Disclaimer: No big tits having seizures on the ground this time. Donald Farmer and Jessa Flux, who wrote the film, are clearly familiar with (RLM) Redlettermedia. In 2019, five of the main men on the Youtube channel reviewed Shark Exorcist (2014, according to IMDB), alongside Jack-O and Rock and Roll Nightmare. They called Donald Farmer a pervert in many different words, phrases and sentences.

The film shows some backstory to the Satanic nun from the first one. She confusingly loses her child as a consequence for sin and turns to 'the dark lord of the underworld,' and throws the body in the water. The NEW Satanic nun is the sister. "By the way- that nun. . . She was my SISTER!" A woman who refers to her daughter by both the names Alice and Allie gets attacked by a posessed/demonic shark at a lake before a picnic can take place.

In modern day, the nun and a demonic shark kill one girl named Autumn. Her lesbian interest asks animals in an aquarium what happened to her. The theme music from the first movie plays. She later has a conversation with Kacey (Flux) in a scene with the two actresses seemingly filmed at different locations or at least different times of the day.

Before that point, Kacey, who is a 'party girl,' is hired and dissapointed there is only one man. She negotiates with him a drive to a beach. She competes with him by naming movies with Charles Bronson, Marilyn Monroe and Jackie Chan. Her ex had made her watch older films, giving her an advantage.

The 'beach' where the final confrontation and many deaths happen is a lake. But Kacey complains there when she finds out she is at a 'stupid redneck beach,' where Shark attacks happen. An actual beach is involved in post-credits scenes, including with Nancy Chase (Roni Jonah) from 'Ghostwackers.' She is relatively indifferent when an unseen shark attacks a 'viral YouTuber' and his girl.

Not playing at very many theaters. But just caught Once Upon a Time in the Middle East. I’m (M56) and have AMC-AList and Regal Unlimited.

See a lot of threads regarding Digger being a “masterpiece” but for me, OUaTitME is my favorite of the year, edging out Buddy, Tony and Tuner. FWIW Digger I rated it a 6/10, but will probably see it again as a friend wants to see it.

Went into the movie blind, not having watched the trailer, only knowing it was about a chef that worked in a restaurant in Iraq from 2002 to 2005 and that it was China’s international best picture submission to the Oscars.

Thought it was an excellent film. Highly recommended. Besides select Regal’s, only a few AMCs are showing it here in SoCal. Probably for only a couple more weeks.

Has anyone else seen this? If so, what are your thoughts, did you like it as much as I did?

When Jay (Austin Abrams) starts (wet)suiting it up for his deep-dive search of his father’s missing body, my scuba-diving friend whispered to me, ‘None of that is right.’ Not a good sign when we’re only 10 or so minutes into Whalefall. Next thing you know, he gets gobbled up by a sperm whale shortly after and is forced to channel his inner Pinocchio to survive.

The whole premise requires a level of suspension of disbelief that could give the most hardened person a fear of heights. Yet Whalefall works because of Jay’s massive skill issue.

I’ve always maintained that competence is a reliable and sexy movie staple. It’s what made Ryan Gosling shine in Project Hail Mary. Tom Holland knows when and how to lean on it in his Spider-Man movies. Hell, Matt Damon has made a career out of it. But Abrams upends this archetype by weaponising incompetence to an unreasonably entertaining level.

His performance as the useless junkie James gives Weapons some much-needed physical comic relief. He was utterly useless yet relatable as the NPC protagonist Bryan in Resident Evil, bringing a grounded everyman quality to a heightened scenario. In Whalefall, Abrams adds a new dramatic dimension to his unofficial incompetent character trilogy by weaving in some good ol’ fashioned introspection. Plenty of time to do that when you’re stuck inside a sperm whale.

Jay’s unresolved issues revolve around not getting any closure with his estranged late father, Mitt (Josh Brolin). The unsubtle emotional beats are exactly what you expect, but then again, this is a movie about a man getting swallowed by a whale. We’re not expecting Ad Astra here. Director and co-screenwriter Brian Duffield smartly weaves Jay’s incompetence and unresolved daddy issues into the narrative, creating a plausible cause and effect that ultimately lands him in the belly of a sperm whale. He could’ve walked or swam away at any point, but he didn’t, and that’s what gets him into trouble. Whalefall might as well be called 'Men will literally get swallowed by a whale to avoid therapy - The movie'.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/whalefall

Thanks!

Recommended for fans of the genre. Overall enjoyable film. Hard to pigeonhole, as it fits the mold of a traditional western, complete with rugged hero (Tom Selleck), quirky female (delectable Lara San Giacomo), and of course the evil land baron (Alan Rickman) and his minions. But also delves a bit deeper than most westerns into the moral conflict that colonialism forced upon otherwise moral individuals.

It reminded me of 'Dances With Wolves' and 'Avatar' at times. In all three films a lone hero is faced with moral choices when he connects emotionally with an indiginous people who are in conflict with an expansionist invader. In DWW (like many early westerns) it was the US government conquering the native Americans, in Avatar it was a military/industrial invading force bent on conquering the Na'vi for the riches they guarded, and in QDU it was a wealthy, ruthless bad guy who sees the native aborigines as obstacles to be enslaved and even eliminated.

The cinematography is fantastic, with location shots of the Australian outback creating an expansive and sometimes forbidding backdrop to the human story.

The actors all played their roles well. Selleck had one of his biggest leading man roles, and was quite convincing as a sort of white knight mercenary with a past who is forced to defend much more than he bargained for. Lara San Giacomo is great as 'Crazy Cora', who has her own past sins to bear, and Alan Rickman, in his own inimitable way, plays the bad guy so well.

The soundtrack fit the movie well, though it might be my sole criticism of the movie. Sometimes I felt it supported the scenes, but sometimes seemed distracting. A little less orchestral music might have been a better choice.

The ending scene was both satisfying and kind of a surprise (though predictable) reveal.

Quigley (Selleck) confronts Marsten (Rickman) and two of Marsten's hired guns in a classic western gunfight scene. Quigley (who had carried and almost exclusively used a Sharps rifle throughout) had previously told Marsten that he'd "Never had much use for a handgun," while also telling him he'd spent some time in Dodge City.

Right before Quigley guns down the three men he tells Marsten "This ain't Dodge City, and you're no Bill Hickock."

As Marsten lay dying, he reminds him that, while he'd never had much use for a handgun, it didn't mean he didn't know how to use one. Good guy wins again.

yep. i loved it.

A wealthy New York City investment banking executive, Patrick Bateman, hides his alternate psychopathic ego from his co-workers and friends as he delves deeper into his violent, hedonistic fantasies.

yeah uh i have to admit, idk what the heck i just watched but damn that was good. and absurdly funny too. Bale nailed his role. no, nailed is an understatement. it was just iconic moment after iconic moment and over and over.

”I like to dissect girls. Did you know that I’m utterly insane?” is my favourite line.

10/10

I worked at a video store in 1991. This came out the same year as T2. Loved Michael Biehn from T1 and the Abyss. Remembered loving this movie.

It's available on Prime. Woof. It's bad. Biehn does okay, but it's a mess. Bad writing and bad direction.

I know Biehn had his demons, but Jesus this just wasn't the right step for his career.

I've been pleasantly surprised recently at the variety and quality of movies on Tubi. I started watching Flowers of War expecting a mediocre war film, but by the end I was crying like a baby. I know that the specific story is fictional, but it takes place during the real events at Nanking, and it was a stark reminder of how much people suffer during wartime as the wars in Ukraine, the Middle East, and Africa continue.

The scene that really started to get to me was when Christian Bale's character said to Mo something along the lines of "I love all of it" regarding all her past traumas, shortcomings, etc. What a perfect representation of love! If a lover truly loves a beloved, he does not just love her virtues/beauties, but everything about her, including her failures, defeats, insecurities, fears, etc. Like I said, it's a fictional story, but it had me crying by the end.

Of course, there are some elements that detract from its value. The totally unrealistic battle scene where a sniper takes out an entire Japanese regiment takes away from the tone of the movie and feels like a forceful shove-in by Chinese movie executives wanting to show heroic military resistance. But the movie is not about heroic military resistance, but about heroic human resistance. Hence why the scene feels out of place, immature, and unnecessary.

I saw the film got mixed reviews, and I wondered why. LMK what you guys think

my dad wouldn’t shut up about this film, so i finally gave in. woo boy.

After investigating a mysterious transmission of unknown origin, the crew of a commercial spacecraft encounters a deadly lifeform.

what i especially love about this film is that it excels at the scare factor. it flawlessly builds up tension, and releases at the perfect moment, which hits you like a gut punch. i still have that one scene in my head…ew.

10/10. easily one of my faves.

So I’m on this journey of watching every James Bond movie and it’s been over a year since I started. I finally have gotten to the Daniel Craig movies and the first one in that series is Casino Royale from 2006.

I knew nothing about this movie going in and I think this is a great entry in the franchise. I think Craig does an amazing job in the role. I also think his chemistry with Eva Green is really good. Along with that I like the story because it kept me engaged the entire time but also because it’s more dark and gritty than the ones I have been watching. it also showed bond in a different way.

I also think Mads Mikkelson plays a great villain because he is menacing. Finally I’d like some of the action and that includes a chasing at the beginning of the movie. Overall, this currently is my number three bond movie in the franchise.

Rating-4.5/5

(Theater.) This is a Renny Harlin movie, and I have a thing where I like to follow directors' movies in the theater when possible, even mediocre directors like him. I went to his last four in the theater, so I figured I'd get out to this even though it has barely been given a release. This stars Samuel L. Jackson as . . . the president. "The Beast" is the name of the highly fortified presidential motorcade car. At the beginning we are told via on-screen text that the president's detail "Has Been Completely Fucking Destroyed".

So it starts in medias res with a full-on attack by an unknown group, and Jackson gets in the driver's seat of the car and takes off with Joel Kinnaman from his detail in the back fighting off attackers and getting injured. The rest of the film takes place almost totally within the car as Jackson tries to wend his way past the gigantic tactical assault to safety.

Harlin makes stupid but sometimes fun movies - programmers. This falls into that, and the reason it's watchable is Jackson doing his typical stuff. So he's the president with a generous amount of "shit"s, "fuck"s and "muthafucka"s. He's also a haunted Vietnam vet who knows how to fight, including some hand to hand and slitting a throat. Kinnaman is also good. Has anybody else been to this?

The Right Stuff (1983)
Rating: 9/10
Watched: October 6, 2026

Watching a movie like The Right Stuff, I couldn't help but feel painfully aware of the bigness of the events that go into it. I wasn't alive when all this was happening, but I grew up in a world where men trained vigorously to do something no one anywhere had ever done before.

Even though it's been fictionalized in places, and dramatic license was taken, it's all in the name of telling one helluva good story. I'm not someone who really enjoys biographies or documentaries, so when they take the iron core of a historical event like this one and jazz it up a bit to make it more compelling, I take no issue.

And that's why the bigness hits harder for more than if I were to watch a documentary of the same. I know, I know, that might make me a poseur or something, but it's hard for me to connect with that sort of telling for some reason. When a story this important is told by people like Ed Harris, Scott Glenn, Dennis Quaid and Fred Ward?

That's how you tell it. I've seen a lot of star-studded movies so far this month, but The Right Stuff looked at other movies and said 'we're going to go bigger than all of you combined' and then they went and got a powerhouse stable of men and women that dominated Hollywood for at least two decades. In some cases, longer still!

But before I get to any other particulars, I want to talk a bit about one of the scenes. If you're lucky, you've got the clip to watch. If not, it's one of the early scenes, where Scott Glenn as Alan Shepherd is undergoing a medical test.

The test itself is bonkers. It's the one where they jam an iron needle into his hand and crank up the juice and keep going until I was waiting for a damned Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother to show up and demand he stick his hand in a box. That moment was so wild and nasty that I actually had to pause and Google, because to my mind, there was no way that that could be a real medical test, done by professionals.

I mean, I knew that the tests for the very first astronauts were basically 'let's try this and see what we learn', but holy cats. Learning that they really did to that exact thing to real people is crazy to me.

At the end of the day (and the movie), watching something like The Right Stuff is a great trip through history. The filmmakers do a great job of integrating historical footage into the movie so we can a true sense of accomplishments and struggles alike, while also giving us a good look into the lives of the men and women involved.

Is some of it untrue in the strictest sense?

Yes, I suppose so, but that doesn't mean a dang thing. The Right Stuff is a fantastic movie worth your time.

an absolutely beautifully crafted movie by Stanley Kubrick, but man does it get boring.

When a mysterious artifact is uncovered on the moon, a spacecraft manned by two scientists and one supercomputer is dispatched to Jupiter to find its origins.

if you’ve seen a picture or a video of a monkey smashing bones (very iconic scene), that’s where it came from. it’s the kind of movie that after you’ve finished it, you ask yourself “how tf did they film this”

7/10

So I had heard about the 1983 horror movie The Dead Zone partly because it is based off a Stephen King book and I’ve read some of his books. Going into the movie, I only knew the plot which sounded interesting.

I think this is a very good movie. I think Christopher walking is amazing in it, but I also thought it was thrilling at times and then had a good score. What is presented in the movie though is divisive for me

What I mean by that really liked the first two acts, but I thought once you introduce Martin Sheen in the movie, the movie takes a downturn. I thought the last actor of this movie was weak, and I didn’t care much for the story.

Overall, I was looking forward to this movie and for the most part it delivered, but the ending was disappointing

Rating-4/5

A heart-wrenching story about the good and the bad that happens in the world today, told in a unique manner.

Slightly late to the party here, especially as I was born in the 80s. It was just one of those pop culture gaps I had, but it was on tv tonight and I thought I'd finally check it off the list.

The bar was high considering I've heard about this movie for most of my life, but I'm here to tell you it's not just nostalgia, it is genuinely a brilliant film.

I’ve seen this movie getting absolutely wild reviews and ratings and I was super curious about it - unfortunately it didn’t meet my expectations and here is why.

I really loved the first 30-40 min of the movie bc they reminded me of good old “Scary Movie” franchise and honestly Bryan swearing all the time was natural and funny. I also loved a scene where he is in the house and sees the damn zombie lady running to him from the car. And in general, RE has really amazing scenes and visuals - most of them are a work of art.

What disappointed me was the lack of plot and any internal conflicts that would make me feel sorry for Bryan (or his girl). While I was watching, I kept thinking of Exit 8 which was simply brilliant - and a prime example of how to turn a simple game into a deep internal conflict. Resident Evil, compared to Exit 8, seemed more like a comedy to me and had this NPC vibe all over it - but not in a good way. I understand that it intentionally wanted to show the RE world through the lenses of an ordinary person but this person turned out as a flat character who just happened to be funny. So I wouldn’t say RE is a movie I’d put high on a list of horrors. Not even sure it’s better than the new Silent Hill movie (which was horrible btw).

Summing up, visuals and creativity behind the monsters - amazingly good. Plot, dialogues and the whole idea - amazingly bad. But hey, that’s just my opinion.

I quite like The Purge films, it’s an interesting idea and there’s room for a fair bit of social commentary, which I don’t mind in my films.

That said, this one was just confused.

It starts off as a critique on class and capitalism, and then takes a hard detour into race. It kind of feels like the producers and directors didn’t want people to empathise too much with the purgers, so randomly turned them into a bunch of racists!

It’s not a bad film, but to me it kind of missed a “big bad”, it needed the NFFA and not the Alpha Leader.

It’s got some decent action scenes, but there’s not enough horror for my tastes.

NAZA isn’t some play on the word ‘Gaza’, though it has a nice ring to it. Rather, it is a slangy acronym for the term ‘Nezek Agavi’ used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to refer to innocent civilians. What does this mean exactly? Collateral damage in an airstrike. One innocent civilian killed by an airstrike is one NAZA, two civilians are two NAZA and so on.

Over the course of 77 harrowing minutes, most of which takes place on dimly lit rooftops in Tel Aviv between 2023 and 2025, directors Rachel Szor and Yuval Abraham speak to a whopping 24 Israeli commanders and intelligence officers about how the IDF has integrated AI into its military targeting systems to kill Palestinians more effectively.

Each interview subject, their identities concealed by the cover of night and digital voice manipulation, speaks openly about their experiences and roles in the ongoing Gaza war. But this isn’t merely blowing the whistle on the many war crimes perpetrated by Israel in Gaza. NAZA also presents an unflinching exposé of the systemic rot present among Israelis that enables them to commit such horrific acts with no sense of remorse.

Whether we like it or not, we lie to ourselves as a form of protection. It’s a coping mechanism of sorts, a way to avoid the painful truth. But NAZA presents a damning case of what happens when those lies become so ingrained that whatever grey area existed has simply vanished. As one interview subject casually rationalises to Abraham that ‘there aren’t really Arab haters or extreme dehumanisation’ within the IDF, he is immediately at a loss for words when asked to consider that what he’s contributing to is genocide.

Lines and anecdotes like that are elicited from every interview subject with very little effort from Abraham. The documentary doesn’t hesitate to shock you from minute one, and it doesn’t let up until the credits roll. When another interview subject describes how Israeli forces play a twisted game to determine when to kill innocent Palestinian civilians trying to escape from the north to the south, he simply shrugs and tells Abraham, ‘Good luck to them.’

Games are a recurring motif, and the way the IDF AI systems work, as described by the subjects, is akin to how you would play a video game. As we learn more about these AI systems, there’s a sickening feeling of ludonarrative dissonance playing out in real life. When one officer talks about pressing a button that drops a bomb on a building, killing a dozen NAZA, he says it with the tone of someone trying to finish a video game level.

When descriptions aren’t sufficient, subjects draw rough diagrams of how the IDF’s AI systems work and some of the mass-murder tactics used. The drawings are no better than a child’s, but the impact is more visceral than if Abraham and Szor showed captured footage. Watching someone recreate such shocking scenes of violence from memory without any hesitation leaves you pondering how these people even exist. The way the subjects describe their roles and the psychological warfare inflicted on Palestinians is tinged with pride rather than regret. In fact, there’s no sense of regret to be found anywhere.

There are small moments of reprieve when shots of Tel Aviv residents living their everyday lives are slotted in between conversations, but those ultimately reinforce the narrative Abraham and Szor are crafting. After an interview subject describes in detail how they bombed a Palestinian family of six, all of whom are classified as NAZA, it cuts to a random Israeli person cradling their baby while watching TV. This simple juxtaposition is deeply upsetting, and the longer each explanation went on, the more disturbed I became. None of the subjects seem to realise the true impact of their actions. This isn’t compartmentalisation. This even goes beyond the banality of evil. This is the normalisation of killing innocents like they’re annoying flies.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/naza

Thanks!

So while I might not be a huge video game player, I still enjoy learning about them and I also enjoy watching documentaries in general so to combine the two, I watched the 2007 documentary The King of Kong: A Fistful Of Quarters.

I thought this movie was good. While I did like learning about these different games and people trying to break the records for the highest scores, I am mixed on the story. To be honest, I thought it was gonna be more of a balance with showcasing each of the two main people, and then at the end, then facing off with each other. It seemed more one-sided. But maybe that was a good thing in retrospect because you got to see someone who is so big in the video games who a lot of people considered to be a great villain and he played that role really well.

Rating-3.5/5

So at the beginning of last year, I decided that I wanted to see every James Bond movie and I went in order. So tonight I finally got around to the final Pierce Brosnan Bond movie, which is Die Another Day from 2002.

I thought this movie was OK at best. There were some positives though. I liked the score and the action. I thought the villains were OK and one underrated thing is that I liked the scenes between bond and M and Q. They showed that they had chemistry in those scenes. Pierce Brosnan wasn’t bad in the movie either because he had that charisma that helped in the movie.

There were definitely some negatives though. I think the story is very weak because it was hard to tell what was the main objective. Also, at times there was just too much going on. I also didn’t like the performances of Halle Berry and Rosemond Pike. Adding to that, I don’t think they had any chemistry with Pierce Brosnan because it felt flat.

Overall, I’m disappointed in my watch because I was hoping for a bounce back after the world is not enough. To be honest, I think Pierce Brosnan and his bond movies have gotten worse with each entry. Golden is my favorite in the franchise, tomorrow never dies was above average, and world is not enough was just OK.

Rating-2/5

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2026/10/the-widower-til-death-do-us-part-2026.html

From the outset, The Widower: 'Til Death Do Us Part has an extremely alluring premise. Thomas Randolph has been married six times, and four of his wives have died. Just learning about his history was enough to draw us into this true-crime documentary. Unfortunately, the end result is only interesting enough to keep us watching without feeling like a complete waste of time. There's enough weirdness surrounding Randolph to sustain our interest but the documentary falls short of what could have been a deeper exploration of his life, his victims, and the disturbing circumstances surrounding their deaths.

When Sharon Randolph and a masked intruder are found dead, the initial assumption is that it was a home robbery gone wrong. However, as authorities investigate the evidence and look deeper into Thomas Randolph's background, as the evidence fails to connect and Randolph's past a dark one, they begin to suspect that he was actually responsible for both deaths.

Beyond its already intriguing premise, The Widower has another compelling element and this is the involvement of Dateline producer Dan Slepian. His participation gives the documentary access to archival interview footage and real-life courtroom footage that adds another layer to the story. Slepian's ongoing communication with Randolph is particularly interesting, especially as the latter gradually learns to trust him over others. It's an unusual dynamic that could have made for a fascinating deep dive into Randolph's psyche and the case against him.

Unfortunately, the documentary proves to be more talk than substance and ultimately shortchanging the whole experience. Rather than offering a substantial exploration of Randolph, his victims, and the people left in the wake of his actions, it merely provides glimpses of their struggles without developing them into a cohesive and satisfying whole. There's clearly much more to uncover here but the documentary never digs deep enough to make the most of its golden material. We honestly wanted more and for a case this disturbing and a subject this fascinating, The Widower: 'Til Death Do Us Part feels like it's only scratching the surface.

Rating: 3 out of 5

I have high hopes for this show! The first episode was awesome and felt like a real sequel to the original series.

I like the world they're building and having twin Avatars is an interesting concept and something fresh for the franchise.

I feel like a show like this is what should have been the series after Aangs.

The art style isn't my favorite but it's better than TLOK.

What is similar in this series to ATLA is they both start out with a world in peril. ATLA starts in the middle of a world war

ASH opens in a post-apocalyptic world where humanity is trying to survive. The show immediately sets the stakes high.

I think that may have been one of the issues with TLOK. She becomes the Avatar during a time of peace, and each season had a different situation instead of one big journey that spanned over multiple seasons.

I don't necessarily like how they are painting Korra out to be a villain so far though. I know there are Avatar fans that don't like her but she was always just trying to do what she thought was right. I think that's ultimately what the truth will be. The cataclysm was something she was trying to prevent but something went wrong.

I think the twins will eventually be at odds with each other. Pavi is more like Aang as she doesn't want to fight or even be the Avatar, she just wants peace. Nisha is more aggressive like Kora. She embraces the fight and longs to be the Avatar. I think this separation of ideologies will eventually lead them to being enemies, if just for a short time.

Plus, how cool would a fight between two Avatars be!

I'm looking forward to what they have planned for this series.

Before The Social Network even starts, Aaron Sorkin’s finely tuned dialogue gets things going before the studio logo has time to fade away. When Erika, eyes full of disgust and voice full of venom, verbally sledgehammers a shellshocked Mark Zuckerberg - culminating with a brutal ‘you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you’re a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won’t be true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole’ - you knew something great and terrifying was unfolding, all while Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’s haunting electronic score pulsates like an omnipresent ghost.

At the start of The Social Reckoning, ‘Prologue: White girl wasted’ fades in slowly before an overlong, banter-laden back-and-forth between the aforementioned white girl and two non-white cops unfolds - culminating with the white girl getting arrested after provoking the cops with some racial slurs and threats. When we abruptly cut to the next scene - set up with an overused moving timeline graphic - with new Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White) rocking up to the offices circa 2019 and pitching his idea to investigate Facebook to his editors, you knew something was going to go horribly awry without David Fincher at the helm this time around, all while Alexandre Desplat’s piano-driven score hums limply in the background.

Given the damning revelations from the 2021 Facebook Files leak and the platform’s contribution to social media’s negative societal impact since The Social Network’s release, the Facebook story circa 2019 to 2022 as depicted in The Social Reckoning is fascinating enough to function on its own with minimal modification. You have the stubborn journalist in Jeff and a whistleblower in Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a Facebook employee who becomes disillusioned with her employer and decides to help Jeff break open the story of her company’s misdeeds. But Sorkin inexplicably borrows all the worst parts of his HBO show The Newsroom as his north star, using journalism as a way to preach to the audience while letting his ego press its thumb on the scales a little too hard too often.

The Social Reckoning’s passionate defences of journalism are timely yet coated with the same arrogance that plagued The Newsroom. Hindsight is great as a learning tool, but weaponising it to tell everyone ‘I told you so!’ is unsavoury but perfectly within Sorkin’s modus operandi. When Jeff tells Frances things like ‘I’m not biased against tech for taking journalism jobs, it’s just that you’re doing such a bad job at it,’ that’s less of a character-driven line from Jeff and more of a piece of didactic preaching from Sorkin himself.

There is a worrying lack of nuance because Sorkin eschews putting up arguments in favour of scoring cheap fist-pumping moments or laugh lines. He even evokes Woodward and Bernstein as a lazy shorthand to characterise Jeff and Frances’s importance to his story. But this pair lack the compelling love-hate relationship Mark and Eduardo Saverin had in The Social Network. Whereas that pair had a tumultuous relationship interspersed with moments of genuine care (Eduardo telling Mark he’s here for him post break-up still hits hard), Jeff and Frances have less spark than whatever is behind Zuckerberg’s eyes and their dynamic is built entirely upon him being a verbal punching bag for her. It also doesn’t help that both of them are little more than annoying cauldrons of overused archetypes.

Other than being awful with technology and doing journalism, there’s very little to grasp or care about when it comes to Jeff as a person, unlike the overly emotional yet loyal Eduardo. White does his best with the little he’s given, but it’s hard to relate or even feel anything for a walking piece of blank paper. He does do some pretty good subtle reactions, particularly when Frances tells Jeff ‘I like some of your work.’

As for Frances, she sadly continues a long lineage of poorly written Sorkin female characters. Her main schtick is wearing hand and ankle warmers and being a nerd, a point that’s weirdly lampshaded by one of Jeff’s editors inexplicably describing her as ‘that nerd in there.’ Sorkin’s half-hearted effort to give her an arc amounts to nothing more than her telling us how much she believes in Facebook’s mission, only to do something contrary to her stated beliefs or be the victim of some horrendous unc-coded writing.

When Frances attempts to tell her male manager her concerns about Facebook’s algorithm, she is rebuffed with an incredibly tasteless ‘you should try out that dating site, you could loosen up a bit,’ a line that could only have been written by someone like Sorkin, a self-professed pseudo-Luddite with lingering sexist notions. Ironically, this exchange inadvertently also captures the misogynistic environment that’s been festering in Silicon Valley for decades. The thing is, Fincher would’ve deliberately made this juxtaposition. Sorkin just thinks it’s a funny line.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/the-social-reckoning

Thanks!

(Theater.) This is a comedic "documentary" from John Wilson who had a "How To" HBO show which I never watched except for clips. It appears to be in the same format as that - diving into a concept and then taking detours to look at other things. He posits that after his show he was looking for investors on a film project that he didn't know what it would be, and stumbled around until he hit on the concept of concrete and how it binds the world and such. So we're ostensibly watching a documentary about him trying to make a documentary.

I don't know . . . it's an amusing movie, but Wilson's whole schtick feels very calculated but also very stale and played out. The hipsters in my audience felt a need to laugh out loud just about every ten seconds of the movie - performative laughing to show that they were "cool" and "with it". But it's not that type of movie. It's just mildly amusing, and it feels like this type of thing has been done so much. The movie goes into a more poignant place towards the end because Wilson knows that it has to, more than anything. As it shows how a lot of concrete that makes up buildings is degrading over time, that's where it felt like he was getting onto something, but again, it felt a bit too calculated.

The length of it is a detriment. With such a whispy concept, you shouldn't exceed 60-75 minutes. This is 101 minutes. It's a bit too self-consciously cutesy for its own good to be going that long. It's a fun movie on the balance, just a bit much and not as clever as it's telling you it is.