a loose, improvisational energy that keeps it from ever feeling stiff or over-rehearsed. It could have easily become a mean-spirited, overly clinical exercise in human manipulation, but the direction keeps pulling it back toward something much warmer and more observant. By anchoring the entire story to the strange, unfolding relationship between a dying legend and a frustrated young artisan, the film turns a superficial scam into a genuinely fascinating conversation about why people create things and who gets to decide what those creations are actually worth.
Visually, the film relies on a remarkably strict and effective cinematic grammar, which makes sense given that Soderbergh handles his own camera work. He creates an absolute, unyielding division between the interior world of Julian’s house and the sterile environment of the outside world. The moment the camera steps through the front door of the chaotic, five-story Bloomsbury townhouse, the visual style shifts into a loose, incredibly fluid handheld approach. The camera floats through the cluttered hallways and cramped rooms, tracking the actors closely and catching every tiny eye roll, sigh, or nervous twitch. This handheld style gives the impression that the audience is an uninvited houseguest eavesdropping on an incredibly private family meltdown, which naturally heightens the theatricality of the dialogue. On the flip side, whenever the story forces the characters outside the house, or when it deals with the corporate lawyers and art dealers trying to monetize Julian's past, Soderbergh locks the camera down completely. These outdoor scenes are shot in a rigid, traditional studio style with wide, symmetrical frames. This stark visual contrast does a brilliant job of highlighting just how cold, calculated, and hostile the commercial art market is compared to the messy, vibrant chaos of Julian’s domestic prison.
This visual strategy is grounded by the incredible production design inside the house itself. The setting never feels like a curated movie set; it feels genuinely lived-in, smelling of stale turpentine, old paper, and decades of accumulated dust. The rooms are piled high with blank canvases, dried-out paint tubes, ancient books, and mismatched furniture that looks like it hasn't been moved since 1974. The lighting perfectly complements this domestic disaster. Soderbergh relies almost exclusively on natural light bleeding through dirty, grime-streaked windows during the day, and the uneven, amber glow of cheap floor lamps at night. By allowing deep shadows to pool in the corners of the frame, the cinematography completely avoids the flat, overly bright, scrubbed look of modern digital filmmaking. It gives the entire movie a heavy, tactile quality that feels entirely appropriate for a story about oil painting. The camera movements aren't showy or designed to draw attention to themselves. Instead, they serve to connect the two lead actors, pivoting back and forth between them during their lengthy, fast-paced arguments in a way that perfectly tracks who holds the upper hand at any given moment.
Of course, a movie that relies so heavily on long dialogue scenes in enclosed spaces lives or dies by its acting, and Ian McKellen delivers an absolute masterclass. As Julian Sklar, McKellen is a spectacular whirlwind of vanity, intellect, and physical decay. He plays the aging painter like an irascible, broken king refusing to leave a crumbling castle, using casual cruelty as a shield to hide his absolute terror of becoming irrelevant. McKellen clearly relishes the comedic meat of the role, delivering Solomon’s long, rhythmic monologues with the effortless precision of a classical stage veteran. Watching him throw terrible insults at his internet clients or launch into wine-soaked tirades about the superficiality of modern pop culture is wildly entertaining. But what makes the performance truly spectacular is the profound vulnerability that McKellen allows to peek through the armor. In the quiet, wordless moments, when Julian is forced to look at his empty canvases or confront the complete wreckage of his relationship with his children, McKellen reveals a deep, heavy sadness. It is a performance that balances monstrous behavior with a pathetic, deeply human longing, making Julian impossible to fully like but completely impossible to ignore.
Michaela Coel provides the perfect, steel-spined counterweight to McKellen’s theatrical energy. Where Julian is loud, performative, and constantly taking up space, Lori is quiet, watchful, and intensely disciplined. Coel is a master of internal acting, using tiny shifts in her posture and steady, unblinking eye contact to convey a massive amount of psychological calculations. She makes it clear from her very first scene that Lori is a formidable intellect who has been deeply hardened by her own professional failures, and she is absolutely determined not to let Julian intimidate her. The onscreen chemistry between Coel and McKellen is the real engine of the film. Their scenes together play out like a high-stakes psychological chess match. There is an incredible underlying tension as Julian slowly begins to realize that his new assistant is far more competent and dangerous than she appears, while Lori finds her cynical detachment slowly melting away as she realizes she is finally interacting with someone who truly understands the spiritual weight of the artistic craft. Coel holds her ground completely against McKellen's massive screen presence, ensuring that Lori never feels like a passive victim of the plot, but rather a worthy adversary and, ultimately, a true intellectual equal.
The supporting performances from Jessica Gunning and James Corden add a necessary layer of deeply uncomfortable dark comedy to the film’s periphery. Playing the resentful, financially desperate adult children, Gunning and Corden manage a remarkably delicate balancing act. It would have been incredibly easy for these characters to turn into one-dimensional, cartoonish villains who exist just to be despised. Instead, both actors find the raw, childlike hurt that directly fuels their modern greed. Corden channels a frantic, sweaty sort of anxiety into Barnaby, portraying a man utterly drowning in debt who views his father’s artistic legacy purely as a winning lottery ticket that he is legally owed. Gunning is equally superb as Sallie, weaponizing a polite, passive-aggressive demeanor that barely covers a massive well of bitterness over a lifetime of parental neglect. When the siblings are on screen together, the film takes on a sharp, satirical edge, perfectly capturing the dynamic of a family that has entirely replaced emotional intimacy with financial expectations. They make it clear that while their plan to forge the paintings is incredibly sleazy, their anger toward their narcissistic father is completely justified, adding a messy layer of moral ambiguity that makes the entire film feel much closer to real life.
The Christophers works because it fundamentally understands that the true value of art doesn't live in its final market price or its technical perfection, but in the chaotic, often painful human process that creates it. The film builds toward a quiet, beautifully bittersweet ending that actively avoids neat, Hollywood resolutions, leaving the audience to chew on complex questions about authenticity, forgiveness, and what we actually owe to the people we leave behind. Through its incredibly smart direction, purposeful camera work, and a pair of powerhouse lead performances, the movie elevates a simple art-world caper into a witty, profound, and surprisingly moving look at human connection. It is a great reminder that even in a culture completely obsessed with digital algorithms and quick financial transactions, the act of human creation remains a deeply personal, unpredictable force that can't be easily bought or sold.
Arriving on physical shelves just in time for mid-summer movie nights, the Blu-ray release of The Christophers will be officially available to own on July 14. While the physical release opts for a lean, focused approach to its bonus content rather than an overwhelming avalanche of promotional fluff, it delivers exceptional value for cinema purists by including a deeply compelling, on-disc conversation between screenwriter Ed Solomon and fellow master scribe Charlie Kaufman. This exclusive interview piece provides a rare, fascinating look into the mechanics of writing complex character studies, offering fans an intellectual dive into how the film's sharp dialogue and thematic layers were built from the ground up. Rounding out the supplemental material is the movie's original theatrical trailer, giving collectors the complete promotional snapshot to accompany what is bound to be a highly replayable addition to any cinephile's home library.
Comments