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?

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

There are terms/words you can’t define or describe completely. You can try to elaborate what you meant or enumerate what it connotes, but you won’t be satisfied with that. You still feel there is something left to add, too many things. Elegance is one of those words. You can’t really define or explain elegance, you just experience it. It’s a phenomena which arises when you come across a great poem or prose or painting or movie. It’s the essence of great art.

The Banshees of Inisherin is elegant. I might try to elaborate on why it’s elegant. But as I said, elegance isn’t explicable.

To put it very very simply, Digger is a “weird” movie, it is absolutely not for everyone. That being said Inarritu & Tom Cruise made something special for cinema, it’s just so unique & separate from other films. It’s like a willy-wonka esque fever dream about billionaires & political tyrants in the modern age.

And as much as people don’t like Tom Cruise for science reasons, he’s the reason why DIGGER works so well.

All I'm saying is, I'm just glad this movie exists. It's strange, ambitious, and completely its own thing. That's the kind of art I can appreciate.

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.

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 have a form of phobia regarding driving, which is why I have no desire to get a driver’s license. I am even more terrified of physical injury-the mere thought of compound fractures, hematomas, or other forms of "guro" (graphic, visceral imagery) makes me feel deeply uneasy. Because the 1996 film "Crash" was described as a "highly perverted" movie- featuring a cult of deviants who derive sexual pleasure from car accidents - i hesitated for a long time before deciding to watch it.

Eventually, I gathered the courage to sit down and watch it; I couldn't simply ignore a 90s classic, and I needed to write a review for a film club I was part of.

Within ten minutes, my nerves had settled -what I was seeing was nothing more than standard, "vanilla" Hollywood special-effects makeup. I concluded that the original reviews must have been written by people of its time. Another fifteen minutes later, I found myself wondering just how dull people’s lives must have been back then, given that they would sit in a movie theater, watching this with their mouths agape. As an ordinary, somewhat shy person living in the modern day, I possess a far more sophisticated - and extensive -familiarity with "guro" and sexual deviations, than I thought.

The only real merit I can point to is the film’s aesthetic. The BDSM-inspired visuals are, in fact, quite convincingly rendered. I suspect the film was crafted by enthusiasts themselves -a reflection of how they perceive their own subculture. (And I don’t just mean J.G. Ballard, whose book served as the basis for the screenplay.)

Then again, most professionally produced films from the late 20th century are visually polished, so I’m not inclined to grant this movie any extra credit simply because the cinematographers and costume designers did their jobs well.

This is a common issue with cultural phenomena that claim to be "risky" or "groundbreaking." For instance, back in the 1950s, a young French actress might appear on screen in a two-piece swimsuit - an event that was, for its time, truly momentous. It marked the beginning of the sexual revolution and the liberation of people from the neuroses of the previous era. That young woman would go on to become the legendary Brigitte Bardot.

Yet, looking back at that same film today, that "symbol of liberation" is no longer visible. The girl in the bikini has simply blended into the billions of women for whom wearing a swimsuit on the beach is an entirely mundane, everyday occurrence. What remains is a poorly written script and actors who don’t even bother to deliver a convincing performance. And the girl is a 14 years old, by the way.

"Crash" was, in its day, a genuinely groundbreaking film that pushed the boundaries of what was considered acceptable. Today, however, we have the opportunity to observe all manner of fetishes and, more importantly, the people who produce and engage with them up close. Usually there is nothing particularly aesthetic or interesting to be found there.

Consider, by way of comparison, another film featuring James Spader: "Secretary". It also explores the theme of sadomasochism and belongs to that same wave of erotic cinema from the 90s and 2000s. In my view, however, it has aged far better than "Crash". The difference lies in the filmmakers' approach to the subject matter -it is handled with more irony and, perhaps, a greater sense of kindness toward the characters themselves.Ultimately, "Secretary" evolved into a lighthearted erotic comedy about the romantic love between two somewhat eccentric individuals. "Crash" much like a hundred other erotic films of that period (such as Basic Instinct) was undone by the self-important gravity of its own premise: "Prepare yourself, dear viewer -we are about to show you something *profound* regarding sex and the subconscious..."

A work of art remains relevant as long as its integrity is preserved. When an element is lost, the artwork turns into a "retro" piece –a mere witness to its own era.

Digger is good - not good in the normal sense of a movie. But if you like normal movies then this movie may not be good.

Digger is the kind of movie that forces you to jump through emotions, to reframe your context window on the fly (which is hard I get it). One momemt you are laughing at an ass jokes and the other your heart is thumping over the feeling of inevitable doom of all things. Tbh I get why a lot of people don’t like it. Its not a movie for everyone because it forces you to think, and be a part of the movie. Its not your typical Tom Cruise movie where the emotions you should feel are served up to you on a platter (Don’t get me wrong, I love a good turn off your mind movie).

The one reason I would emplore you to go watch this in theatres is the set design, visual direction and the audio design. I wouldn’t even mind a rewatch of this movie at home on mute just to sit in the striking visual style. Its a true visual delight. The audio mix is weird and funky, reflecting that junglefuck of emotions that it wants you to feel - while you mind is telling you to feel one way, the audio mix is making you feel another, i.e junglefuck. Sure, if you’ve gotten your home kitted out with an atmos system, wait for it on streaming. But if not, do yourself a favor and feel the ticking clock of doom beam down on you from the the darkness of the theatre audio system. Its a feeling for sure.

There is a moment towards the end where you feel like this movie could have been 30 min shorter. But once you get to the end, you look at the soup of emotions you are sitting in while the theatre clears out, and you don’t mind it so much. The best I could come up with is if - Wes Anderson had sex with George Bush, this would emotionally and visually be the child that popped out. Take your preconceived notions out of your pocket, put it on the side table out of view, sit back and enjoy.

In this day and age of social media I’m pretty constantly reminded that our favorite legends are getting up there in age, so it’s always a pleasure viewing Bruce Willis during his peak in the early to late 90s.

Death Becomes Her is a pretty straightforward Zemekis film (for better or for worse) and despite the amazing cast, Bruce Willis stands above the rest. He is hilariously silly in this and I love any moment he shows off his comedic slapstick. I would’ve loved to see a Carrey and Willis crossover and I understand how weird that sounds but watching this shows how well his comedic timing is.

Put this on for a more lighthearted spooky movie and had a great time. Any other Bruce Willis movies where he absolutely lets loose like this?

What's up everyone 🤗 hope everyone's having a good day.

Today is day 14 (October 14th) of watching a movie (or two? Maybe three? Who knows?) every night of October until Halloween and the first movie I watched today was Mother. May I?( 2023) The premise sounded really interesting and really creepy and terrifying so I went into it expecting a lot (also, I saw that Holland roden stars in it and as a fan of Teen Wolf I was excited for this movie cuz she was great in Teen Wolf) and this movie did not disappoint at all. I had heard some people saying that it was incredibly slow paced and I won't say it's not but to me it being slow paced actually helped the movie and made the movie feel more unsettling. I like this movie

Little Synopsis:

Emmett is a man who recently lost his mother and remains Avoidant /Apathetic to her dying due to his complicated relationship with her. Until one day his fiance ,Anya starts acting a lot like his own mother.

Rating: 8/10

Where I watched: Tubi

Genre:Horror(psychological)

My likes about this movie:

- The acting was good none of the actors disappointed in this movie

- The pacing to me though slow (and I usually don't like slow pace movies) really moved the movie along in a way that kept it immersive and unsettling

- I liked the ambiguousness of parts of the movie because you could interpret it to be trauma and many other things depending on what you've been through and I like those types of movies

- The premise was executed well

- Holland Roden's acting and ability to act like a completely different person. Truly shined here and creeped me out.

- Emmett as a character was very interesting and sometimes very aggravating (but I kind of like that about this character. I think it was meant to be that way)

- I liked that Emmett didn't catch on immediately to what was happening it matched the story and how he was feeling

- the ending is very unsettling, very thought-provoking, and oddly sweet

Something that is kind of a gripe and kind of a like:

-- It could get a little boring in the beginning but again I kind of don't think that's a bad thing in this movie you kind of want that and this type of movie I feel to me it kinda added to it.

- even though I do like how ambiguous a lot of parts of this movie are I do wish we knew what was in the syringe but I think you can kind of pick that up from context clues. Maybe if you rewatch it

My gripes with this movie:

I honestly don't have any gripes to be honest.

Would I watch this movie again:

Yeah I think I would though. It wasn't groundbreakingly great but I did like it a lot and I will probably rewatch it again to pick up on more context clues because this is the type of movie that needs a second rewatch to fully understand.

Would I recommend this movie?:

Yes, though it may not be everyone's cup of tea with how slow paced it is and other things, I think a lot of y'all would like it so I recommend at least watching it once just to see if you like it.

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

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?

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!

So I saw it today on opening. It was me and other males in their early 20s to mid 30s.

You can see they had a blast making this movie and that there's clearly a full movie there.

But for some reason, the movie is under 2 hours and while that should be fine. The way the movie is set up clearly shows that a lot was left on the cutting room floor.

A lot of scenes happen really quickly and it feels like it hits the beats more than allowing the build up, the moment and then the pay off.

So I felt like I ate a meal where the portion size was 2/3 the size, like.....where is the rest of the movie??

Performances are great, characterisations are great. visuals are great. It's such a bro movie.

I wanted to drive a truck afterwards, grab a burger, watch UFC and lift weights afterwards.

I hope there's a full director's cut. It deserves it.

Either way, I hope it's a success because you can really tell that love for the game series was put into the movie.

Of course it's cheesy and all of that, but I'm glad they went the fun route and not the dark and gritty.

Hello y'all, this is day 14 (October 14th) of watching a movie (or two or more) every night of October until Halloween.

The second movie I watched today was brute 1976 (2025)

I have never heard of this movie until I came upon it. Looking for fun unknown horror movies (or at least unknown to me) on Tubi one day and decided it looked interesting and the premise looked promising and It absolutely dropped the ball further than I thought it could have.

Little synopsis:

a group of friends break down in the middle of a desert and to their " luck" they come across a ghost town but they soon learn that the ghost town they ended up in isn't as ghosted as they thought it was

Rating: 2/10

Where I watched: Tubi

Genre: Horror "comedy"

My likes about this movie:

- I didn't have many

- The setting was cool

- The outfit felt of the time

My gripes with this movie:

- The humor was just not humor (You would have thought this movie was made in the early 2000s to early 2010s)

- The movie was boring , I almost stopped watching (and should have probably)

- the premise wasn't done well

- the acting wasn't the greatest (some of the actors were okay but most of them weren't that good)

- most of the characters that died could have gotten out ( slight spoiler)

- There wasn't much substance like plot line or storyline to this movie at all

- The ending was bad

Would I watch this movie again?: No it was just a bad movie. It wasn't good enough to be a so bad. It's good. It was just bad

Would I recommend this movie: No, I don't

A sequel to Heat seemed unnecessary but with DiCaprio & Bale joining that film, it does seem like it should be great.

With that being said, Miami Vice 85 genuinely looks like it’s going to be one of the defining blockbusters of the 2020s. Kosinski knows how to make a crowd pleaser and Dan Gilroy (script writer) has done great work on Andor as well as Nightcrawler.

The reveals of MBJ & Butler’s looks for the films has me sold. They look the part. And we haven’t had a big commercial film of this nature in a while. It should be big if done right.

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.

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/

I finally caught up with Bugonia (2025), and I am still trying to process it. Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, the premise itself is completely unhinged: two conspiracy-obsessed guys kidnap a high-powered CEO because they are absolutely convinced she is an alien intent on destroying Earth.

The performances are world-class. Jesse Plemons is phenomenal as a sad, hopeless guy plagued by past trauma, and Emma Stone is incredible as always. Beyond the weirdness, the movie is overflowing with rich ideas, tackling heavy themes like capitalism, conspiracies, religion, and modern life.

It's sitting at a solid 7.4/10 on IMDb and 88% on Rotten Tomatoes, which makes sense because it is an incredibly polarizing movie. It’s the kind of film that deliberately undercuts itself in ways that will frustrate some and completely delight others. But whether you loved it or hated it, Lanthimos succeeds in making you think about it long after you leave your seat.

For those who have seen it: what did you think of the ending? Did the twist win you over, or did it leave you incredibly frustrated?

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

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?

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.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]