Edward Norton is a fantastic actor, but his ego is the reason his Hulk only lasted one movie.

On The Incredible Hulk (2008), he demanded to rewrite the entire script, fought with director Louis Leterrier daily, and wanted final cut privilege. He wanted to turn a simple monster movie into a dark, Nolan-style character study about trauma and duality. Marvel just wanted to set up The Avengers.

you can feel that ego in his performance. He’s always acting. Always brooding, always trying to look tortured and serious. He never understood that Bruce Banner isn’t the star of the show — Hulk is.

mark Ruffalo understood that immediately. He came in, played Banner as a likable, nervous team player. Norton came in thinking he was the main character of the whole MCU.

brilliant actor. Terrible collaborator. That’s why this is his only Hulk movie

The only redeeming thing about it was Robert Pattinson's and the kid's acting. The weird and out of place movie effects, the screenplay, and total lack of script were so obvious. It was a movie that started somewhere and went nowhere.

Hanson had zero character arc, and there was no zero plot at all. The only thing that kind of changed from start to end was the kid getting a shot at acting. Which, if that is who the story was about, makes no sense.

They tried to frame it as a story about Chris Hansen and how he is a ruthless guy who wants to be primetime, and there ended up just making the movie about a kid who uses being a decoy to further his acting career. It was like they tried to make him seem evil like the guy in Nightcrawler, but as an audience member it fell completely flat. If they were trying to paint him as evil, cunning, and ruthless they failed miserably.

There was nothing controversial or even mildly morally gray that they depicted in the movie that would engage me except those stupid ass hypno effects.

Overall Terrible movie.

I think Greta Gerwig being the female equivalent of Phil Lord & Chris Miller, master directors who transform ideas that aren’t theirs into bold cinematic visions that ARE theirs, is a good career path, actually because throughout her filmography, she has shown how she is staying true to her style and themes while experimenting with big-budget fare instead of erasing it entirely. That experimentation is exactly the kind of filmmaking we should aspire to be: Take risks, fully own the ideas you’re working with, and always stay true to yourself.

Also, some of you really need to watch the following movies from the greatest living auteurs:

- Speed Racer

- The Dark Knight

- Skyfall

- The Lego Movie

- Shin Godzilla

- The Last Jedi

- Blade Runner 2049

These movies are the very examples of why artists should be defended for staying true to themselves while making big-budget films.

Hey Y'all today is day 13 ( Oct 13th) of watching a movie (or two) Every night of October until Halloween today I watched Life After Beth (2014) and man was it a weird ride while watching the movie I flip flopped in between liking it and not liking it at all. I would say this movie was not good enough to be a "so bad its good "type of movie but also wasn't bad enough to be a bad movie. It was just bleh.

Little synopsis:

Zach (played by Dane dehaan) is mourning the recent loss of his girlfriend Beth (played by Audrey plaza) .He suddenly turns joyful after he learns his girlfriend has came back from the dead but soon that Joy turns back to sadness and fear as he realizes beth is starting to smell weird and she's acting weird, she's acting more...more angry.... more forgetful ..more ....ravenous.

Genre: Horror Comedy

Where I watched: Tubi

Rating: 5/10

What I liked about this movie:

- The first part of the movie was nice

- Audrey plaza's acting was pretty good

- I did not expect to see Matthew Gray Gubler in this movie, but he was very funny (he was an asshole but he was a kinda funny asshole.

(I hate to say it but I don't have much that stood out to me as something I liked, this movie I will say was okay nothing in it stood out to me is something I liked really.)

This is kind of in the middle of a like and a gripe: This movie was so frustrating in a kind of funny way but not. (Some of the characters acted so stupid and so rude and didn't take anything seriously in moments when they should have and it frustrated and stressed me out to no end but at the same time it was kind of funny)

Also another one that's in the middle of a like and a gripe. There are so many second hand embarrassment moments in this movie so if you do end up watching it, be prepared for that. I had to pause the movie multiple times because I couldn't handle the embarrassment.

My gripes with this movie:

- It started off so good but just kind of drizzled down to nothing and just felt kind of sloppy and tiring

- I didn't like any characters in this movie (which wouldn't have been a problem if the movie was going for that but it wasn't) like at first some of the characters were funny and I thought I'd like them but throughout the movie they continue to be so stupid and so dumb and so so so so dumb (I know I said dumb twice but it wasn't enough once)

- This movie was dated in a lot of ways especially with humor (and I kind of just didn't like the r word being thrown in there multiple times for no reason but that was 2014 for ya.)

- The acting was okay

Would I watch this movie again?

No, I wouldn't, this movie was okay for a first watch. I wouldn't say don't watch it but for me it just wasn't that entertaining after the first act (it wasn't boring it was just kinda meh)

Thinking about watching it, is it good?

Here is my review. It is written by me. Sorry for any grammar or spelling mistakes. I write in bullet points. I know this is not for everyone, but it is just my style. Be warned.

For those who are familiar with my reviews, you will know that I usually rank movies in the 50s, 60s, or 70s, so the high rating here is unusual for me. If anyone wants to compare it to my other reviews on IMDb, Metacritic, Letterboxd, or Rotten Tomatoes, let me know, but otherwise, I am all about the conversation here.

• An absolutely exceptional movie. In some ways, masterfully done. The most important thing for me about any movie is not how artistic it is or how difficult it is, but how entertaining it is. I was entertained and emotionally moved from start to end, all while the movie addresses one of the most important issues of our generation. It examines social media, algorithms, corporate responsibility, and political extremism. It is, IMO, essential viewing for all, particularly for parents, young people, and those interested in politics or tech.
• The acting overall is excellent, with Bill Burr being the particular highlight for me. They make the complicated material engaging. However, Jeremy Strong was never strong as Mark Zuckerberg. Zuck is a well-known public figure, and Strong doesn't capture him based on how we know him. He felt like a fictional executive rather than the person himself. Jesse Eisenberg did a better and more convincing job in The Social Network (which I think most would say is the better movie, but I am adding points here for the message). Some other characters felt slightly stereotypical, and that reduced the realism. But overall, strong acting, even if nobody is winning an Oscar.
• I wanted more emphasis on children's mental health and a broader political perspective. Sure, I get the plot device and focus on extremism and Capitol riots. But more attention to Instagram, body image, anxiety, and the psychological consequences for children and teens is what could unite the audience more. Everyone cares about kids. The film could have examined algorithmic manipulation across more political movements than the alt-right, where supported by evidence, reinforcing that protecting people's well-being should transcend partisan divisions.
• For a drama movie, there could have been considerably more human drama. The movie does a lot of telling instead of showing. It literally just tells you what you need to take away through conversations and information rather than showing ordinary people living through these experiences. The latter, I think, is a better storytelling device. I wanted to experience the effects on children, parents, and families directly. Not just hear about them. Sure, the movie succeeds intellectually, but seeing the human consequences creates one of the most impactful things a movie can: an emotional connection with the viewer. Show, don't tell!
• The movie also comes out in 2026, which I felt meant it missed some opportunities. This would have been a timely movie in 2022. But now we are several years later. Not that much has changed. Yes, our understanding has. Yes, we take the conversations more seriously. But did Facebook/Meta really change that much? The audience is left with too optimistic a message at the ending. More on that in the next point. But yes, that is also misleading the audience. The audience should know that the problems did not simply disappear once the wrongdoing became public.
• The ending felt too victorious. I understand the basketball analogy. Why is he celebrating a tie? Throwing his fist into the air. It means they get into overtime. It is not won yet. But still important. Agreed. Overall, the movie is really good at small things. I think the funny lines and comedy land well. I felt the movie was funny in many parts, and I was laughing and entertained. I felt rewarded for following the movie, with many pieces of dialogue being used again later, where you think, "Ooo, I see what they did there. They used that from earlier in the movie!" The whistleblowers deserve recognition, but the hearings did not lead to sufficient change, and years later, we are still playing overtime. I wish the movie had made that unfinished struggle much clearer.
• So yes, I think this was an exceptional film. My only other 2026 movie besides Project Hail Mary to score in the 90s. I left the cinema with the amazing feeling of "I am entertained." Yes, I give this movie probably a bit too high a rating if you look at it only from a filmmaking standpoint, e.g., editing, pacing, cinematography, technical difficulty, acting, plot, emotional connection, dialogue, filming, movie effects, costumes and design, and so on. Probably too high, but I was entertained, and it is a movie I hope many watch, so I give it some extra points.
• We need conversations. This movie starts conversations. It does this exceptionally well. It is a deeply important movie about the power of social media and the responsibility of technology companies that can be shown to the masses.

Thank you for reading. I look forward to your comments.

I know Clark has some limited screen time but Ejiofor absolutely steals every scene he’s in. His two separate monologues with Reinsve are just as good as anything Navarette did in Obsession. As I said earlier, is it the lack of screen time for Ejiofor?

​

Hobbs has Dominic and Brian reassemble their crew to take down a team of mercenaries, but Dominic unexpectedly gets sidetracked with facing his presumed deceased girlfriend, Letty.

Justin Lin is back in the directors chair after Tokyo Drift, Fast 4 and Fast 5. He delivers what is one of my favorite of the franchise that doesn't get enough praise. Loved the way the action is shot, coupled with great editing, that make these kinetic scenes a joy to watch. Hand to hand combat fights also really cool. Speaking of, when did every character become an expert mixed martial artist? I particularly like the cinematography of this film. We get the right amount of emotion with Letty coming back. Owen Shaw is a calm, calculating villain with a lot of swagger. I loved that most of the film is set in London and they do a great job of using the city to showcase these crazy action stunts. Loved the final set piece. Honorable mentions: shout out to the infinite runway.

8/10

A few of us went to A Nightmare on Elm Street for one of the October films of horror at our local theater. While watching the movie, after having seen The Odyssey, we thought it would be awesome if Nolan remade the movie. Combining elements of inception with his horror elements of the odyssey. He did such a great job of blending reality with dreams which the original noes does. And give how well he built tense in the odyssey, it would be a great blend of what he does best.

It will most likely never happen but I think it would be a film that would be amazing to watch.

A literal machine made with technology we don't even know about yet that won't stop until you are dead. Or the man, the myth, the legend Black Dynamite.

I am not a MCU fan by any stretch of the imagination. For the last 7 years, I viewed The Avengers (2012), Age of Ultron, and Infinity War as nothing more than flashy, high-budget popcorn spectacles with maybe two or three decent scenes. Yesterday, a random YouTube clip caught my eye, and on a whim, I decided to sit down and watch all three hours of Endgame.

I was in absolute existential shock for the first two hours. Unlike any other MCU film, this one actually has a haunting, tangible atmosphere. The actors are actually acting, inducing genuine empathy right from the opening frame. It felt like real cinema—approaching the dramatic weight of something like The Lord of the Rings.

But as the third act rolls in, the writing completely derails. The sheer idiocy grows exponentially, delivering three massive narrative betrayals that completely destroy the characters' arcs, logic, and the movie's established tone.

1. The Vormir Swap: Metaphysical Infidelity & Bad Psychology

The worst offender is the Soul Stone scene with Natasha and Clint. For five years, Clint was Ronin—a bloodthirsty, traumatized serial killer slaughtering low-level cartel thugs and leaving zero witnesses. He is a broken man drowning in blood.

They arrive on Vormir, face-to-face with the Red Skull, who acts as a personification of impartial, unyielding Death. The rule is absolute: A soul for a soul. You must sacrifice what you love most. Clint, seeking redemption and wanting to save his erased family, tries to jump. It makes perfect psychological sense for a desperate father. But the writers decided a logical sacrifice was too "patriarchal," so Natasha jumps instead.

And the Soul Stone actually works.

This implies that Clint loved Natasha more than—or equal to—his own wife and three children. Human psychology does not work this way. Clint was explicitly established as a textbook-perfect family man. Are we supposed to believe that this tactical spy is suddenly more precious to his soul than the memory of his erased children? This scene is deeply cynical. It either turns Clint into a literal madman or a metaphysical adulterer who spent five years butchering people just to look edgy in front of his work colleague.

1. Captain America: The Patriot Who Chose To Serve HYDRA

Setting aside the incredibly low-brow, redneck-tier "America's ass" jokes, Cap’s ending is an absolute moral collapse. Steve Rogers is not a whiny, self-absorbed teenager; he is a beacon of justice who literally tore the Avengers apart in Civil War to protect what is right.

And yet, he goes back in time and decides to stay in the past with Peggy Carter. Why? If he wanted to be with her so badly, why not just bring her into the technologically advanced 21st century? Instead, he stays in a timeline where he knows his best friend Bucky is being tortured and brainwashed by HYDRA. He stays in a timeline where he knows HYDRA is infiltrating S.H.I.E.L.D. right under his wife's nose, and where Tony Stark’s parents are destined to be murdered.

The ultimate symbol of American righteousness chooses to sit on a porch, drink tea, and ignore absolute evil right next door just to close a personal romantic emotional loop. Realistically, HYDRA would have found him out instantly, meaning the legendary Captain America de facto spent decades complicit with nazi terrorists. It completely destroys the spirit of the character.

1. Morgan Stark: The Robo-Child

Tony Stark’s ultimate sacrifice was shot beautifully, respectfully, and with immense grief. But the way they handled his daughter, Morgan, at the funeral completely took me out of the movie.

The girl acts like she’s completely indifferent to her father's death. She watches a final, heartbreaking holographic farewell from her dad, and immediately after, she is casually, cheerfully asking Happy Hogan for cheeseburgers. This isn't how children react to losing a loving parent. Even infants scream and cry when they sense that kind of loss and maternal grief. Children don't just shut off into a cheerful vacuum. It was a lazy, emotionally tone-deaf script choice used solely to force a cheap, nostalgic callback to the first Iron Man film, prioritizing fan-service over basic human realism.

Endgame could have been the greatest blockbuster of our generation. The cinematography, the pacing of the grief, and the bleak lighting of the first half were phenomenal. But the writers ultimately sacrificed structural logic, established lore, and fundamental human psychology just to chase flashy memes, nostalgic callbacks, and corporate contract terminations.

I’ve watched this movie twice. My first watch I hated the ending and made the movie lose the five star rating from me. I saw it again recently after finishing the game it was based off of, resident evil 2, and it made me love the ending so much more and give it the five star rating. Now I kind of see the movie as almost like the story of an npc we find a note from in some random corner in re2. He’s not Leon, he’s just some guy who’s never used a weapon before dropped into the zombie apocalypse. Turning into a BOW isn’t something that could happen to Leon because he has plot armor. We follow around Bryan in the movie who has zero plot armor, so anything could really happen.

Anyways, you guys get the point, I think the movie is cool
What about everybody else?

In my personal estimation, Eva Ionesco’s My Little Princess (2011) has largely gone unnoticed, or worse, its core meaning has been completely inverted by mainstream criticism. Let us look honestly at the behavior of the protagonist, young Violetta.

From the very beginning of the film, it is clear that Violetta feels suffocated by the mundane world around her. She is instinctively drawn to the avant-garde, to the provocative, and to the enigmatic. When she agrees to be model for her mother, she does so with genuine enthusiasm; she relishes the creative process and her elaborate new wardrobes. While she faces ridicule at school, this reaction stems from the peers' sheer shock rather than deep-seated hostility. Violetta herself component-endures this backlash with remarkable fortitude—even when she cries, she processes her tears with an almost adult maturity.

As the narrative progresses, Violetta immerses herself deeper into the work. She possesses full awareness of her actions, actively contributing her own creative concepts and giving the process her absolute all. Granted, she is occasionally overcome by moments of shame, yet she never abandons her work. We also witness a profound shift in her immediate environment: the neighbor and her daughter purchase the magazine featuring Violetta’s photographs to support her. This pivotal detail proves that her micro-society was ready to accept her independence and her sovereign right to her own body.

The only true antagonist in this story is the repressive apparatus of child protective services. The moment they enter the frame—rigid, uniformed, and imposing—they bring intimidation into Violetta's home. They weaponize threats, leveraging the terrifying prospect of the orphanage and the imprisonment of her mother. Ultimately, the young girl is forced to surrender.

However, the film’s subtext makes it undeniably clear: the actual, lingering trauma was inflicted by the actions of these self-proclaimed "protectors," not by her modeling career. The finale does not showcase a liberated child rescued from bondage. Instead, we are left looking at a hollow, burnt-out adult woman who was systematically stripped of her bodily autonomy simply because her body was small. The smile on her face—brilliantly captured by the actress—is devoid of happiness. It is the hollow smile of someone who has finally broken and learned to conform.

Hadn't heard much about this movie until this morning. It was rated a 7.5 or something when I downloaded it. Now down to a 5.7, which is higher than what it deserves. My brother wrote to me about it being horrible after he watched it today.

So I went it with bottom of the barrel expectations. But holy crap what a stinker this movie was. The action was mostly Affleck and Kerry Washington yelling at each other. The plot was a near copy of Highest 2 Lowest with Denzel Washington last year.

Then - the acting. A bunch of decent actors who mailed it in before they cashed their checks. The final action scene where Affleck was being shot at, and ultimately then trying to protect a child from being shot, he doesn't even sound like he cares.

And then the ending was just boring writing. All of this movie sucked.

2/10

Mikey Madison delivers a mesmerizing lead performance as whistleblower Haugen, who turned against Facebook in the early 2020s, leading to the first lawsuits that held the controversial company accountable for knowingly manipulating algorithms in ways that were unhealthy for users, teens, and arguably society.

We have to stomach endless loads of exposition and jargon to get to the good stuff, albeit some of it was very interesting, even if it takes a lot of redundancy to get to the punchline. Meaningful Social Interaction was a new algorithm philosophy that was about manipulating content to basically bait people into strong emotional responses to the point they felt the need to write comments rather than just like something on the site. This seemingly arguably radicalized millions of users into political groups, and the movie also touches on how Instagram caused at least 1/3 of teenage girls to develop emotional problems about what they looked like.

Jeremy Strong plays a menacing caricature of Mark Zuckerberg through most of his portrayal, Lloyd Christmas haircut and all, and Bill Burr also shows up in a small part.

Ultimately though, it is Madison's performance that prevents The Social Reckoning from floundering. Without her commitment to the role and nuanced portrayal of the whisteblower Haugen, the movie may have failed altogether. Thankfully for Sorkin, she saves the day, becoming a hero and portraying the courage and tenacity in the face of adversity that is demanded.

7/10

Good review of the new Sorkin film "The Social Reckoning"

John Dahl, in his audio commentary for Red rock west, mentions a movie he'd seen while working on music videos montages (I'm assuming this was in the 80s but the movie might be older), where a guy can't seem to get out of an australian town (again, the movie might be from down under or not...)

he seems totally oblivious to the Oliver Stone movie that came after his, and I don't think it's either Wake in fright 1971 nor Vanishing act, 1986, TV movie with Elliot Gould, so... any idea what this might be?

Every conversation is infinitely quotable, hilarious, chaotic, and so effortlessly seamless. I’m honestly blown away every time I rewatch it

Often times, a movie is just a movie. You just move on after spending some of your “free” time with it. On very rare occasions, a movie won’t let you move. It forces you to immerse yourself in another world, to sit for a while and contemplate. The movie ended, the credits are rolling … you’re still sitting there, dazed …

Usually, it won’t be difficult to find some flaws, or at least some aspects which one thinks could’ve been better. A character which feels like a character, a monologue which is a bit flat, a plot which seems ridden with holes, cinematography which is a bit lacking, etc. But on those rarest of times, you come across a movie so complete that you’re just forced to stand up and salute upon its ending. A great movie is that which makes you forget it’s a movie. The characters so real, the plot so engaging, the dialogues so lively, the cinematography so immersive, … That’s Memories of Murder.

I shelved it in the row with the best of Scorsese, Tarkovsky, PT Anderson, and Wes Anderson.

Went into Whalefall relatively blind. Hadn't read the book so only knew that a guy gets swallowed by a whale and he's trying to survive. With that in mind, I expected just a silly, fairly mediocre horror thriller but I've got to say I'm quite impressed. Don't get me wrong, it's by no means a masterpiece, but thanks to a brilliant performance from Austin Abrams and some unexpected elements of the script it's actually really good! Anyone going to see it this weekend?

Full review for those interested https://adamreviewsfilm.com/whalefall/

Not sure how many Horror fans are here and am wondering how many fans of this series are here. Always been one of my very favorite Horror series if not my outright favorite, mainly purely based off of the first two although I also think the third and fourth ones were pretty good as well (and also quite impressive despite their small budgets). The first two always see regular rotation from me every October as part of my Halloween playlist and the season never feels complete without them. The Tall Man is definitely among the more unique of the Horror icons and he was played to perfection by the late, great Angus Scrimm throughout all five. The series is such a great blend of surrealism and mind-bending Horror with some fun Action elements sprinkled throughout. And who doesn't love the iconic flying death spheres.

May as well rank them while I'm at it. For other fans, how would you rank them? Mine goes:

• Phantasm II
• Phantasm
• Phantasm IV: Oblivion
• Phantasm III: Lord Of The Dead
• Phantasm V: Ravager

2 has always very easily been my favorite of the series. It's literally not only my favorite Horror film, but one of my favorite movies in general. With the bigger budget you can tell so much more was able to be accomplished. It's like a vintage Survival Horror video game from the 90s as a movie. I have a lot of love and respect for the original as well, but it's always hard not to look at 2 as being the definitive entry.

The first two are classics, 3 and 4 are very good, but the fifth was sadly clearly held back by the very low budget. You can tell they tried their best but the budget and means just weren't there to do it justice. Still, I'm glad we finally got a fifth and final movie, and in light of Reggie Bannister's recent passing, it definitely hits much harder. Still so sad by his passing :(