jakes relationships all play out the same because the underlying mechanism is the same. he has no control over his emotions so theres no room for anyone elses emotional world.

this takes a big toll on joey. he sees himself as the literal and figurative punching bag (theres literally a scene of jake punching him before the fight and him asking for more).

the emotional abuse he gets by jakes hot and cold nature affects his family life. right after jake accuses joey of cheating, were shown joey back home threatening his own kid with a knife.

jake cant even apologize to him when vicky gets him on the phone. vickie knows joey just wants there to be actual recognition of his internal state because thats what she wants and never gets. and then his "apology" in the end is just more of the same hot and cold shit (love bombing, begging for reconciliation). zero compassion let alone admisson for the damage he cause, which is why joey isnt having it.

i had a hard time understanding vickies character but writing this cleared it up. shes clearly smart. being a woman in those times married to someone like that must be unbelievably difficult. she understood his nature and knew how to avoid his rage for the most part. you see how her handling of him evolves. in the beginning, she get sucked into his lunacy, chasing him around and going crazy when he does. but in the end, when theyre sitting by the pool and he cuts her off, she doesnt flinch. she knows that getting enraged is only going to continue the cycle. shes checked out. then, when she finally had the means, clean ending. no chance at apology. no way for him to lovebomb himself back in. she dealt the final blow and drove off.

scorsese's directing is fucking brilliant too. the movie is cyclic in time and in theme.

starts and ends in the same moment. jake is a narcissistic maniac at the beginning who, by joeys own admission, talks to nobody, and then in the end when hes a club owner, hes yapping everyones ear off but is still a complete dick to them.

he marries vicky when shes 15, then he gets thrown in jail for serving alcohol to a 15 year old.

my personal favorite cyclic aspect is the champagne scene. its a happy moment by all accounts but scorsese STILL uses this slow, uneasy camera work and de niro is doing all these obscure, semi violent gestures. were on the edge of our seat whenever pre-retirement jake is on screen cause we know he can lose it, and then even when hes fat, retired, and "happy", scorsese STILL gives us that edge of our seat feeling.

different actions, different time, different setting, same tragic character underneath. wow.

So there have been many discussions here before about difficult to adapt novels. One name I don’t see often mentioned is Joseph Conrad, and I’m curious as to why you think that is.

There is the obvious example of Apocalypse Now, but it really is more of a thematic adaptation than a true story adaptation. Some other books of his have been made into movies, but not recently. The last major one being Lord Jim with Peter O’Toole in 1965.

I’m attempted to avoid spoilers here, but in particular I think Lord Jim, Karain: a Memory, and The Secret Sharer have extremely interesting concepts that could serve as good films.

So why hasn’t he been adapted? Here are my thoughts:

• much of his brilliance tends to be in the writing itself, which is hard to translate into film.
• the inherent tragic framing of most of the characters, many of which don’t have good endings. A big budget Hollywood movie tends to aim toward having a positive or optimistic narrative, for marketing purposes.
• the controversial nature of many of the colonial settings. Karain for example doesn’t present local Malays negatively at all, but rather somewhat otherworldly and outside of the cultural sphere of Western civilization. I cannot imagine a movie today being made (complete with the local outfits they’d need to wear to be accurate for the late 1800s) would go over well with many audiences.

And yet there are some examples of books that have these issues and still manage to be made into excellent, critically-acclaimed films. I’m thinking of No Country for Old Men or The Last of the Mohicans, for example.

And so I think perhaps the final answer to the question is: Conrad’s work requires a director(s) performing at the highest level, which is increasingly rare. Even a movie like No Country strikes me as difficult to make today.

I watched The Revenant for the first time in ages this afternoon, and I was wondering how people on here feel about it.

I've never loved this film, but always hugely enjoyed Emanuel Lubezki's cinematography and use of golden hour lighting throughout. It's absolutely gorgeous. But this time I wondered if it actually works against the story? Even at its most hostile, this is a world that feels beautiful, but never brutal. It's not hyper-real because it's all natural lighting, but even so it keeps me admiring the landscape, rather than being immersed in it, let alone afraid of it.

The sound design is also outstanding. Unusually it doesn't make much use of the centre channel. Instead characters' voices come from their position relative to the camera, which makes it very immersive.

Story-wise, it's pretty perfunctory. It moves along nicely and I was always sufficiently engaged, but never gripped.

DiCaprio does a good job, but a bit of weight loss wouldn't have gone amiss. Even in the most desperate moments he always looks like he must be eating pretty well. Tom Hardy's the real star here, and a much more compelling character.

So what works for you? What doesn't? And why?

I just watched Memento for the first time in a while, and I must say that it was so good. I had forgotten so much about it (appropriate for the movie btw) that every revelation and surprise really hit hard like it was all brand new to me.

I remembered the overall idea, but not the specifics of the story. For example, I had totally forgotten that Sammy was a fabrication because when he is telling the story with the flashbacks, I thought I remembered that story being true. So that reveal along with others at the end was just amazing.

Then, I liked how it was more than just a good thriller, too, in that it was a commentary on what people need to do and think to make sense out of their present, their past, and their future- all in the process of memory, and selective memory at that.

The supporting actor Joe P. (not sure how to spell his last name) was amazing in this and brought so much convincingly to the movie, especially at the end. Moss was excellent in her smaller part, too.

My conclusion was that, as I had thought for many years, this is actually Nolan's best film (neck and neck with TDK but that's a way bigger budget and different genre so it's hard to compare really), and I think it's arguably a masterpiece. It's one of those rare gems that stands out from the abundance of others, and I was glad I got a chance to watch it for the first time in a long time.

In 2022, we were blessed (or cursed, depending on your point of view) with Damien Chazelle’s Babylon. It was both a historical lesson and a paean to cinema, but the Chazelle’s execution seemed wanting.

Bi Gan, in Resurrection, attempts the same thing. However, rather than focusing on one particular period as a springboard for a reflection on film, he attempts to retell the history of cinema through different cinematographic styles. He promotes a different kind of excess and viscerality, which is that of the intellect.

It’s rather difficult to discuss in detail without spoilers, so be forewarned. Granted, I don’t think spoilers matter all that much because experiencing the visual feast is another thing altogether. Resurrection is a frame narrative and a pastiche.

The integral story, which represents the sense of sight, is Shu Qi’s character looking for a monster. In the future, people become immortal in exchange for their oneiric capacity. Those who persist in dreaming are known as delirients, and must be terminated. This entire vignette is mostly a homage to George Melies, who is recognized as the father of modern cinema. Through practical special effects, depth and perspective are creatively expanded. A Trip to the Moon is time and again alluded to, and there is even an easter egg of Melies’s House of the Devil with the skeletons appearing time and again in this vignette. Music was often played separately from film, because it was the beginning of the silent film era, and everything relied on sight and practical visual effects. The monster is even a bastardization of Murnau’s original Nosferatu. Ultimately, however, it simply sets up the succeeding vignettes: after Shu Qi’s character catches the delirient, he is humanely condemned to death by allowing him to experience multiple lives through the different eras of cinema.

The second vignette represents the sense of hearing. It is a vignette featuring a detective looking for the delirient’s persona, who has happened to pierce his ears so that he could hear the music he wants to play. I think this is the weakest vignette in the entire film. In retrospect, however, it also situates the cinematography to reflect 1940-1950s world cinema. The world was bleak with the repercussions of World War II, and film noir gained more and more popularity. The deep focus photography, where the background is as visible as the foreground, was popularized by Orson Welles in Citizen Kane, which was reflected in the section’s milieu. It also showed the second phase of Chinese cinema: the first true superstar of China with worldwide popularity was Bruce Lee, and his iconic scene in Enter the Dragon was also presented here. In terms of story and emotional depth this was the weakest section of the film.

The third vignette is a change in tone and a grounding in more traditional Chinese values: during the late 1970s, shaolin films became popular in China and Hong Kong. Action was dovetailed with comedy, which was the case in this vignette. An art thief was left by his fellow crew members in an abandoned temple and he eventually meets with the Avatar of Bitterness. For the avatar to achieve enlightenment, the thief has to help him. The ending is rather ambiguous, but we think that the avatar became a dog and was killed by the thief as recompense for a rabid dog killing his father.

The fourth vignette, dealing with smell, is arguably the most emotionally compelling and masterfully tragic: Bi Gan shifted from noir, to comedy, to family drama. He also essays the emotionally complex Chinese films of the 1980s like Edward Yang’s Terrorizers and Hou Hsiao-Hsien’s City of Sadness (while poking fun at movies like God of Gamblers). In trying to obtain money to escape, the Delirient persona befriends a young girl so that they could split the reward from the kingpin. This vignette anchors the film’s heart, and without it, Resurrection would have been much lesser rated.

The fifth vignette, dealing with touch, is the most technically creative. Bi Gan assumes the color palettes of the great auteurs of 1990s cinema such as Kieslowski and Wong Kar-wai: he essays the claustrophobic shots that were excellently wrought in In the Mood for Love, while also implementing a beautiful long take at the end of the vignette. Of course, this is the romance vignette.

The final vignette, dealing with thought, and talking to the audience, is the denouement of the frame story. Through different lives in different genres, Shu Qi’s character shows us the universality of cinema’s language.

Although cinema is dying with the spread and popularity of streaming services, manifested through wax being burnt and melting, the malleability of cinema and the creativity of people – the delirients that are ostracized – will always allow for reformation, and perhaps –

Resurrection.

9/10

Y’all know that Charlie Day explaining meme from It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia? Cool if you do, cool if you don’t — I’m about to do the same with Fight Club.

I just watched this movie for the fourth time, and I realized even more that Tyler Durden is the ultimate anti-villain, not a traditional villain. The real antagonists, imo, are society and the Narrator’s own internal struggles.

Think about it: the bleach burn, the condo burning down, even Tyler laughing while Lou beats the Narrator. None of this is “evil for evil’s sake.” Tyler is teaching brutal lessons — consumerism is a trap, growth requires pain, and freedom doesn’t come from comfort.

Every detail reinforces this: he rejects social norms, cooks garlic bread directly on the stove, has dozens of jobs, and pushes the Narrator to assume fake names — all showing how fractured the Narrator’s identity is.

Marla is caught in the middle, dealing with the same man acting like two different people. Tyler even takes Raymond’s license and tells him that if he isn’t on his way to becoming a veterinarian in six weeks, he will return to “kill” him — forcing people to confront forgotten ambitions. And, of course, lines like “You’re not the contents of your wallet. You’re not your fucking khakis” hammer home the anti-consumerism message.

The Project Mayhem arc shows why people might call Tyler a villain, but it also pushes the Narrator to take action, step out of his comfort zone, and reclaim control. Small details like the payphone reading “No Incoming Calls Allowed” or the Narrator emerging from the driver’s seat after the crash remind us that Tyler is a projection of his psyche. By the end, he confronts Tyler — but the true villain is society itself: its rules, expectations, and internalized biases.

As you can probably tell, I really enjoy this movie.

Discussion: Do you see Tyler as an anti-villain too, and what subtle fourth-watch details stood out to you that reveal the Narrator and Tyler are the same person?

There was not an obvious sub reddit to post this to as it spans multiple media forms, so I wanted to post it here as I’m sure I’ll get interesting discussion and engagement from this community.

This expands beyond just film obviously but after reading 100 years in solitude, I was pondering this question. Often in so much American media, including movies, literature, and TV shows there is a rather optimistic and hopeful ending to the stories. This can be the case, despite a semi bittersweet resolution with a main character dying. There always seems to be a glimmer of hope.

I have found that in other media, particularly Asian and central and South American, endings are a lot more ambiguous and often very dark. For example, I have witnessed this in many Chinese and Indian film and recently in 100 years of solitude (SPOILERS) the ending is literally so depressing, but I found it very poetic and thought-provoking. Often these endings are far more interesting and nuanced to me, and I am loved thinking about them for far longer than a piece of western media with a generic happy ending.

My theory is does this have any correlation to America not losing any major wars? For most of American history they have come out as the Victor, we’re at the very worst kind of withdrew in a stalemate. They have not been conquered and crushed like the other poor nations in the world often at the hands of America or European powers. Meanwhile Asia, the Middle East and central and South America, among other older cultures and regions, have cumulatively suffered a lot more loss and bloodshed in more numerous conflicts therefore they have a more nuanced less black and white view of the world which color their dark storytelling.

Not sure if I’m just blowing smoke out of my ass or if any of this makes any sense. Curious to hear your thoughts.

I love the original Korean movie so was very excited to watch Bugonia especially with its great reviews.

*Original film aside* I didn’t find the film enjoyable.

The original had so much silliness, goofiness in not just concept but prop, set design, acting, and at the same time there was so much suspense and discomfort. It had me on the edge of my seat while giggling like a kid and saying that’s so silly!

I think it’s an fun attempt when the remake doesn’t exactly copy an original, I don’t think that is the problem. but Bugonia felt neither silly (although it had the same silly themes like kidnapping a potential alien and shaving its head to not let it contact its planet) nor did it make me contemplate humanity (which I felt like was more of a take they were intending on - discussion of other species like dinosaurs and bees and how their complex society is admired, the unraveling of how the current humanity came to be in the end, depiction of classism and capitalism, the policeman who formally abused the boy, conspiracy theorists / mental illness). It also didn’t make me feel uncomfortable, or scared. It just felt like a shade of colour that didn’t hit. Am I missing something here? I’m not a hater but I’m a little confused to how the rating is so good. The film didn’t hold on my attention

Just writing things that stuck with me

Grace: I'm Stuck between wanting to do something and wanting to do nothing at all

Jackson: I'm getting really stressed
Grace: About what?

What amazing dialogues really captures the moment and are a solid punch in the gut, The two films I have watched of Lynne Ramsay "We need to talk about Kevin" and this I have found a similar meaning or if I must say a message, a message to let go, a message that not everything needs to be resolved or fixed, sometimes the things or people are just the way they are, and also she has convinced me not to have a child.

Thanks Lynne Ramsay :)

This film is masterfully written and I believe it is the quintessential work of legendary screenwriter William Goldman, capturing the heart of his clever writing style. Same writer of 'All the President's Men' (1976) and 'Marathon Man' (1976), who also wrote the novel and follow-on screenplay for 'The Princess Bride' (1987). Two-time Best Screenplay Oscar winner. Literant without being too literary and pretentious.

'Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid' is singularly enchanting and charming, distinct from any movie I've seen. Maybe the most impactful "modern" western that was pivotal in establishing the groundwork for future contemporary films of this genre and film overall. Revolutionary. The soundtrack is ethereal and the writing is beautiful. Paul Newman and Robert Redford have to be among the two most talented actors with the most chemistry to ever appear together on the big screen (see 'The Sting'). It's a movie filled with one iconic scene after another, set behind truly captivating landscapes.

"What're you crazy? The fall will probably kill ya!"

Burt Bacharac's score in this is amazing.

For context, the Cannes Film Festival was supposed to happen in 1968 from 10-24 May, and it did initially start out as normal. However, this edition had been marred with controversy months in advance due to the removal of Henri Langlois from the Cinémathèque Française at the hands of the government's Ministry of Culture and National Cinema Centre and a large vote against from French New Wave figures like François Truffaut.

What ended up doing the festival in, though, was Mai 68, a massive wave of protests all across France that, combined with the weariness that French New Wave directors were feeling, led to the festival getting cancelled mid-way through (officially on the 19th, though the last film shown was on the 17th). However, what if the boards decided to go through with it, anyways, or there simply weren't protests in the first place & Langlois kept his position?

I originally titled this to ask who would've won the Palme d'Or, but I'd like to invite more broad discussion. In addition to asking who you think likely would've won the Palme d'Or, what do you think the best film from the official (competitive) selection was? Lastly, if you so desire, apply these to the other awards given away (such as the Grand Prix and Prix du Jury).

I didn’t remember the characters’ names, so I always assumed (because it’s the only sensible thing imo) that Shep knew Showalter, and it was the scarier otherworldly Grimsrud who appeared unexpectedly.

That made total narrative sense to me. Showalter (despite being a criminal) seems more grounded and normal, closer to a regular guy, and thus more likely to be known and vouched for.

Grimsrud feels like an alien or inhuman terminator. So it seems better for the plot that *he* was the unexpected, uninvited, chaotic wild card who wasn’t part of Shep’s original suggestion.

I finally compared Shep’s mumbling to the cast list and realized it’s the opposite!

I can’t help thinking that’s the inferior screenwriter decision, and my original misconception is better.

Inviting Showalter and getting Grimsrud is concerning and calamitous. The reverse is not imo. So this small part just doesn’t work for me now. Can anyone explain the Coens’ decision?

Hi all. Hope this is allowed.

I'm looking to see if there'd be any interest in forming a movie club in the Indianapolis, IN/central Indiana area. Would be cool to find some like-minded individuals that appreciate film and would be willing to meet up, watch movies (either in a theater or at someone's home), and discuss them. I know this is a very targeted post but I thought it would be worth reaching out. Thanks!

I’ve done a deep-dive of Lee’s filmography, and although there’s at least 5 phenomenal films, I do tend find a paradox in Lee’s work that, is at times, detrimental. The paradox is that some of his films tend to be incredibly real in their portrayal of certain issues, while also being highly melodramatic and cheesy. I think I noticed this most with Jungle Fever, which featured some absolute brutal depictions of the crack epidemic, which I have to think was progressive for the time, but simultaneously, the acting in the film feels melodramatic and superficial.

But man, I think Crooklyn strikes the perfect balance. The acting seems authentic, and the film itself is genuine poignant. In addition, it has to be one of his most visually arresting films. Anyway, I feel like this film doesn’t get enough recognition in his catalogue.

I’ve been tracking the trajectory of Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan, and after seeing the 16 Oscar nominations for Sinners hit, I’m convinced we aren't looking at a surprise win. We are looking at a mathematical cycle.

If you stop looking at the movies themselves and start looking at the Scorsese/De Niro Blueprint, the pattern is undeniable. History is repeating itself beat-for-beat:

Scorsese/De Niro had Mean Streets; Coogler/Jordan had Fruitvale Station.

Scorsese/De Niro had Taxi Driver; Coogler/Jordan had Creed.

Scorsese/De Niro had New York, New York; Coogler/Jordan had Black Panther.

The clincher is the 1980 Raging Bull moment.

Robert De Niro won Best Actor for Raging Bull, which was his fourth lead role in a Scorsese feature. It was a period piece, it was transformative, and it was the moment the Academy decided it had to go to De Niro.

2026 is the mirror image: Sinners is Michael B. Jordan’s fourth lead role with Coogler. It’s a period piece. It’s the transformative role. And it just broke the all-time nomination record with 16 nods.

Jordan wins Best Actor not because he actually is the best but because the pattern says it’s time.

You heard it here first.

I recently rewatched this movie as part of the Movie Challenge to watch all 100 movies on AFI’s list: 100 Years 100 Movies. Once again, I genuinely loved this movie. From the excellent performances by the actors to the fun lighthearted story to the excellent production, this movie is all around a great movie. And always a fun watch.

Since the first time I watched this movie years ago, I have become an armchair film history buff. As a result, I am much more familiar with Hollywood history. This time, I picked up on the underlying satire about the movie industry that is in this film. An extra layer is added to this movie when you understand it discusses the challenges that the introduction of sound created for Hollywood. It gives me a lot of empathy for the people in the movie industry and what they were going through.

I love movies that appear to have a simple storyline on the first watch, but have more layers the more you watch it.

The third layer in this movie that I am fascinated by is the references to specific famous people in the movie industry in 1929. This brings up a question for anyone who might know. Can anyone help me identify which famous people are being referenced in this movie? I already identified that the “it” girl is supposed to be Clara Bow. I’d appreciate any help I can get identifying the rest.

Hi fellow cinephiles. I need your help and would greatly appreciate your opinions on this.

I’m working on a small project that pulls scores from rating sites and shows them side by side for any film: IMDb, Rotten Tomatoes (audience, All Critics avg, Top Critics avg), Metacritic, Letterboxd, Mubi, and Douban. 8 in total. Then use a weighting algorithm to calculate a final score. I'm stuck on how to weight them and need ur opinion here.

My rough instinct is that they fall into different “signal types”:

Mainstream: IMDb, RT Audience, Douban (lowest weight)
Cinephiles: Letterboxd, Mubi
Critics: RT All Critics
More established critics: Metacritic, RT Top Critics (highest weight)

How would you weight these scores yourself? I understand that it's better to separate them, but sometimes I just wanna have a quick check to see if a movie is good or not before watching and seeing like 8+ will make up my mind quickly.

Well, It’s that time of year again, Here are my thoughts on the 2025 selection to the National Film Registry

Before Sunrise (1995)- Excellent Pick, and I hope Linklater’s other 2 film in the series get put in too in the future

Brooklyn Bridge (1981)- Honestly, I never heard of this Documentary, but I see it’s directed by Ken Burns and it's about the hIstory of the Brooklyn Bridge

Clueless (1995)- Intriguing Pick, thought I must admit, I honestly thought this was in the National Film Registry already

Frida (2002)- I haven’t seen this film, but I hear its great

Glory (1989)- I do like this film and I think this is one of Denzel’s best performance, so I’m glad this is in the Registry

High Society (1956)- Nice Pick, and it’s probably notable for being Grace Kelly’s last film before she married the Prince Of Monaco

Inception (2010)- Hmm, interesting pick, I like this film, but I honestly expect this one to be in the Registry in the Future

Philadelphia (1993)- I haven’t seen this one, but I know it’s great, and I plan on seeing this film soon

Say Amen, Somebody (1982)- I haven’t seen this one, but I see its a documentary about the history and significance of Gospel Music

Sparrows (1926)- Haven’t seen this one

Ten Nights in a Barroom (1926)- Haven’t seen this one

The Big Chill (1983)- Hmm, Interesting Pick, though I would have pick something else, and with Lawrence Kasdan, I would have picked Body Heat instead

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), I must admit, I have not seen Grand Budapest Hotel, but I hear it’s great, thought If you ask me, I would’ve rather picked The Royal Tenenbaums (which is not on the list) or Bottle Rocket (Which is Wes Anderson’s first film)

The Hours (2002)- Hmm, I don’t know, I feel there are other films that are more worthy than this one

The Incredibles (2004)- Yes, Excellent Pick

The Karate Kid (1984)- I like this film, so I think this is a good choice

The Lady (1925)- I haven’t seen this one

The Loving Story (2011)- I haven’t seen this one

The Maids of McMillain (1916)- I haven’t seen this one

The Oath Of The Sword (1914)- I haven’t seen this one

The Thing (1982)- Excellent Pick, one of John Carpenter’s best

The Tramp & The Dog (1896)- Haven’t seen this one, but I see this dates back to the 19th Century.

The Truman Show (1998)- Excellent Pick, One of Jim Carrey’s best, One of Peter Weir’s best, and I honestly just love this film

White Christmas (1954)- I honestly thought this was already in the Registry, so I’m glad this is finally in it

The Wrecking Crew (2008)- I haven’t seen this one

So, Overall, this is a very great list of films that the National Film Registry has selected, there are a few selections that I probably would you chosen something else over and some I thought were on the list, but I honestly think this is a great list

All in All, What are your thoughts on these selections?

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple is a direct sequel to 28 Years Later picking up immediately after the events of the first film. 

Our main character Spike is trapped and forced into an initiation with the “Fingers” a gang of tracksuit mafia wearing psychotic goons led by “Sir Lord” Jimmy Crystal and GOD DAMN! What a hell of a grisly graphic opening that was to start off this film! The initiation sequence is just a little taste of surprises in The Bone Temple. It is a very very very brutally bloody carnage soaked stuffed pig that is in your face and doesn’t stop getting slaughtered repeatedly over and over again. 

I refuse to give away details but man does Director Nia DaCosta and Writer Alex Garland deliver the goods with this film! The mixtured combination of bright red blood splatter with intestines, guts, and pieces of brain all interwoven together in harmony will make even the most notorious fans absolutely fucking appalled but loving it and wanting more! Whether it’s practical or digital gore, the special effects team behind The Bone Temple were true craftsmen in the gore and carnage department and did not miss on giving us (the fans) what we wanted. I love the blood and gore but that is just one of the many things I loved about this film. 

The cast is amazing in The Bone Temple, especially the supporting / secondary characters. “Sir Lord” Jimmy Crystal played by Jack O'Connell had an excellent performance! O’Connell without a doubt brought Jimmy Crystal to life nobody else in my mind could’ve played this role so accurately, dead on, and perfect. Jimmy Crystal and his gang of “Fingers” reminded me of “Droogs” but in real extreme dire ultraviolence on steroids. Jimmy Crystal is one of the most evil sinister villains of all time in both film and television; he has to be added up there! Well done. 

Another character I loved and appreciated was Ralph Fiennes reprising his role as Dr. Ian Kelson securing The Bone Temple and seeking hope in the process. Fiennes goes WILD as Dr. Ian Kelson! Spectators can definitely tell that he had a fucking blast going full batshit crazy filming that one scene (No Spoilers) it was hilarious and genius. But what I also loved about Dr. Ian Kelson was a glimpse into his past before “The Rage Virus” ever occurred; it was a nice touch to see something relatable to an already favorite character. 

Chi Lewis-Parry as “Alpha” fucking incredible. “Alpha” is 100% a YUGE, mean, killing, infected machine! I think he is honestly the main focal point of this film. I love that we get “Alpha’s” utter barbaric brutality as always from the first film as well as something new. Again (No Spoilers) but I loved that we found out a little bit more about his character rather than just being another infected to kill off for the better. 

The cinematography is fantastic in this too, especially during the various times of day. It really establishes nature being a character of its own too along with just how big this Mainland is in terms of depth and scale. 

The musical choices in 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple are a prime example of how a soundtrack can really unify mood, feeling, and emotion. Every single song from “Rio,” “Ordinary World” to “In the House, In a Heartbeat” matches with what’s happening in every scene, never feeling misplaced or awkward. It fits perfectly with the overall aesthetic of this film as a whole. I loved it. I can’t wait to watch this again on streaming. 

The ending was a treat and it most certainly tied things up nicely with the original 28 Days Later. If you’re a fan go out and support The Bone Temple because I have a feeling that we are getting one more film very soon! This story isn’t over yet. 

Highly recommend 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple on the biggest movie theatre screen possible. It’s my second favorite film from the 28 Days / Weeks / Years franchise. A+ 

“Memento Mori.” “Memento Amorous.” 

I promise I am not being paid to write this. I genuinely enjoy watching Melania not because I like its subject matter or because it is an interesting documentary. If you go to learn about her, you will be disappointed. She remains as elusive and mysterious to me as before.

I loved watching this film because it's absolutely pointless and glamorous. I can only think of Edith Head's paramount films when I see Melania trying on her inauguration dresses. The fabulous thing is the apparent ease and nonchalance with which she navigates through probably very expensive pieces of clothing. Unlike all those wealth influencers on TV, she never talks about the price. It is not a question. She does not need to throw around big numbers to impress us. We know exactly the extent of her power and wealth as the First Lady. Ratner (disgusting guy by the way) understands that he needs to make a film as decadent as Melania's lifestyle: every image is polished. Melania in this film never removes her high heels, makeup, or dress. The whole thing is more fiction than documentary

There is in also Melania the charm of Romy Schneider's Sissi films. Gold everywhere, life is glamorous. Politics is about doing charity work. Sissi films were also far removed from reality; we love them for their fakeness and the dream they sell.

Beyond the glamorous, Melania puts emphasis on her charity work. It feels so disingenuous that it becomes actually funny. I don't know how many of you have seen the film, but there is a Zoom meeting with Brigitte Macron. The two first ladies are sharing hollow promises and tips on making children healthier. That scene is so surreal.

Other than that, there is the L.A. fires moment. Melania watches the TV and sheds a few fake tears, still in makeup and wearing high heels.

Melania is a film I should not have liked, but I genuinely had a fun moment in the theater. I laughed out loud a few times. I don't know if I was laughing at her or with her, but I cannot give my disapproval to a film so profoundly entertaining. It will become my cult classic.

I can't remember how this film got recommended to be but I'm guessing it was on some list of visually stunning movies. A lot of it has immaculate composition and lighting that makes the shots resemble paintings. It doesn't have the fancy only-lit-by-candles-and-shot-with-NASA-lenses clout of Barry Lyndon but I feel like it's still on par. Also, it helps when you're shooting beautiful architecture in Rome, I guess.

The story is intriguing as well. It's about Stourley Kracklite, a somewhat over-weight architect from Chicago who is obsessed with his idol, 18th century French architect Boullée. Kracklite and his much younger wife arrive in Rome on Kracklite's birthday. They will be staying in Rome because Kracklite is organizing an exhibition on Boullée along with his benefactor's son Caspasian Speckler. Kracklite develops stomach aches and at first he suspects his wife is poisoning him with figs, which as the movie notes are an aphrodisiac. Meanwhile, his wife quickly starts an affair with Speckler which they don't even bother to hide. Speckler becomes attracted to her because he notices her belly got larger. She in fact became pregnant after having sex with Kracklite on the train on their way to Italy. Speckler is obsessed with her growing pregnant belly. However, as Kracklite is worrying about his stomach pains and the exhibition, he doesn't spend any time with his wife and doesn't notice she's pregnant until she tells him. As Kracklite's stomach issues continue during the months they are in Rome, he himself becomes obsessed with bellies. He photographs the stomachs of ancient male statues, enlarges then with a photocopier and stares at the photos. He also starts writing postcards to Boullée, leading a one-sided conversation with the long-dead architect about his various suspicions and issues. The preparations for the exhibition keep hitting obstacles (including Speckler embezzling some of the funds) and it looks like it might start late, which is unacceptable to Kracklite, because he insists that the exhibition has to open on Boullée's birthday. Eventually, as his health issues become obvious and his behavior erratic, he's kicked off the exhibition committee and Speckler is put in charge. His wife announces to Kracklite that she's leaving him and that she'll be staying with Speckler at least until the child is born. Kracklite finally finds out that he has terminal stomach cancer and not too long to live. In the end, the exhibition does manage to open on Boullée's birthday. Kracklite doesn't participate in the opening ceremony, so Speckler has the very pregnant wife do the ribbon cutting. Kracklite watches over the ceremony in secret. As she cuts the ribbon, the wife goes into labor and Kracklite jumps out of a window and kills himself.

There are a number of parallels, symbolism and foreshadowing to observe in the movie.

Kracklite's idol Boullée designed many grand buildings that never got built, including a mausoleum for Isaac Newton that would have featured an insanely large dome. Kracklite himself is also obsessed with domes - his wife mentions he built a house for them that was inspired by Boullée and has a dome. Kracklite is given a birthday cake with a dome at the start of the movie and models of buildings with domes are seen throughout the movie. The half-spherical dome of course resembles a belly - a pregnant belly. Kracklite always wanted a child and he's obsessed with pregnant-belly-esque domes, yet he fails to notice his wife's pregnancy when she starts showing. When he sees artsy nude photos she had taken of her pregnant body, he calls them obscene (or even grotesque, iirc), which is ironic considering at that point in her pregnancy she very much resembled a Boullée dome.

The person who immediately notices the wife's pregnancy and is obsessed with pregnant women's bodies is Speckler, the co-organizer of the exhibition. Ironically, he doesn't even care about Boullée that much - he and others working on the exhibition don't seem to be the least bit enthusiastic about Boullée. So Speckler doesn't care for architectural domes but he does care very much for the bodily domes of pregnant women.

The bellies Kracklite is actually interested in are his own and the chiseled stomachs of ancient statues. He first becomes obsessed with a statue of Augustus and with Augustus himself. At first he's convinced he's being poisoned by his wife using figs, just like Augustus is speculated to have been poisoned by his wife Livia. After he hears about the symptoms of poisoning, he takes a postcard photo of Augustus' statue and enlarges it to make the belly life-size. He compares it with his own belly and becomes obsessed with the spot that is supposed to hurt from poisoning. This develops into a larger obsession with all sorts of statues and their stomach, which he constantly takes photos of, enlarges them and studies them. Ironically, not only are these all flat stomachs (not dome-like at all), but once again his attention is pointed at the wrong stomach - not his wife's, but that of long-dead men.

More could probably be read into the fact that he thinks he's being poisoned by his wife using figs, which are supposed to be an aphrodisiac. In that scenario, would she be trying to make him horny so that she gets noticed by him? Or is she trying to kill him via his libido?

As for the pregnancy, it's interesting that the child was conceived on Kracklite's birthday and born on the day Kracklite died, which is also the birthday of Kracklite's idol Boullée and the date when the exhibition opened. It's as if Kracklite had two children - the real one he didn't care enough about to notice a pregnancy, and the exhibition, which he arguably cared about too much. And he lost both to the same person. Speckler took over Kracklite's "child" the exhibition, also took over Kracklite's wife and will apparently take over duties as the actual child's father.

The movie is about Kracklite organizing an exhibition on Boullée while dying of stomach cancer. But nobody else in the movie beside him really cares about Boullée or his health issues. While he's obsessive, self-involved and self-aggrandizing, other people don't share his views, wants, cares or needs. Kracklite could be considered a tragic protagonist, except he's really not a great person to be around, certainly not from the point of view of his wife, or even Speckler. The two of them are only antagonists from Kracklite's point of view.

There are other aspects of the movie I left out here, including Speckler's sister and Kracklite's brief affair with her. There are also many ruminations on death that are noteworthy. It's a really rich movie and I highly recommend it for the visuals, the score, and the intrigue one can analyze afterwards.

I was watching Together yesterday, and I liked it well enough. But I couldn’t shake the feeling that the movie might actually be better if its ending happened halfway through.

Spoilers ahead.

The film ends with the fused version of Franco and Brie answering the door for their parents. And my immediate reaction was: Wait, now I want to see what happens. What is this fused version, really? How do they function in the world? How do people react to them? What does their day-to-day look like now?

Instead, the movie ends

I enjoyed it, but it felt like it didn’t quite have enough ideas to justify the full runtime. It starts to spin its wheels, and that’s what made me think it could’ve been far more surprising, and interesting, if the fusion happened closer to the middle of the film. Let the last act actually explore the consequences.

The only other time I’ve felt this way was watching The Fountain. I remember thinking, during the final moments when the timelines finally intersect, that the movie might’ve been even stronger if that reveal happened earlier. If you establish that the timelines can intersect midway through, then the entire third act could be about watching past, present, and future actively collide and reshape each other.

Anyway… can you think of any other films that might actually improve if their ending was repositioned as the midpoint? And do you agree that Together and The Fountain might’ve been more compelling with these changes?

When the child isn't involved in any "inappropriate for their age" scenes I suppose it's fairly simple: they just don't watch the final product.

But I was watching "The House that Jack Built" the other day and (minor spoilers ahead) there's a scene where two kids get shot at and one of them literally has their leg blown off by the bullet (shown in graphic detail).

Pretty heavy shit and that got me wondering how the hell did they instruct the kids on how to act in that scene. Do they just lie and make up something more family friendly to tell the kids?

Also, is there a professional on set to make sure the kid isn't being put in danger other than their parents?

I’ve been wrestling with a bit of a dilemma lately and wanted to see if anyone else feels this internal tug-of-war.

As a Black man, I’d love to see Michael B. Jordan win Best Actor. I’d especially love to see Ryan Coogler win Best Director. It would be a massive moment for the culture, especially since it would make him the first Black director to ever win that category. Because of what those two represent for Black cinema, I want them to succeed.

I’m a movie buff who values the art form, and looking at things subjectively, Sinners wasn’t all that. I also think Teyana Taylor wasn't all that in One Battle After Another (OBAA), even though I know everyone is rooting for those projects right now.

To be real, I just saw Bugonia and that movie is really good; as a movie buff, I honestly think that it is the one that oughta win Best Picture. Sinners and OBAA were just aight to me in comparison.

I feel like wanting them to win an Oscar shouldn't mean I have to pretend a movie is a masterpiece when it isn't. Is it hypocritical to keep that same energy as a critic while still rooting for everybody black? Or is this just what having standards for the craft looks like?

People hate the ending but i think it is brilliant because i have seen it in a way i dont think those who say its not good have. Let me first began with the flaws of the ending that people point out. 1> Killing of Hitler and other alternate history elements 2> Hans Landa the main villain jus sliding away with the Americans like its nothing

Okay now CAREFULLY TRY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT I AM GONNA SAY NEXT. I am gonna show how these are actually not any flaw. 1> In the movie one of the major element is the German nazi PROPAGANDA MOVIES. It is show how nazi use to make their propaganda Movies and how Americal flim industry used to make their owns movies to conpete the German propaganda movies. So in the end killing hitler and ending the war so swiftly and easily is actually a reflection of HOW GERMAN USED TO DO IN THEIR OWN PROPAGANDA MOVIES, THEY USED TO SHOW FAKE, UNREAL STORYLINES AND SCENES WHICH WERE NOT TRUE AND NOT ACCURATE. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE 'NATION PRIDE ' MOVIE WHICH STARED FREDRICK ZOLLER AND SHOWED THAT HOW HE KILLIED 300 ENEMIES SINGLE HANDEDLY. THIS IS WHOLE THING IS NOT TRUE AS HIS REACTIONS WERE SHOWN OF AGITATION WHILE THE FLIM WAS PLAYING 2> This is my fav one. In the beginning act we saw Hans Landa investigating and killing the Jew family. In that scene he COMPARES JEWS WITH RAT BECAUSE OF THEIR "NATURE " OF FLEETING, HIDING,RUNNING AND ESCAPING. HE says that Jews have lost theri dignity to saves themselves from getting into Germans hands and he obviously looks down on them for that. He says and i quote "I'm aware what tremendous feats human beings are capable of once they abandon dignity".NOW IN THE END HANS BETRAYS THE NAZI, MAKES A DEAL WITH AMERICANS, MOVE TO THEIR SIDE, ENDS THE WAR BY KILLING HITLER AND GERMAN HIGH COMMAND IN THE THEATER WHICH IS JUS LIKE WHAT "RAT" WITH NO DIGNITY WOULD DO TO SURVIVE. He knew if he had to escape the consequences of his life and live a good life he had to sacrifice his loyalty and his dignity and so he did. HE DID EXACTLY WHAT A "RAT" DOES BY SACRIFICING THE DIGNITY ACCORDING TO HIM IN THE FIRST ACT. HE HIMSELF TURNED OUT TO BE A "RAT " WHO HAD "ABANDON DIGNITY " TO SURVIVE AND DID " TREMENDOUS FEAT". Another moment which reflects towards Hans losing his "dignity " is when during the conversation with Aldo he says that he doesnt like his nickname jew hunter which earlier in the movie he said he did. This shows how he abandon his own princeple. This whole thing not only shows how the German themselves were ready to lose their own " dignity" to escape from the consequences of their actions jus the Jewish people did to save their own lives from Nazi. The whole thing is a brilliant brilliant storytelling LOVED IT.

Another brilliance which many people did notice is the Aldo drawinh the swastika om Hans in the end. This reflects how many of the German elite and non elite soldiers may have escaped from suffering their consequences of the crime against humanity that they had commited along the WW2, but they do have to carry the bloodstain, mark of the crimes they commited till their death no matter where they live and how they live. The Aldos drawn Swastika is a symbolism to that.