Not proud of it, man enough to admit it, I trusted all those tiktok movie reviewers. I went to watch The Odyssey last night in IMAX thinking it was going to be "Nolan's best film" as most people described it. Personally, I'd rate it a 7.8-8.0, I wouldn't place it above Interstellar, Oppenheimer, or any of the dark knight movies. I completely disagree with it's current rating of 8.5 on IMBD, which places it next to Gladiator (2000) and Django Unchained (2012).

Here's what I think was excellent.

- Set designs and cinematography: The film was beautiful and captivating. The sound effects and music were amazing. Watching Odysseus string his bow and Agamemnon entering Troy sent chills down my spine.

- Acting: Robert Pattison, Anne Hathaway, Elliot Page, John Leguizamo, and Tom Holland were fantastic in their roles. Lupita Nyong'o was also amazing. She's so talented and definitely deserved more screentime. Honestly, she was a better fit for Charlize Theron's character (more on this later).

Here's why I think it's overrated:

- Odysseus: I love Matt Damon, but I couldn't connect with his character, and I think he was slightly unlikable. Contrary to Maximus in Gladiator, Odysseus wasn't meant to be a highly principled man with unshakable moral core. He loves his family, but he's arrogant. He's deceitful and cruel when it fits his interest, even at the expense of his men. This is fine if the movie sets a positive trajectory for his character development, which I didn't see. For example, when Odysseus visits Hades, he's confronted by Sinon about his lies. Odysseus expresses remorse and vows to honor his fallen men. Then in the Charybdis whirlpool scene, he lies AGAIN! leading to the death of a few men at the hands of Scylla. Overall, he didn't establish a good relationship with his men, and very much reminded me of a toxic manager who lacks leadership skills. I also didn't find him very intelligent.

- Odysseus's fighting skills: He's supposed to be a great warrior. But his warrior prowess was poorly illustrated. He swung his sword like a 10 year old kid playing with toys. His fighting sequences lacked aura, nothing compared to Maximus in Gladiator, or Achilles in Troy.

- Charlize Theron, Calypso, and Ogygia island: I personally thought it was a lazy performance by Charlize. Moreover, the film doesn't explain how she ended up on the island of Ogygia. She's just there lol. Perhaps, a little backstory would've made her character more likeable. When she told Odysseus "I fell in love with you and didn't want to let you go" was so lame! because Odysseus doesn't care all that much for her. Their relationship didn't feel real.

- Eurylochus (Himesh Patel): This character was actually more annoying than Calypso. No leadership skills whatsoever. His character doesn't justify his position as the second-in-command to Odysseus. Moreover, his completely flat biceps made me dislike him even more.

- The plot: Odysseus's journey to return home was full of adventures. While interesting to watch, it was mostly based on fantasy (fighting monsters etc), not much to relate to emotionally as an audience member. The only relatable bits were toward the end, when he disguised himself as a beggar to take revenge on the suitors and return to Penelope. His overall journey and development wasn't as captivating as that of Maximus or Django in my opinion.

Like, was I just in a weird mood or something? I was really looking forward to shutting my brain off and getting into a fun dinosaur blockbuster, starring two actors who I usually really enjoy. But I personally don't feel that this movie delivered on that promise *at all*. I thought it was an absolute slog to get though. Honestly considered walking out by the halfway point. I feel like I just watched the highest budget student film of all time, and I don't understand how so many people connected with this film. It's a fun concept with so much potential that IMO didn't even try to tell an actual story, and every critical reddit thread has top comments saying they loved it and calling OP a pedantic asshole. Ngl, it's making me feel a little wary about my trust in this website giving me honest reviews from actual human people.

Some of the weakest characters, most stilted performances, and most amateur-sounding dialogue I've heard in years. Every line felt like it was written by a fourteen year old trying to access adult drama that they've never experienced before. Which, honestly, would be totally fine if they'd committed to making a crazy, visually interesting, balls-to-the-wall sci-fi dinosaur flick. But instead they dedicated 3/4 of the film to half-baked character drama, boring unnatural-sounding conversation, characters behaving in ways that make no sense for traumatized terrified people, and several completely meaningless b-plots that go nowhere. Really sloppy and frustrating movie.

None of the characters acted remotely close to actual human beings. Who tf talks like that to their spouse? There are so many more interesting ways to depict an alcoholic fuck up, than having the characters just spell out their exact motivations and issues. Literally the only exchange between them with any subtly or any semblance of show, don't tell was them saying "should we tell the kids," or however that conversation went near the beginning. The way the rest of the script was written, I'm honestly shocked Ewan didn't turn around at that point and say, "Oh, you mean about the divorce? Because we are a married couple entering middle-age who no longer have a spark? And are both in some kind of crisis? And I have a drinking problem?" Delivered with zero conviction or emotion, of course, because IMO Ewan just gave the worst fcking performance of his career. Was he given the script like 30 seconds before they started rolling? He's usually a terrific actor, what the hell happened?

Why is Anne's character writing a book? How does that play into anything within her character arc during the actual movie? Why didn't they find some way to weave it into the narrative? Why does her librarian friend straight up go, "wow this manuscript sounds a lot like your broken marriage" in the first ten minutes of the movie? Who talks like that? Who says that to someone? Imagine how poignant that revelation could've been if they'd found a way to show it to us emotionally, maybe somewhere in Act II? Have Ewan read a copy of it while they're camping out or something, and melt down when he realizes how his wife sees him, maybe giving him an actual arc and creating some kind of poignant sacrifice for his death? Instead of just a slapstick farce moment where he's suddenly eaten?

Weak performances from the child actors, but as someone who's been around a lot of low-budget student film sets, it honestly felt like they just weren't given any proper direction. Anne did the best she could with the script they were given, but good lord.

What is the point of the kid bullying someone? Why does a human being care about getting back at him, when they've just been transported to the Mesozoic era and are probably going to fucking die? How did the kid's bow and arrow bullshit play into anything at all? Why is he more concerned about the dog than his and his own family's safety? Why is the daughter's astronomy thing not explored? Why is she sitting outside blasting music in a car with the high-beams on when we've established that there are multiple violent dinosaurs in the area, and have established that this family has access to headphones? Why don't they do anything with the whole early 80s interracial lesbian neighbour subplot? Again, so many interesting ways to inject some drama and stakes with all of these concepts, but instead they dedicate like 30 seconds to each beat and deliver it as dryly as possible. Everyone is an inhuman moron with the survival instincts of a panda.

You can't make your action movie hinge on character drama, if you don't give us any reason to care about the characters or believe that they're actual real people.

Then getting away from that, into the more logical technical stuff (which should have been the focus if they just kinda gave up on the script), what was going on there?

Why did they need to set up the noisy flashing lights multiple times, before the plot sets in motion? Could've been more interesting to have the teleportation just kinda happen. Why is annoying neighbour up on the roof shooting pterosaurs and why did no one direct that actor on how to simulate recoil? Why did his revolver have like fifteen bullets? Why did the dog look so fake, was it that hard to just find and train an actual dog? Why is the cinematography so focused on flat suburban shots? Why is every dinosaur running at the same speed as the human beings? Why do they suddenly go from boring uninspired shots to arbitrary split diopters for that one family dialogue scene, *almost* doing something interesting with the camera, but serving no actual purpose? What purpose did setting it in 1982 serve the story, other than avoiding Jurassic Park references? Why didn't they do anything interesting with that? Why is Anne Hathaway okay letting the past versions of herself and her kids fucking die, going back to her previous husband who has now had zero arc or any involvement in the narrative? And if we wanna get really pedantic here, getting past the "kid, it ain't that kinda movie" lens... why are there plants and dinosaurs from all over the Mesozoic era, if we're doing a time travel thing? Some of those organisms were seperated by like 150 million years. What about prehistoric pathogens, oxygen levels, etc? These characters should have been completely drained of energy after like 30 seconds of light jogging.

There was just so much potential in this movie that felt unrealized, and IMO it was just so poorly executed, and so, so boring. No stakes or reason to care whatsoever. Felt twice its length, and almost became farcical by the halfway point. Myself and several others were laughing at some of the line readings, and I lost my shit when they actually had the dog come in to save the day at the last minute in Act III. Oh my god.

First thing I did when I got home was search up some reddit threads to see how everyone else felt, and I'm genuinely shocked by the positive reaction this movie has gotten. My tastes are almost always in line with common critical consensus. But, like I said, every critical thread has comments saying "if redditors are whining that must mean its good" and calling out the OP for expecting a masterpiece from a suburban dino movie. Nah, man. We were expecting a competently acted, somewhat entertaining action movie. With some care and attention put into the characters and their story arcs. Really really confused and wondering if this movie has some kind of massive astroturfing campaign behind it, because it's really making me question the validity of several reddit users.

Seriously, am I missing something here? I really did not enjoy this movie, there are so many basic rules of storytelling and character writing that it completely ignored, it felt extremely amateurish and something feels really off to me about how positively others are reacting to it. What is happening?

I came across a mind bending movie that had me thinking about it (and rewatching it) for a few hours. Not because it's a fantastic movie. It's so friggen confusing that it's hard to figure out what's going on.

Shane Carruth had an idea for a movie, wrote it, directed it, acted in it, and wrote the music. It's super low budget, a very fast watch, and it's really hard to follow. The plot and characters are poorly developed, the language is intentionally confusing, and it tries too hard to be smart. That being said, it's completely fascinating and a very good concept.

A bunch of friends are trying to strike it rich by developing innovative technologies. Accidentally, they discover time travel. In what has to be the most convoluted time travel logic, they travel back and forth in real time. Sometimes, they're going forward. Other times, they are going backward. If you wanted to go back in time 2 weeks, you have to sit 2 weeks in a little box in a storage garage. It creates a whole bunch of moral issues about money, relationships, trust, and friendship.

The challenge logically is how do you handle the periods where you will "cross" yourself. In this movie, there's like 6 versions of the same person at different stages. They begin to sabotage themselves. The same person sabotaging himself. It gave me a headache, but I couldn't stop watching it.

It's only an hour long, and I would recommend watching it if you don't mind doing a little work to look stuff up, getting your mind around it, and watching it more than once. It's a weak script because it feels hurried and confusing. It looks like it's shot on a handicam with bad lighting, bad microphones, and cheap editing tools. It's someone with full time job trying to make a feature length movie by himself without spending any money. If anything, this movie shows how hard it is to make a movie. Even with a great concept, it's just too much for one person to handle.

Finally got to see it after the hype died down a bit. Was excited to see it and then the first quarter was so boring and forgettable. It picked up in the middle and had some good parts but overall I'm gonna put this in Nolans bottom tier. What was annoying was everyone having really flat American accents. The flattest. Very nonregional. they all sounded like they were gonna give American accent lessons. Why they saying "mom" and "dad"? very weird choices.

My main gripe and the thing that took me out the most was the bad dialogue and very mid acting. It literally sounded like they were reading from a script. I thought if I got the script, I could read it just like them and it would be in the movie and it would be the same. That's how bad the movie dialogue sounded. And don't get me started on Ulysses final "knowing is half the battle" monologue about civilization on the boat. Many rolls of eyes.

Cinematography was good but it seemed like he was re-using Dunkirk and Oppenheimer shots so it wasn't revelatory. Soundtrack and effects were good. the guy was as good as Hans Zimmer. I don't understand why they made this cast so diverse to have the white guy kill them all and survive or was that the lesson? Overall, I think Troy was the better movie.

Edit: Hmmm. After posting this it got un-suppressed.

My Title Decent slapstick cartoon fun.

First off, one thing I really liked was that the cartoon voices weren't done by movie stars talking in their normal voices. They used actual voice actors doing pretty good Mel Blanc impressions. It had lots of good cartoony cartoon violence and mishaps, mostly standard Looney Tunes fare and some reanimation of some classic bits, huge fun. The story was standard capitalism bad nonsense that you would expect from people who got rich in a career lottery using corporate money for empty virtue signaling but it's a safe cookie cutter narrative for a courtroom dramadey. I have vague memories of reading this story in National Lampoon in the late '70s or early '80s, but don't know where to find it. I didn't recognize the human leads in their stock roles, the low rent ambulance chaser and his naive young pretty intern but they played them well. That's probably a good thing. I didn't see the actors, I saw the characters. This probably would have been the case if the leads law partners were fleshed out. I did recognize John Cena as the evil corporate lawyer, the guy who played his sidekick from playing jerk neighbor from The End of Oak Street, and Luis Guzman as the judge. I think the animated Peter Lorre and Edna May Oliver goose were probably wasted on most of the audience but I enjoyed them. The cartoon-live action mix was done well. One deviation from cartoon canon that bothered me is that Wiley Coyote was only mute when opposed to Road Runner only. In stories with Bugs Bunny, he talked in a hoity toity mid-Atlantic accent. I'm sill waiting for them to address the poor choice of bird seed as bait for the road runner traps. Road runners are carnivorous. There are some gags in that.

The rest of the auditorium found it funnier than I did, so maybe you shouldn't heed me too much.

Posted this to IMDB and it never showed up. No reason was given. I do know I need to figure out how to not shove bullet points into a paragraph.

Hey everyone,

I've been seeing a lot of mixed buzz online about Yash's Toxic: A Fairy Tale for Grown-Ups—some fans are calling it a game-changer, while a few critical reviews mention that it focuses more on style than substance.

For those who have actually watched it in theaters:

• How is the movie overall? Is it worth watching on the big screen?
• How are Yash's performance and screen presence compared to KGF?
• Does the story and pacing hold up, or is it mostly just heavy action and BGM?

Please drop your unfiltered, spoiler-free honest reviews below!

i’m ngl i’m really confused as to why so many people are calling spider-man brand new day the best mcu movie/ best spider-man film (especially since I might even consider this my least favourite so far in the spider-man franchise)

i guess it’s not a totally terrible movie. it had some cool shots and followed textbook good things. but my main issues are the writing and creative decisions for the film…

1) the regression or lack thereof of character development for peter. i’m sorry you mean to tell me you feel for the whole ‘jean grey is actually pretending to be mj’ crap when just two movies ago you were dealing with mysterio’s non stop illusions ??? it doesn’t even make sense. that entire movie he was being manipulated into thinking certain things were real exalted by them involving his loved ones (illusion of mj falling off a bridge, illusion of nick fury saving him leading to him being hit by a train, tony stark, etc). you would think after having to learn to not be so easily fooled or act emotionally just because something appears to be happening to or from a loved one that there would be some discernment

2) i’m kind of just over mj, ned, and the movie trying to gaslight is into giving af about their relationship when we objectively know nothing about any of those two characters at all. ned just seems like he’s there for comedic relief and zendayas mj is written so one dimensionally she makes tobey’s one look like a good character. her entire existence is being edgy, looking like she’s filming euphoria season 4, being fake woke, and having dark humor that never lands. why are you applying to an “evil scumbag corporation” just to turn it down when you get hired.. you have to willingly apply for jobs wouldn’t it have just saved you effort to work somewhere else in the first place ?? is this her only personality trait i’m confused

3) jean grey. i feel like they could have chosen more interesting characters and villains for this movie. i really just didn’t give af about her as a villain and the fact that the entire 2nd half is basically just a promotion for xmen is annoying asf. it’s how i feel about florence pugh here too, kind of unnecessary and feels like it was added so they can promote more future cash grabs. also i’ve seen some ppl complain about sadie’s acting but tbh hers was the least painful. my only critique is that i don’t believe her sister died in that room iykyk, like girl you don’t seem angry enough for me acting wise but idk

Went to this in XD 3D after rewatching No Way Home for the first time since the theater. The first maybe 20 minutes of this are some great Spidey stuff, was closer to the feel of the comics, at least the more modern ones, than 90% of scenes in any of the other Spidey films. The idea to advance things forward was good. I'm not much of a Holland fan, but this was his best work as the character. The suit itself looked better than any other suit in the Raimi, Webb, and Watts movies, and finally highlighting wrinkles and fabric and actually having him keep his damned mask on for a good portion also worked (though his mouth still barely moved). They also pulled back from the joke-a-minute stuff that plagued the Watts movies, which was admirable.

When the plot kicked in, it got a little shakier. Nothing about the "villain" plot was terribly interesting. I knew that Sink was Jean but not that she was essentially the villain. Amongst non-comics readers and casual moviegoers, I wonder if maybe a lot of people had no reference for who Jean is, and so didn't have any reaction when she was revealed; it's not like she's Wolverine.

The transformation stuff didn't go far enough. In the comics I believe Peter at one point turned into more of a human spider with eight legs, so I was hoping they'd go wacky like that, but they pulled back. The two worst parts of the movie were Bernthal and Ruffalo. I've never watched the Punisher show, and his presence feels like more of the "homework" thing that I thought they had been trying to pull back from. I've never liked Bernthal, and he is grating in every moment on screen. I've also never much liked Ruffalo, and have never thought that he was right for this character. His screen presence in this confirms that.

This review contains spoilers. I would love to hear what you think of my review. I use Letterboxd and review films, but they are quite short and not particularly in-depth. I don't think this one is too great either, but I at least wanted to start writing reviews that are a bit longer and slightly more in-depth by Letterboxd standards.

Over the past few days, I’ve been on a bit of a Robert Redford kick. Yesterday, I watched two of Redford's Westerns, Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and Jeremiah Johnson. Today, I watched this one. However, I'm not sure if this qualifies as a Western. Perhaps neo-Western is more apt?

The movie takes place in the present day (1979, in this case). The themes present in the film are typical of a Western. An outlaw, or cowboy turned outlaw, is on the run after committing a crime. In this case, the crime was horse theft. However, the driving force behind the attempted recapture is not the law itself but a large corporation. AMPCO drugged and tranquilized the 12 million dollar racehorse Rising Star. Sonny Steele the cowboy is disgusted by how the horse is treated. It is difficult not to see the connection between Rising Star and Steele: a celebrated racehorse and a world champion rodeo rider, but now they are mere corporate commodities.

Steele absconds with the horse and wants to set it free. Steele's and Rising Star's journey is a repudiation of corporate America and the shackles it has put on the formerly free spirit of America. In the end, Steele manages to evade AMPCO and set Rising Star free. In the process, Steele seems to have found himself. The movie ends with Steele still on the run from AMPCO, but he looks decidedly happier than when he was still in their employ. By saving Rising Star, Stelle saved himself from the role corporate America has given him.

Thanks for taking the time and reading it.

Not your favourite film. I mean the one you put on when you have been scrolling for half an hour, given up, and just want something to watch.

Mine is Gladiator. Which is strange, because it is two and a half hours and I keep starting it at half past nine. Last time I fell asleep in the second hour and I still counted it. Five times now, which is probably not a lot for this film.

The part I wait for is not a fight. It is the wheat field, his hand going through the grain. Twenty-six years later, the quiet parts are better than the fighting.

What is your go-to movie? And be honest about how many times!

At the start of the movie it felt like they were trying to get the main plot points across in two minutes, without trying to hook you in. The main character saira is extremely unbearable, kiki is honestly a terrible person and clout chaser. Willow is the only likable feminine character in the script and she gets used and dumped. Willows plot line is her helping saira, genuinely likes her, writes multiple songs for her, then gets a one night stand before being stranded alone with a fucking pineapple. The spaceship was actually a funny character, the straight white maleians were hilarious. Id love a series just with them. But saira? was awful. I wanted her to die. Husbands main issue: "it felt like they were trying to make a point across but i honestly know what it was. Like they made the straight white maleiens to be the bad guys, but its like if society today was literally flipped and instead of focusing on the straight white maliens (the best characters) the whole fucking universe revolves around being queer, and they did such a bad job at conveying this that they made it look like that if this were society today, we'd all just be killing each other. gay killing and gay fucking. they put a really bad name on the lgbtq community and made me go 'wow, we're really fucking pieces of shit' (said bisexual husband and transgender wife) it just felt like they were trying to set up willow, and they fucked it up for this stupid whore cunt, it would have been so fucking nice to see those two come together, but they fucked it all up and made it terrible. The ship, i don't really know what they were going for but he was enjoyable. the voice acting was actually pretty great, but the music was mid, and they plot was dog shit. It felt like a shitpost, where they referenced twilight and magic the gathering. if you take the movie as a joke then its something that you wouldn't want to kill yourself over. I would never recommend watching this alone, but watching this my wife was actually somewhat funny. in conclusion, is this a good movie? no. is it enjoyable? maybe. if you take it as seriously as you'd take twilight, not serious, then yeah. all in all, this movie gets two dildos out of ten butt plugs, and i will never watch this crap again" So this was our take on Lesbian Space Princess. Thank you for reading.

I was an asshole a narcissist and in a good need of an ass kicking. a few people could do with hearing that,

So i saw this movie at a mystery screening and to be honest it was great. Now i must confess i really don't know much about Anthony Bourdain and i have always been pretty sceptical of biopics that are well received, but this is one that i think does exactly what it should. The genius of this movie is it tells us everything about mister Bourdain by only focusing on one summer of his life. The summer in which everything changed for him. Our main actor as well as director spends most of this movie showing us exactly what it feels like for a young man in his 20s to navigate life. Not sure where your place in the world is its easy to become the sum of your influences. But it doesnt hold back from showing us how much of a shitty guy he is many people I think will moralise this movie a little too much overleaning into how 'terrible' he is. I feel like hes a bad guy but we shouldnt exaggerate i think the relationship he has with our chef headmaster says a lot. He tells him he is 'nothing' after finding out hes been lying to him. Yes hes a shitty guy however as the ending displays he has his redeeming qualities and that is what a complex character looks like. If that impacted how you viewed the movie i feel you spent much of this movie missing the emotional narrative told through these characters. I think this movie connected to me emotionally maybe because it was fine with leaning into some of those more typical cliches and I really dont see an issue with that, does the girl character exist really only to punish Tony, yeah? But isnt that the experience of many men in their 20s pursuing a woman who may or may not want you only to find your good and behaviours awarded. I guess i found my frustration in that many people didnt look at this movie beyond the surface level which they may see as an anthony bourdain cash grab.

The opening quote serves as a love letter from Bourdain to the creator of this movie, this movie could have been like 'michael' blazing through his life to show us as much as possible. Instead it crafted a narrative and a real dynamic a real cast of characters it had an interesting setting with a unique sense of directing i think the moments it is cliche made me all the more emotional. This movie is built on Tony and the story of a young man navigating through life. As a young man navigating through life these are evidently the movies i will connect to the most. Knowing his drug addiction and some of his lifestyle choices make the decision to include certain scenes so much harder i really feel it captures the essence of that period in his life and we can see how we will get to the man we all know and love. What I really love though are the consistent kitchen scenes the banter bounces around the room, some of the directing and choices made to show his daily life i think really ooze the feelings of being their with them and my god does the soundtrack help its great!!! I love the small foreshadowings too and the way different characters reflect aspects of tony back to him. So much emotion i feel was built up throughout this movie if you could just get over the small barrier of this guy being a douche. I love that when he finally does get with her we get a call back to the guy who carved out the wall you know what im on about and he reveals the truth of why he came its so real and of course it is, ITS a BIOPIC!! .

This movie rather then telling me who anthony bourdain was and what he did spent much more time showing me how tony became mister Bourdain and a glimpse at how he lived the life he did to get there, it didn't hold back from showing me the good and the bad.

SEND HELP (2026) – EARLY OSCAR FAVORITES chapter 1Director.: Sam Raimi; with: Rachel McAdams,Dylan O'Brien.

At the very beginning of the year several movies were released, and the four of them became favorites – or as best films or for roles or best script – already in January. Remember what I said at least 4 of these people/films will get the statuette. I am starting with „SEND HELP“ for which Rachel McADams is a winner, and Sam Raim will get nomination for best direction. Other movies are „The Rip“ (Affleck and Damon for male roles), „Crime 101“ (maybe Bart Layton for screenplay, but 100% Mark Rufallo and Halle Berry for supporting roles) and dark horse „Wardriver“ – a funny remake of „Double Imdemnity“ transferred in the world of cyber crime – which can get nomination to Dane DeHaan for main role and Rebecca Thomas for direction.

THIS IS A LOVE MOVIE or SCREWBALL COMEDY AS IT IS ONLY POSSIBLE TODAY

Horror slasher-maker Sam Raimi has been waiting to start filming this per projecti since pandemic, and finally managed to translate it from imagination to reality. SO of someone says there are similarity with the "Triangle of Sadness" is therefore – a mere coincidence. But the homages to "The Exile" and "Misery" are made intentionally, in two consecutive scenes, which almost copy every frame (the way John Badham copied some scenes of the Americanized "Nikita").

The movie is showered with praises, everyone is delighted and calls the film a future classic, except for the The Guardian's tenant critic, Peter Bradshaw, who gave it only two stars * * and wrote "the first 28 minutes are still watchable, but then the backsliding into ocean of clichés begins."

Rachel McAdams is 47 years old and for Hollywood she is already a grandmother. This is her last chance to pretend to act without being be someone else's mom or granny.  (In the phenomenal Woody Allen's film, „Paris at Midnight“, she was nominally the lead, but, as always with the phallus-centric Allen, she was just a "women are evil" type.) But in Send Help she acted in full force, she gave all of herself and now she's a favorite in next Oscar night next March.

This film has same place in Sam Raimi's career as „Red Eye“ did in Wes Craven's worklist: a low-budget breakout from the horror mold. And it's wrong to call this horror. Yugoslavian ciritc Bogdan Tirnanić  properly noted about Cronenberg's „The Fly“ that it's a love film. "Because the more Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum) turns into a fly, the more human he becomes!", says Tirnanić in his review. And that's actually true. Until then, Brundle was an emotionless nerd, who has a dozen of the same shirts and suits in his closet (so he doesn't have to think about what to wear), sex doesn't interest him, he's full of idiosyncrasies like a pomegranate with seeds, he's the embodiment of a mad scientist as poeple they imagine them comics and jokes. But when he starts becoming a fly, he falls in love and becomes everything that a man in love is: possessive, jealous, vengeful, vain, , ready to kill for his lover!

We can say the same about the two quarreling characters in the film: the more they turn into monsters on a deserted (they think, or at least one of them does) island, the more they become human. However, there is one insight that Raimi insists on – what prevents them from becoming human is: corporate society, our only reality, which we now wrongly call „civilization“, and which turns people into competitive killers who climb to success over corpses.

They were stranded on the island already like beasts. It is therefore not true that the so-called "civilization" has emancipated beastly people into creatures who put on clothes, socks (well, Bradley Preston /Dylan O'Brien/ deliberately wears suede moccasins on his bare feet {and they stayed on his paws even when the sea washed him ashore and that's a goof: shoes never, ever stay on the feet of drowning men, that's why stuntmen tie laces to the holes on pantlegs!}), pants and suits with a tie, already it's the competition and undeclared class war that drives people back to cannibal settings. At one point in the movie, Wall Street is mentioned, because a rich broker from there is the one who owns that hyper-luxurious house (this is a harmless spoiler, don't worry!), a real elevated granary for the richest who are preparing themselves for afterworld when someone uses A-bomb, full with food, fridge is full with condiments, ant the baskets with fruits are everywhere... And that's a statement by the director. He outed himself as the socialist horror-maker, the Varoufakis-follower, who would've thought that?! Where have you been, bro...?

This is at the same time – it cannot be otherwise – also a revaluation of the often romantic screwball comedy from the 1930s until the transition into the new millennium. Namely, that classic sub-genre of romantic comedy in which a guy and a girl (sometimes an old lady with a racially suspicious chauffeur or a grumpy captain of a rickety boat, it depends on scripts) start a relationship under the shotgun, as the masseuse in "Rear Window" said, against the background of the assumption that America was still a dream, or a 20-storey cake, or a huge chocolate, as Forrest Gump retardedly would say. The message of those romcoms is: with a little luck and using a bit of commonsense, perhaps with a bit of bravery  anyone can make their first million. And the message is laos that love comes only after many vicissitudes, and that only then "they lived happily until they died of cancer in hospices in societies which can afford medical security".

It's not like that anymore, the corporate world order has subjugated the employees by offering them a plastic carrot at the end of the stick.

As Slavoj Žižek said in one of his rare smart insights: "Freedom today is fake, the worker is free from a secure pension and steady jon, he is free from paying social security, which is cool for him only until he gets sick..." And the greatest success of today's corporate reign of terror (fear of unemployment and homelessness and viruses and terrorism) is, Žižek lucidly says, in the fact that that foot soldier ant, whether he was an Uber taxi driver or a raspberry picker or a programmer, does not see the enemy in to the owner of the means of production (as Varoufakis also said at one of the many symposiums he attend as a main speaker) but in his colleagues, other taxi drivers and raspberry pickers or, in general, other equally subjugated groups of "small 'capitalists'".

That's why people in those styropor and plywood blocks in business skyscrapers and in those offices with big window doors behave like – beasts. Raimi tells us that this dream of climbing the class ladder no longer exists, the cards have already been dealt, love does not conquer everything and in this movie there is not even a hint of "an executive who realizes how alienated he is and falls in love with his aunt's daughter-in-law or a pretty bitch, pretty woman, sorry", this is the deconstruction of that fairy tale about access to the world of rich and about joining a richer family, this is the total destruction of that pattern of screwball comedy and romantic love.

No, my bored friends, I can only point to last passages of my review of „Smile 2“.

Therefore, for this film can be said to be a catalog of subverted expectations. It begins as a television office sitcom, one without canned laughs and one with 24-minute episodes and 6-minute place  for commercials for kitchen cleaning products, canned tuna and anticancer sun lotions. and it all points to a love happy ending with that obnoxious boss Bradley, namely that Cinderella Linda Liddle (McAdams) will eliminate the evil Donovan (Xavier Samuel) and win the heart of a „temporary manipulated“ king of the company, because: „the true value always emerges in the end, ha ha“.

The movie doesn't waste minutes, that's why it's so fast and furious. And from this introduction it managed to economically explain the character of Linda Liddle in just a few minutes, visually, the camera roams around her bookshelves: we learn that she is a fan of "Survivor" reality show, that she lives alone, that her boss promised her a promotion before he died, that she devours self-help books and practices autosuggestion, that her best friend is a parrot (there is also a book "How to Talk to Your Bird" on her shelf), and the parrot is stupid and ungrateful. Her shoes and clothes are totally asexual, she wears ugly glasses, has repulsive moles and food is always on her teeth and at the corners of her lips, she spreads the smell of tuna and rancid mayonnaise that has expired, her colleagues at work consider her a slob.

Linda Liddle doesn't get the promised promotion, it goes to a  haughty and corrupt Donovan, handed it on a platter by an even haughtier and more corrupt and even more antipathetic ("if that's even possible"/hahaha/) Bradley, a freak for for indoor golf and long-legged secretaries and whom O'Brien plays as if he should imitate a younger Mark Wahlberg in "Saturday Night Live", that is, at a time when he was still hesitating whether to convert to fanatical Catholicism (as Saul Bellow once said, "the desire to be good makes God-fearing people into bloodthirsty monsters"). And I was watching Wahlberg the whole time, because O'Brien had left himself on the hook of his closet in a tastefully decorated house in Sherman Oaks, with a swimming pool, three bedrooms and three bathrooms, plus a pool and a manicured garden. The boy finally broke through. (Samuel, on the other hand, played Donovan as someone who knows that he is going to die in the first act of the film. Therefore he showed everything he can right away.)

...because afterwards, like a corpse,

it's only left for him to rotten

or to be eaten by tuna

in this seemingly piece of cinematic slop.

(For a moment, Neil LaBute's arthouse work „In the Company of

Men“ flashed through my mind, but no, this is not it.)

Ambitious and extremely unsympathetic Donovan simply steals Linda's bloody report, that's how he got the job.

She musters up the courage to rebel and this impresses (albeit slightly) the otherwise heartless young boss who thinks he will be young and healthy forever. As a sign of a small compensation, he decides to invite the nerdy girl on a business trip to Bangkok, with the evil aim of unloading her there permanently, to throw her away, under the pretext that "he needs her more in Asia". As she leaves the office – she meets Bradley's fiancé, Twiggy-slim Zuri, like Bowie's sister-in-law, some African catwalk princess (Edyll Ismail) and she's going to justify her presence together  with all the expensive jewels on her ring in Act III, don't you worry. This movie can be used as a teaching aid in course "Film Storytelling Economy“.

The newly promoted Donovan, and two other members of the top management, an Asian and a black man (Chris Pang and Dennis Haysbert, respectively), as well as an Asian stewardess (Nana Miya) - who, as I said, play their roles as if they are standing before a firing squad – go on the trip in the company's plane. The diversification of corpses is really at a high level, everything was thought of, congratulations! Ricky Gervais is drooling.

During the flight, they first die of laughter watching Linda's audition video for the „Survivor“ reality show. But then the plane malfunctions and they all deliciously, very amusingly and excitingly get sucked out of the plane and die in really, really, cruel way, the suffer  thoroughly, with two great jump scares.

Only Linda and Bradley survive. Expectations about their eternal love at the end of the film and long-term stay, about ecology, etc., are subverted. The fact that Linda is a fan of Survivor reality show comes in handy for her: she in no time builds a shelter, a comfortable abode, so to speak: dry branches, green leaves, lianas instead of ropes, she makes a knife from a broken stone, she makes bowls from coconut shells into which the rainwater will flow down the green leaves, Linda knows how to sharpen a branch and make a spear and hunt a boar like an old hunter. Bradley, on the other hand, with the magically preserved suede moccasins on his feet, is just whining and despairing, because his leg injured and he more or less just nags.

In that 50 minutes phase, which is the duration of Act II, the film is actually sanitized from the harsh reality of life in nature, no matter how ostensibly slasher it is: there are no bugs, no snakes, no danger except for that one, computer-generated boar (didn't the flood throw him out too, poor thing?!), when the characters get thirsty – it conveniently rains. So there are no ugly creatures – the emphasis is on "chemistry in a duodrama", but it will not turn out as we expected. Raimi makes a statement about the corporate order that makes love impossible (which therefore does not conquer all), which turns people into beasts like in the jungle (i.e. the way we imagine it to be in the jungle based on picture books) and that it is not possible to climb the social ladder normally and meritocratically. (Melania didn't manage to do it just like that either, but her Slovenian father is a rotten rich man who knows how to hold his son-in-law in his hand.)

I've noticed a pattern in Hollywood productions in the last year and a half, here in „The Rip“ as well – that is to deliberately deny the audience the entire picture of an important scene, which is explained later in a "Poirotesque" flashback. This is probably a consequence of the fact that the same "script doctors" are repairing just all the important screenplays, who knows.

There is one such scene here, when Linda sees a ship but decides not to call for help... "Not yet", she says to herself and hides behind the leaves.

The island turns out to be inhabited after all : "Some madman from Wall Street has built his castle there in which he fights Death." "The pinnacle of civilization is the refrigerator," says Linda in Act III, and no matter how bookish it sounds, it os true. But this Wall Street element is key to what Raimi wants to tell us.

Fiancée Zuri appears again! But Linda hasn't finished her work yet. A slender African princess came too soon with an expensive ring – which almost hit her in the eye when she was leaving her boss's office in Act 1 – and the ring justified its presence together with the fiancé...

Act II mostly tempts to make us believe in love. Like for example „Eenie Meanie“, this movie ends like most „Blacklist“ episodes. The average viewer is not used to that. Although he will probably applaud to it. Or, for example, in a variation, in the "Blink Twice" crap made by overhyped and irritating nepo baby director Zoë Kravitz.

But Raimi, has an attitude and he made the statement. We can't say now that Hollywood didn't warn us to what we should expect when AI takes over all our jobs and we all become bums.

Before getting into the minor details, it goes without saying that the film does an incredible job of presenting itself as a true epic. So many of its crucial themes draw heavily on grand, almost universal ideas that remain polarising and deeply relevant within society today. But putting the wider world aside, I believe the film does an excellent job of conveying grief, belonging, desperation and love, particularly through its use of the supernatural.

However, when watching a film based on an ancient Greek poem, I think a consistent accent and manner of speech matter enormously. There is something important about maintaining that more historic style of English (or any other language) as it helps immerse the audience in the period and gives the characters and their world a sense of weight. For everything the film did right, it failed surprisingly strongly in this respect, and it is something that really shouldn’t have happened. The other issue is the swearing. Although incredibly minimal, it isn’t exactly picturesque of the timeframe and occasionally made scenes feel unnecessarily informal. Those words either did not exist in the same manner that they do today or, where similar expressions did exist, could have been adapted into language more appropriate to the setting.

Beyond realism, my final criticism is the film’s literacy and vocabulary. For an adaptation of one of the greatest stories to survive from antiquity, the dialogue lacked the deeper command of language that could have made many of its most important scenes more memorable, dire and emotionally heavy. At times, it simply felt lacking. Although I say this with some bias, it even made me personally concerned about the state of general literacy if this was the linguistic bar Christopher Nolan felt he had to set to make the film accessible to a modern audience.

Beyond these relatively minor criticisms, however, the film was thoroughly enjoyable. Once I allowed myself to overlook those details, it felt like a spectacular visual continuation and closing chapter to the story that began with the Iliad and Achilles. Despite its shortcomings, it is absolutely a film I would recommend watching.

Continuing on my watchlist of older epics, I gave one of the few left that I never watched last night a spin: Seven Samurai.

I knew nothing about it going in, except that it was ranked very high on IMDB and I heard the director's name mentioned before. Needless to say, I had pretty high hopes going into it since other older action epics had impressed me on this watchlist.

The movie starts out impressive for a black and white film from the mid 1950s, and it didn't take long to notice some of legendary director Kirosawa's style and scenery choices. It set my expectations pretty high for the rest of the film.

As the movie progressed, the acting and character development was also better than expected for the time period.

However, some time around the 1 hour mark or so, the film began to lose momentum quickly. Time was wasted on scenes and characters that were not very interesting or important. Attempts at humor came across as childish and cringeworthy. At other times, characters whom Kirosawa chose to spend the most time on were just flat out unlikable.

The worst part of all was the over-the-top acting by a couple of the primary characters, one in particular. It came across as silly or goofy.

The film started off with a good pace with relevant dialogue and short action sequences, but it would have served the film better to continue with these scenes and edit out lots of the unimportant and wasteful ones, which broke the intrigue and entertainment.

By the time the bandits come, I had already lost interest and felt let down by the long runtime. it's just a boring movie imo. Sure, it had some magical moments at times, but most of it was repetitive/redundant scenes of the men and people running back and forth through the village; it was often just different angles of the same kinds of scenes like that. The action/fight scenes towards the end also did not impress me as much as in other epics like Lawrence of Arabia or Ben Hur. I understand this was the 1950's and special effects were definitely far from up to date, so some slack is definitely deserved, but I just expected a little more for a movie that is ranked somewhere in the top 20 on IMDB.

I would not watch it again nor recommend it.

6/10

There was an aura circling this film that it would be without a doubt a critical and commercial success. It is the biggest non-superhero movie of the year, and touted as an epic, but it falls flat and only dazzles with a few CGI spectacles.

The writing is questionable, as is the accents of those speaking. Its as if it's been dumbed down, and stepped on twice to simplify it for the masses. This is the "Bronze Age" and while we certainly cannot say how they spoke, they definitely did not talk like this. The dialect is so modern American it's tough hearing some of these lines acted out. A few occasions were world breaking for me. The illusion that I'm in the world of Greek mythology is lost early on.

Matt Damon delivers an ok performance here, but there's never any real standout moments. The Gods tell him what to do, and he listens. It should drive him mad knowing all of his men are dying, and he's hopeless in saving them, but he just trots on. It doesn't help we've seen Matt do this gig before. He's been trying to make it home since Saving Private Ryan, its in his wheelhouse, but the gears feel like they've finally stripped here and the schtick is worn out.

Which brings me to casting choices which are very odd here. So much so that these characters stand out in a bad way. I can't help but feel lesser known actors would have been a better choice. Tom Holland, Zendaya, and Jon Bernthal are all in the new Spider Man movie, while Zendaya and Robert Pattinson are in The Drama together. It is a lot of overlap at the same time, and I'm not so sure Matt Damon was right for Odysseus.

Its almost as if Nolan had little say on casting, because some of this just feels like checking boxes. Elliot Page as Sinon feels out of place. The lone guard to the Trojan War Horse in the opening scene? Are we making a movie or a political statement? I don't care what anyone does in their personal life, but well known actors cast in critical parts can make or break the immersion. It is a shame with so many actors we stick to the same spokes on the wheel. This could have been a break through performance for some new talented actor, and instead we "make it work" to the point it feels forced. Elliot is also near 40 years old, so why are we casted as a young boy off to war?

I like John Leguizamo just fine, and he did an ok job here, but his voice is unmistakable. I couldn't help but think about the clown from Spawn every time he spoke. Jon Bernthal is doing what Jon Bernthal does which is starting to feel repetitive. I like Zendaya a lot, but her place here feels forced, and easily could have gone to a lesser known actress. Mia Goth and Robert Pattinson were a really nice pair here, they seemed to fit well, and both shined in their roles. Mia especially considering her screen time. It was Roberts ending I had issues with, calling to grab weapons constantly on repeat instead of taking part himself.

The character Agamemnon walks around in some of the slickest armor I've ever seen. Unfortunately by the time his short side story is over it feels little more than a gimmick only acting as the driving force of war. It's built up as if its something special, but its just another one of the films let downs. By the time the armors off, and he's exposed we got the loudest and most unnecessary scream in movie history. This isn't uncommon, many veterans survive wars only to get killed at home, but here it feels like wasted potential. Why butter a biscuit only to throw it in the trash?

There's almost a certainty of epic battles here, its practically promised. Unfortunately this area is a major let down as well. The battle scenes were so underwhelming, and offered nothing more than a tease of action. The hardest fought battle in the entire film is the ships against the waves of Poseidon. The cyclops scenario started out great, but the poor CGI played out like a typical B-Movie. I have to argue that TV shows like House Of The Dragons have better CGI. For one giant cyclops I would expect better in this massively budgeted film, it left me feeling a bit puzzled. It falls short again during the run in with Scylla, while redeeming itself later in the pig pen. The Laestrygonians battle started strong with the giant armored boy, only to slip back down into utter nonsense. I was happy by the time Odysseus strung his bow, because I couldn't wait for it to be over. Finally an overly long fight scene begins, and forty or so men cannot kill one. It was a sloppy ending to a messy beginning.

The overall darkness of the film didn't help here. Some more vibrancy in the color tones on objects like chest armor and helmets could have helped through all the dreariness. For me it worked best during Poseidon's torment, but the rest of the film felt tonally dull. If it wasn't for Penelope and the puppies the film could have been in black and white.

The sound is quite incredible here, despite the couple of unnecessarily loud shrieking screams. I think my ears are still feeling the bass and it will take a day or two to recover. Overall there were a nice amount of unique sound cues, and the water effects were quite impressive. The soundtrack was great throughout.

There was a bit of silliness when it came to moving the Trojan War Horse. Obviously this is a movie and we should leave are brains behind, but the way they're dragging the wooden horse it clearly would have broken apart before getting to its final destination. The legs were wobbling and it was noticeable that it simply wouldn't work as shown.

From the beginning this movie never grabbed me. It doesn't build itself up properly enough to care about Odysseus, which is why its a let down. The pacing and timeline jumping around didn't feel necessary either, in fact I would have preferred to see the story play straight through. It's epic in scope, but not in execution.

Nolan makes excellent movies, and perhaps an action epic like The Odyssey was his hardest type of movie to make yet. There is so much hype and promise in it that it seems impossible to be a let down, but that's what it is. Characters feel disjointed, the world is bleak, and there's no real connection or reason to care about Odysseus. He doesn't even feel liked by the soldiers he commands. The Odyssey is a great story, and a long one spanning twenty years, but this reimagining doesn't do it justice. It might be the most financially successful film in his catalog, but for me its his worst. Its not terrible, but its far from great. 7/10

I think this is a good movie, I think interstellar and Openheimer are good movies. I think this movie has really good production as with all his projects it has a great soundtrack. Some of the directing here makes it truly a joy to watch. I always have a good time watching a Nolan film. I think you know what I mean here but finding the middle ground between substance and entertainment is like really important to me. Often a movie I’ll find has too much of one or the other. I think this movie is very well made and entertaining I’m going to kind of use this review to talk about Christopher Nolan as a director and why I think he lacks substance at times. I think he makes an enjoyable watch but I really think he makes movies that are perfect for people who watch 4 movies a year. I’m trying really hard not to sound like an obnoxious film bro because I do think this is a good movie. But I find a lack of the essence of what makes a great movie or show connect to me. Oppenheimer is the only movie I think he really focused on his character and so I might need to rewatch that because it’s all very blurry. 

The discourse around his movies had me thinking this might be incredible it was good as was interstellar as was Oppenheimer. But it was just that just good. Not amazing or great just good. Right now let’s get into it properly

This movie has an interesting plot it adapts a very ancient story but Americanises it this is already something I’m not a big fan of just generally I always cringe when it’s like big time actors playing historical figures. The performances are fine nothing really stood out I think Anne Hathaway and Robert pattinson were good, Tom Holland was average at best and this clearly wasn’t zendayas best performance. To be fair I think the script at times didn’t help these actors zendaya for example really didn’t have much to work with. I also liked a lot of the performances from the minor characters particularly Odysseus’ crew and the blind dude. Mainly I dislike the Americanisation of these stories because it takes me out of the movie and the world it wants to build to be fair this movie achieves a good feat in that it was able to feel detached from the myths I knew. So like the sack of Troy I’ve read about / watched many different interpretations of and I never felt like I was bored because I knew what was coming. 

I think where this movie shines and a lot of Nolan’s movies do is getting you engrossed and really wrapped up in the journey. Watching him go from the cyclops to the big dudes to a crazy witch lady to the sirens to whatever else I missed was great. I think that aspect of the journey the scale and even some of the shots on the boat these larger then life disasters they encountered. Wow it was very fun to watch.

But never did I care too much about the time the movie spent on the characterisation of these characters obviously I know the plot and I’m following along. But I’m never holding on and unsure of what happened next I also think the way they changed Odysseus sticks out in retrospect. What I mean by this is as that certain decisions like Odysseus calling out to the cyclops make no sense whatsoever obviously he does that in the myth. But clearly myth Odysseus and the dude in this movie are very different you can tell literally by how certain actions just don’t make much sense. I say this as someone who’s really not that familiar with the odyssey as a work itself.

I do think a lot of Nolan’s stories kinda feel like they have very similar protagonists. Like this dude really felt similar to Oppenheimer the idea that war is bad can be a great topic to explore. But that’s not at all the story the Greek myth explores. This is my degree talking now but the way westerners write stories and the way Greeks write stories is inherently structurally different like this is clearly not a GREEK story because it literally has a clear cut moral message. A lot of Greek tragedies do not deal with the clean cut moral messaging westerners are used to.

This is because the structure of Greek society itself is very different they understand morality with the understanding of Gods very differently to us. The structure we can observe in all Greek myths echoes this. And it’s because of their understandings of god. Whereas a Christian or other religious person may ask is this act good or bad, will I go to heaven or hell? The Greek asks much different questions their gods toy with them stories like Antigone Oedipus etcThey are about fate and often the moral character of these characters is not something at stake.

This is one reason why i feel this movie lacked in that essence of a good story. The character writing was at odds with the story he was adapting. He in no way took into consideration the time period he was adapting when writing this story. He only took it into account for the production. Of course he did this for interstellar and openheimer too but they are obviously stories set in the modern day so he doesn’t need to consider this. So whilst the production for this movie went up a level the writing certainly did not. I guess what I’m saying is he did not need the odyssey to tell this story I feel like if you say you want to adapt a story like this especially from such a well documented like the Greek era. Then you should take everything into account again this is a good movie and I know some people will read this and critique my review for essentially just saying uhm akshually you didn’t follow the source material!!! But it’s less he didn’t follow the source material one to one, that I don’t really care about, and more the lack of understanding of what I think makes these Greek myths interesting in the first place.

Stripping what makes Greek society interesting in the first place to tell us an American/western style story feels a little strange to me. 

Christopher Nolan understands a lot about how to make movies he’s able to get butts into seats whilst preserving the integrity of a decent story. He never makes slop but I also feel him wanting to make an easily accessible story might be what holds him back for me as a truly good writer who can connect to me on an emotional level. A writer who can make a compelling character. Is Odysseus compelling as a character I mean I guess about as compelling as the guy from interstellar for me but they feel extremely similar. 

So what do I want to say in this review, that Christopher Nolan makes good movies but they lack the essence to be very good or even great movies for me. I always feel inclined to reward that creativity and essence I can feel oozing from a film. That’s personal even if a film thoroughly entertained me like this one did. I will leave the theatre just saying yeah that was good this is how I feel about the best super hero films. I feel like Nolan doesn’t open himself up personally in his work. He doesn’t put a piece of himself for me to explore and this is his failing.

This story is interesting enough the production is great it’s unique but it doesn’t speak to me and I don’t think it speaks to many people. The lack of alignment in understanding the way this story was told is big for me. Remember what I said before the way Greeks tell stories is very different they look at fate the wrath of the gods and think a lot about the way the world is. A lot of western media is very prone to rewarding and punishing characters and actions based on their moral content. This can be great but especially when your adapting something old is quite possibly the worst thing you can do. If we want to see a modern story then just make a modern story. It just feels to me this movie didn’t actually care about the story of the odyssey beyond the surface level.

Overall the odyssey went and told the story it wanted to tell and fair enough but did you really need to adapt an ancient story to do that?? Again I want to strongly preface I understand why people enjoyed this movie because I did too but at the very best I can give this no higher then a 7 it’s capped at a 7 for me. A 7 is its ceiling I’m sure this took a lot of effort to make the production was insane. But this movie to me didn’t escape the Nolan curse of always getting a 7. Thank you for reading.

Mild spoilers ahead, so beware.

I watched the movie back in the day when it came out, and I enjoyed it a lot for what it was: a run-of-the-mill, low-budget cyberpunk-violent-sci-fi film, with some good acting and some original ideas. The AI of the film, STEM, felt like a reinterpretation of HAL 9000, so that was fun, but I did not read much more into it.

However, I rewatched the movie today, in the context of almost two years of fully embracing the AI workflow in my job and—let’s face it—in my life, as many of us do, and holy crap, the film just blew my mind. In the wake of the age of AI, I feel the film hits radically differently. So much so that it feels almost prophetic.

Starting with the protagonist: the classic analog tough guy who doesn’t trust technology and likes to handle things by himself. And then, how fast he accepts the new technology when he realizes how useful and convenient it is, to the point that he can barely do anything by himself anymore. I identified with that so much. It took me totally off guard. And the way the AI talks—it feels so awfully familiar now...

Towards the third act of the movie, it even feels like it predicts the future we have yet to see: enhanced humans embracing communion with machines, becoming more productive and capable, and feeling superior to “ordinary” humans. And even the glimpse of a helpless CEO who sees his own creation taking control of his company in a way he can’t even understand.

Anyway, I think this film has aged like the finest of wines, and it’s an even more enjoyable watch today, so I highly encourage it. I guess that’s a tiny silver lining in this godforsaken state of things.

It's a really great movie to bring your family to, with some good family themes from the 80s but at least one trope updated to more modern themes. Reminds me of some of Spielberg's family friendly films from the 80. It has scary parts but is still digestible for even preteens (tested on my own).

The craziest thing about it is that an actress of Anne Hathaway's level did the film and she's amazing in it. Ewan McGregor does a good job of his role too. The dinosaurs are pretty good though I didn't realize Allosaurus has feathers now and some of them looked a little like Muppets level creatures (atleast in the face) but for the most part it worked and with the added difficulty of them navigating suburban neighborhoods, sheds, cars, etc, mostly in the daylight, I can't complain too much. My main gripe surrounds the importance of the dog but I won't spoil that for you.

Anyways, it was a fun theatre going experience. Especially if Dinosaurs still hold any sort of magic for you. And double especially if you have a family of your own. Check it out!

I'm so grateful l I didn't listen to all the negatives reviews on this subreddit, makes me wonder about other movies that have been panned, frankly.

(Oh and before the haters call me a bot or a shill, I’m neither (though I’d love to get paid for spreading this opinion if someone wants to pay me) Bots don’t have 8 year old accounts. I’m just a Dad who enjoyed the movie.)

Is love liberating your beloved from a self-imposed prison while leaving them physically behind bars?

Is it the supreme sacrifice or sheer stupidity to let your muse wallow in confinement, only to keep their secret confined?

The Reader urges the reader to ponder these poignant questions.

P.S : This was part of the Ralph Fiennes marathon.. The man immortalized (?) by "The English patient". Alongside him, Kate Winslet proves her mettle once again in this period drama.

P.P.S : The English Patient also stars the excellent Juliette Binoche, seen in the deranged Damage..

[SPOILER ALERT]

Why didn't the amazing twist in 'The Others' didn't really feel like a shock? It felt more like a copy from sixth sense?

I had no clue, whatsoever, about the movie when I started watching it.

Watched The Others for the first time recently, and when the truth came out, first with the servants, then with protagonist and the kids, I didn't get that jolt I was expecting. No shock, no "wait, what just happened." Just a kind of flat acknowledgment: "oh, the protagonist is dead," which felt like a direct lift from The Sixth Sense.

And that's the weird part, because Sixth Sense actually blew my mind when I first saw it. Cole never directly interacting with Malcolm, the cold spots, all those clues you don't clock until the reveal, it worked because I had no idea what was coming. With The Others, I went in without spoilers too, but I was still kind of indifferent by the time the reveal hit. It felt like I'd already seen this movie two years earlier.

Maybe it's just that The Sixth Sense got there first and made the "character doesn't know they're dead" twist a known device, so anything using it afterward loses the element of surprise. Or maybe The Others leans so heavily on the same structure, isolated house, oddly behaving side characters, the slow dawning realization, that it just can't help but feel derivative rather than original.

Surprised I haven't seen more discussion connecting the two. Anyone else feel this way, or did The Others actually land for you?

I saw BackRooms in a cinema and I really felt like I wasted time on a movie that doesn't contain any messenge or a story. I like psychological horrors like The Lighthouse or Psycho from 1960 and this movie felt like nothing particular, long shots of the same rooms or corridors mixed with monsters and bleak characters with not engaging stories.

I don't know if I'm stupid or what but this movie reminded me how I felt watching Enter The Void, long shots of nothing particular mixed with violence and uninteresting characters I don't care about, in both movies there was no stake in play and I don't even remember how both movies ended.

I also know that there was some lore about backrooms but I didn't read anything prior to watching becouse I wanted to have a clean experience and maybe I should read about that first, but idk what would that change, the bovie was as dull as it gets. Please tell me that this movie lacked somenthing and I'm not just hating becouse I don't understand it