I have seen the film 3 times now and believe it is a very well-made movie. That being said, many aspects about the plot are vague or confusing to me. This is what I would like to discuss, to fully understand the film's story by hearing other's opinions. Let's begin!

First, the minor/interpretive stuff:

• When Manco gets his room in the El Paso hostel, how do you think he "convinces" Senor Martinez to frantically leave?
• How do you think "The Prophet" (Joseph Egger) knows who Col. Mortimer is? Is the character meant to be psychic? An retired adventurer or mountain man (like Jim Bridger or Jeremiah Johnson)? A Civil War general?
• What do you think Col. Mortimer's backstory is like? He's from the Carolinas, is implied to be a Civil War veteran, and spent a long time hunting El Indio for killing his sister, but how do you picture the rest of his story's timeline?
• What do you think El Indio's mindset is like? He mostly seems to take pride in being a murderous outlaw, yet he occasionally expresses guilt and regret. He even smokes a certain drug to dull the pain of his actions. What role does the death of Mortimer's sister play into his motives?

Now, the major/critical stuff:

• Why does Col. Mortimer strike his match on Juan Wild (Klaus Kinski)? If he knew El Indio's gang were planning to rob the El Paso bank (and wanted to get his revenge on El Indio), antagonizing the recon party seems like a good way to mess up the plan and lose a chance to finally catch him. (Fun scene still, I loved the smug look in Lee Van Cleef's eyes. Kinski's twitching was a bit exaggerated, though)
• When they open the safe and Indio says, "All they have to do is catch one of us with some of this money and we'll all end up the same way", what does he mean? If one of his gang gets caught, how will he and the rest get caught? Is it because the authorities will know the Indio gang is behind the robbery and thus know where to find him?
• Why do Mortimer and Manco try to steal back the bank's money from Indio? If they wanted the reward for returning the money (I doubt Mortimer would want it), were they still planning to take down Indio's gang afterward? If so, how?
• Why, absolutely why, does Indio decide to become greedy and betray his gang? Was he planning it ever since he met Mortimer and Manco (deducing they were bounty killers)?
• Before the final duel, why does Groggy (Luigi Pistilli) run out into the open? Did El Indio manipulate him so he could get shot? Did he not know Mortimer was right outside?

Overall, I thought the film's plot was very good until the 3rd act. Frankly, I found it very unsatisfying and forced and almost ruined the whole experience for me. What's your thoughts?

Al Pacino.

Jeff bridges.

Robert Blake.

David carradine.

Jack Nicholson.

Alain Delon.

Roy Scheider.

Dustin Hoffman.

Peter Fonda.

Neil diamond. (Yes that Neil diamond)

Marlon Brando.

James caan.

Paul Newman.

Martin sheen.

Elliot Gould.

Burt Reynolds. (Lol)

Jon Voight.

Ryan o Neal.

Warren Beatty.

Harvey Kietel (though not mentioned in the article) he was in fact considered before being cast as sport.

Richard Dreyfuss.

Christopher Walken.

Alan Alda.

George Hamilton.

John Travolta. (Not mentioned in the article) but notstarring.com mentions he auditioned.

https://creepycatalog.com/taxi-driver-movie-facts-hidden-details-and-trivia/

I can set back and imagine all these actors and how their take on the role would have been, I feel with some of them the movie would have been completely different especially someone like Roy Scheider who while a great actor would have been a bad choice although not as bad as Dreyfuss.

Child’s Play 2, the sequel to the famous 1988 horror classic, presents us a world where all authority figures have been delegitimized, disappeared or killed; a world that has been painted with the colors of a child-like carnival; a world with no space for the hearth of cozy meta-narratives, but of brutal return to neo-primitivism.

CP 2, just as the original, is about a serial killer trapped inside a Good Guy doll (a nod to popular 80’s toys like MyBuddy and Cabbage Patch Kids) that tries to transfer his soul into the body of a child through the use of a voodoo ritual.

Although the premise is basically the same as that of its predecessor, the setting and general atmosphere is entirely different. Whereas the first CP takes place in a gritty downtown Chicago filled with street peddlers, crumbling rat infested houses and cops chasing criminals through seedy alleys; CP 2 pushes you into a family friendly suburb with pastel coloured houses, children playing on big green lawns, garish toys popping up here and there, and a fairy-like ambience that impregnates the whole picture. Everything looks like a children’s version of the american dream.

Nevertheless, once Chucky, the notorious killer doll, is brought back to life, he slays his way back to Andy Barclay (the boy, whose body he wants), piling body after body behind him and tainting forever with blood all that cotton candy americana.

Continue reading at: https://kinolingua.com/childs-play-2-hansel-and-gretel-in-the-post-modernity/

I loved the film, but then I would; I'm a guy; I would need to fight hard against aeons of genetics to NOT enjoy it, although that last act was pretty fucking brutal. But hey, ButtButtButt HEY!

What if a guy did that?

I mean, the exact same film, except instead of Coralie Fargeat, a male?

Would it be endless mud-slinging and comments about the "Male gaze", or whatever. In other words, could only a woman get off with this shit in our current socio-political climate?

I really thought Nope was amazing. And do I still think it is on a second watch? Indeed, yes!

Nope" is one of those Hollywood films that may not appeal to everyone, but for those who appreciate it, it has the potential to become a cult classic that only improves with each re-watch. If I’m not mistaken, Nope is clearly influenced by Signs, a film I adore.

I wouldn’t hesitate to say that Nope could be this generation’s Signs, given their shared use of Lovecraftian horror as a device for social commentary.

The brilliance of Nope doesn’t lie solely in its cosmic horror elements but in its biting social commentary, which critiques the media and those who exploit tragedy for profit and fame. Jordan Peele subtly communicates this message throughout the film as an overarching theme.

However, I haven’t seen anyone point out the ultimate irony: the lead characters are essentially who the film is mocking. Their primary drive is fame, and they pursue it relentlessly, despite the trauma they've endured. If you’ve seen the film, you’ll understand why this resonates, it’s a clever fourth-wall break that critiques our own fascination with tragedy.

Props to Jordan Peele for his exceptional work, and I'm looking forward to seeing what he has in store. All the actors delivered outstanding performances. Special mention to the cinematography and sound design, which were truly exceptional.

For me, Nope stands out as one of the finest cosmic horror films of the 21st century.

Griselda is certainly entertaining, but it left me craving a deeper, grittier dive into her infamous story. The portrayal of Griselda’s character feels a bit too restrained. Her reputation for sheer brutality—like her use of motorcycle assassins in nightclubs or her macabre tactic of mailing heads to rivals—is glossed over. Key moments, like her encounters with Pablo Escobar and the violent family massacre over an unpaid debt, were either minimized or omitted, casting her in a more sympathetic light. Even the dynamic with her right-hand man, Rivi, felt underdeveloped, with only brief mentions of how they met and his significant role in her operations.

Visually, the show captures the ‘Narcos’ style, with a sleek, high-production quality. However, the tone feels surprisingly toned down, missing the gritty, intense portrayal of violence and psychological depth one might expect given the creators’ background with the Narcos series.

The performances are commendable, and the lead actor portrays Griselda with a magnetic presence, even if the character doesn’t fully live up to her notorious real-life persona.

Pros:

• High-quality production with compelling performances

• Entertaining with good pacing

Cons:

• Softens Griselda’s character, presenting her as more sympathetic than historically accurate

Final Thoughts: It’s a well-done production, but I found myself wanting a grittier, more intense depiction of this larger-than-life figure.

I’m still not sure why I watched Time Cut—a sci-fi thriller with time travel, a serial killer, and plenty of urban intrigue jam-packed into just 90 minutes.

Set in a gritty urban environment, Time Cut follows a group of characters caught in a time loop with a relentless killer on the loose.

The plot is ambitious, combining elements of a classic slasher with sci-fi time travel. The characters find themselves in a mind-bending loop where each action in the past affects the present. However, the rush to fit all this complexity into a short runtime can leave the story feeling muddled, and the character motivations are thin. The movie has a gritty urban look, which suits the story’s edgy vibe, but some scenes feel rushed due to the fast-paced editing. If you’re into the concept of “temporal paradoxes,” the movie tries to build a story around it—where past actions are meant to directly influence the present. Yet, the logic behind it doesn’t always hold up. The performances are decent, though the lack of depth in character development limits their impact.

Pros:

• Interesting mix of sci-fi and horror elements

Cons:

• Rushed storyline with questionable logic

• Unsatisfying ending that doesn’t do justice to the buildup

• Characters lack depth

Final Thoughts: If you’re a fan of time-travel mysteries, Time Cut might be worth a shot, but don’t go in with high expectations. The setup is intriguing, but the payoff is disappointing, leaving you wondering what Netflix was thinking with this one.

I will give 2.5/5 to this one.

Carol Reed’s cinematic masterpiece, The Third Man, embodies the noir genre in its purest form, showcasing and capturing all its defining characteristics.

Holly Martins (Joseph Cotten), an unemployed pulp novelist, travels to postwar Vienna, a city divided into four sectors by the victorious allies, at the behest of his childhood friend Harry Lime, who has promised him work. Upon his arrival, Holly learns that Harry is killed by a car while crossing the street. Following his conversations with Harry's friends, who were present at the crime scene, and the locals, Holly concludes that something's fishy and the details don't add up. As a result, he goes against the orders of the Military police officer, Major Calloway (Trevor Howard), and resolves to explore further into what happened to his friend Harry. While doing so, he falls in love with Harry's lover, Anna (Alida Valli), which does not result in the outcome he had anticipated.

Read the full review here

Re-watched The Thing last week. I’ve seen it before, but this time it really did something to me. I’m not the biggest watcher of horror so maybe I have a low tolerance or something but it is genuinely terrifying. The palpable dread I felt. I even needed to stop eating dinner because the effects are so gruesome lol. Part of me wonders if the fear comes from not knowing what this creature actually looks like, we’re just left wondering what form it has taken. Gosh. Love how well this film has aged.

e.g. Catherine Breillat, "French New Extremity," Õstlund, Haneke, etc. Two of my favorite recent movies were Last Summer and Red Rooms. I wish people could be more open-minded and grapple with intellectually challenging movies🤷🏻‍♂️

(And if you don't get how this relates to autism, that's fine, just forget about it. Hell, i only just found out earlier this year that I'm spectrum'd up. but if you are autistic and like these kinds of movies too i want to hear from you!)

Don’t Move opens with a promising, gripping start, drawing you in immediately with a clear setup that makes you feel like you’re about to witness a high-stakes thriller. The plot is easy to follow, and there’s an anticipation that something big is on the horizon. However, midway, the film adopts a slow-burn approach that almost becomes its undoing.

The writers certainly make an effort to add emotional weight and impactful scenes, but somewhere along the way, the pace slows to a crawl. Even at 1.5x speed, the movie still feels sluggish, which may frustrate some viewers. While the performances and concept are commendable, the narrative lacks the gripping intensity it initially promises, making it feel like a bit of a missed opportunity.

That said, if you enjoy slow-burn thrillers with a touch of suspense, this film still has its merits. It’s an experience that, while not unforgettable, has moments that resonate. I’d give Don’t Move a solid 3.5/5. Worth watching—but maybe at a faster speed.

I found it a fascinating exploration of two very different psychological dispositions. One characterised by meaningless, and one characterised by purpose. It was interesting that Trier used an existential crisis to explore the various reactions that such dispositions create, where Justine's outlook of meaningless allows her to accept death because the world has nothing of value, while Claire experiences paralyzing anxiety as she fears losing the world because she can see its value.

And damn some of those images had the power to conjure some serious anxiety from a sense of existential dread. The first 'pass by' sequence perfectly captured the terrifying reality of an existential catastrophe and how if these events occur, humans are at the complete mercy of forces beyond their control.

Anyway, great film.

It's such a popular opinion to hold on Reddit that all the young chodes misunderstand these movies by idolizing the depicted lifestyles, while you, the cineast Redditor, pierces through the veil of subtext to reveal the true meaning of these films, which is apparently:

"Don't copy this lifestyle. It's ultimately destructive."

Honestly, what a boring take away that is. And what a disservice to the many interesting themes of these movies. It also ignores the fact that the protagonists of these films were already utterly miserable before going down their self-destructive paths, and would have probably destroyed themselves no matter what lifestyle they'd choose to pursue.

My take is that most people who "idolize" these protagonists don't misunderstand these films - they just pick and choose what they take away from them. And that's an important distinction to be made.

If you're not happy, and conventional tactics are not working, then what's wrong with choosing a more a radical route in pursuit of some meaning? People do it all the time in real life.

If you feel your life is superficial and estranged from masculinity, maybe fighting other people does offer an answer; there's plenty of people who've found meaning in martial arts or the military. Some people just like violence the way others like knitting. Plus, joining a paramilitary cult is an extremely effective way to find meaning in live. In the end, many men in Fight Club found more confidence and camaraderie in that budding cult than they ever did in the overworld.

I'm only being half sarcastic about joining a paramilitary cult, too: I've met met mercenaries and foreign fighters that find great fulfillment in war. Sure, it's not normal. But that doesn't mean their personal truths are lies. Or that therapy and a hot bath would be provide anywhere near an alternative to their existantial hang ups the way war does.

If grinding all day to reach peak looks and superficial splendor in order to bang vapid chicks is a worthwhile pursuit to you, then why not relate to Bateman (possibly without the murders)? There's people criticizing this lifestyle while spending their days grinding out levels in WoW, trying to get some rare skin for their dwarf. Bateman does basically the same thing, but at least his fruitbowls and double breasted blazers are real and get him laid.

If you feel you've fallen trough the cracks of the system and all you have left is resentment, then what's so weird about finding catharsis in the Joker? I like the system, mostly, but I can understand that if it has worked against you for so long, it's nice to see it kicked in the balls for once. Don't you like seeing bad people kicked in the balls?

An important part of these movies is that the 'bad' lifestyles the protagonists pursue, seemingly have a lot to offer. The audience knows this too. Because to an extent, everybody has had fantasies relating to violence, wealth, power, meaning or even revolution.

And I think that's where the crux of the matter lays. The function of these movies, for many people, seems to be to disavow these fantasies, so that the viewer can feel validated for not pursuing them. So that they can sit their fat ponch on the couch of their tiny rental, next to their mousy girlfriend making Zelda crochets, and say:

"See hunny, that Gordon Gecko is a miserable man. I was right about playing Fortnite instead of going to business school!"

Yes, these protagonists are often bad men. But boiling the meaning of these films down to "see, this lifestyle is bad and these people are bad for pursuing it!" is just such a dull and ultimately lazy and cowardly take.

If anything, the message of many of these movies is that the dose makes the poison: it's when the protagonists cross the line between ambition and obsession, between standing up for themselves and bullying others, that they topple into destruction.

You could stop fight club at the halfway mark and have a nice film about men finding a hobby. Remove the murders and neuroticism from American Psycho, and you're left with a finance bro living his best life. Their self-destructive nature was already a part of them before their problematic lifestyle. Which is especially evident in Fight Club, and also in American Psycho if you've read the books that feature a young Patrick Bateman. Whatever lifestyle they would have chosen to pursue - it would have crushed them in a similar way. People are confusing cause and effect when seeing these films. They are ultimately character studies much more than they are explorations of certain lifestyles or ideas.

So when chuds see a movie depicting a lifestyle that resonates with them, they are not necessarily wrong for thinking they can copy it's worthwhile elements while avoiding the pitfalls of the protagonists. Being unable to separate the arch of the protagonist from the glamorized/demonized lifestyle depicted in the films, is imo the most common way to misunderstand these films.

Anyway, im gonna do push-ups while watching anal porn now. You can feel about that however you want, but at least I'll be ripped.

I don't typically write my film analysis' here or on letterboxd. I prefer to keep them in my diary. Maybe because I felt some special affinity with Aoyoma's dysfunction toward women (which probably played a part to the end of my last relationship) that the contents of my diary would spill out onto the internet. I don't think my analysis is by any means exhaustive, in fact I still have parts of the movie I am battling to understand and those blindspots in my analysis might be obvious to anyone who has also watched the movie reading this, mainly lack of any analysis on the more abstract parts of the MC's subconcious during the second half after the drugging, or the lack of analysis on his relationship with his wife. Nonetheless here are my quick thoughts after first watch:

Aoyoma is amicable, nice, and portrayed on the surface level as a polite guy. But I think that he is also immature, lonely (of course), rude, impacient, and full of self-loathing.

I think in a way its a romantic comedy, we see Aoyama describe his ideal women, someone who has a life outside of him, that is accomplished and not clingy. We see him describe this and yet the first essay he is drawn to is someone whose life is destroyed because their one dream, to be a ballerina, fell through due to a hip injury, someone whose essay illustrates it almost like "death", they even highlight that they don't expect anything from the audition at all. And yet, Aoyama is immediately bewitched by this woman, and is anxiously waiting for #28 to roll out for her audition. When she does finally come out, he finally speaks, something he didn't do the whole time, and sort of just speaks.... He doesn't ask questions, he just sort of speaks what he believes about this woman he knows nothing about as she nods along, giving very brief answers in between, and he gets drunk on love based solely on a description. When he asks her out for a second time its almost like everything he said he wasn't looking for comes to fruition in this character. She was anxiously waiting his call, she has no one else in life to lean on, she is absolutely giddy and has an appearance of being in a similar state as Aoyama after only the second date. Aoyama said he would take it slow, but yet is very quickly considering marrying her, overlooking who she truly is.

This dynamic is better seen and more obvious between Aoyama and his secretary, who he probably hooked up with and who he gives the cold shoulder too, despite her giving signals that she has more on her mind, he doesn't seem to be the least bit inquisitive into what she is possibly feeling. It seems like something he wants to forget about, and to him she is just an object. Asami, is the new object, the new sort of pill to take away the pain of lonlieness. And she is perfect too, at least on the surface she doesn't really seem to have an identity, it seems like he can completely mold his perfect woman onto her.

I think that when he is drugged with the paralysis drug he begins to demonstrate the first signs of regret, or it might also be when he is talking to his friend after being drugged, refrencing that there must've been a misunderstanding as to why she disappeared, that he didn't communicate something well enough. This is the first sign in the movie that shows concern about Asami outside of his projection. Asami's dissapearance is the loss of the perfect malleable woman, and its the first sign to him that she is actually someone that exists outside of his perception, though his desperate search also indicates and the concious battle after paralysis is a sign that he really isn't ready to let go of his own perception of her.

The torture scene is a first and foremost a punishment, its an exhibition of his foolishness. That he would be so foolish to ignore every red flag, to go desperately searching for this woman that is to him is the perfect personification of his will. It is an extreme punishment for someone who is typically seen as at worst a slightly misogynist fool. In the end it almost seems like he is forgiving her, what that means I am not sure, I think it might be him apologizing for his projection, or it might be that his desire for that type of woman is so strong that he almost wants to believe that this was only a simple slip up. I do think he probably dies from his injuries because of this vision of her talking after she dies though I am not sure. In a way the Asami's view of love is almost irrelevant, the love he had towards the dog, or towards his son was actual love, Asami is correct that he never loved her but in the wrong way.

Some loose thoughts I am less confident about:

What the leg cutting symbolized? I think it might be tied to the legs of Asami and the instructor in some way. Ballet is a very foot involved skill, so her injury to her hip, was a loss of freedom. She as a result became the perfect "slave" to Aoyama's will (as he saw it). And the cutting of his legs was her way of making him his "slave" and submissive to her will. Sort of an extreme reversal of the dynamics between her and Aoyama.

The bag man eating vomit with his tongue cut out? I think it sort of has to relate to the same as above, there was probably a similar dynamic between them. Though I am not sure what the tongue symbolizes, maybe it was a way of her gaining some sense of freedom back because they can't sort of monologue their view of her onto her? If that makes sense. I think his jumping in fear to the jumping tongue sort of reinforces it further, its almost an admission of guilt for what he did. I do think that guy explaining the tongue cutting out, and murder was actually a real event in the movie and not a complete figment of his imagination.

Overall I think that these traits demonstrate a sympathy towards women that are subjected to these types of men. And it is a harsh critique toward a society where this sort of attitude toward them is normalized.

That is my brief analysis, I think I have more to say? But I will probably write about that more somewhere personally or maybe update this idk. Its 4:00AM and I'm gonna go to bed. Though if you want please let me know what you think, and if your read this far thank you!

Here are roles that Chevy Chase turned down or was considered for.

1977: Star Wars (Role: Han Solo) (Actor who got it: Harrison Ford) (Reason: Chevy was considered for the role) 

1978: Animal House (Role: Eric Stratton) (Actor who got it: Tim Matheson) (Reason: The role was written with him in mind. However, John Landis didn’t want him as he didn’t want the film to be a SNL film, sho he persuading Chevy to star in Foul Play instead)

1980: American Gigolo (Role: Julian Kaye) (Actor who got it: Richard Gere) (Reason: Chevy was offered the role, but he turned it down)

1981: Arthur (Role: Arthur Bach) (Actor who got it: Dudley More) (Reason: Chevy was considered for the role)

1981: Raiders of the Lost Ark (Role: Indiana Jones) (Actor who got it: Harrison Ford) (Reason: Chevy was considered for the role)

1984: Splash (Role: Allen Bauer) (Actor who got it: Tom Hanks) (Reason: Chevy was offered the role, but he turned it down)

1984: Ghostbusters (Role: Peter Venkman) (Actor who got it: Bill Murray) (Reason: He turned the role. According to Chase, the finished film is nothing like the script that he read, adding that the script was much scarier than the film.)

1987: Fatal Attraction (Role: Dan Gallagher) (Actor who got it: Michael Douglas) (Reason: Chevy was offered the role, but he turned it down)

1988: Who Framed Roger Rabbit (Role: Eddie Valinet) (Actor who got it: Bob Hoskins) (Reason: Chevy Chase was the 2nd choice for the role, but he turned down the role as he wasn’t interested in the role)

1989: Turner & Hooch (Role: Scott Turner) (Actor who got it: Tom Hanks) (Reason: Chevy was considered and was offered the role but he turned it down)

1989: The Fabulous Baker Boys (Role: Either Jack or Frank Baker) (Actor who got it: Jeff Bridges & Beau Bridges) (Reason: When the film first came to development, 20th Century Fix originally wanted Chevy & Bill Murray for either role in the film)

1991: My Girl (Role: Harry Sultenfuss) (Actor who got it: Dan Aykroyd) (Reason: Chevy was considered for the role, but didn’t get the role as he was know only for comedies at the time and not for dramas, so the role was given to Dan Aykroyd)

1992: The Player (Role: Griffin Mill) (Actor who got it: Tim Robbins) (Reason: Chevy was in fact very much interested in the role and wanted the part, but Warner Bros didn’t want him for the role)

1992: The Mighty Ducks (Role: Gordon Bombay) (Actor who got it: Emilio Estevez) (Reason: Chevy was offered the role, but he turned it down)

1993: So I Married An Ax Murderer (Role: Charlie/Stuart McKenzie) (Actor who got it: Mike Myers) (Reason: Chevy was the original choice for the role, but apparently didn’t like the character)

1994: Forrest Gump (Role: Forrest Gump) (Actor who got it: Tom Hanks) (Reason: Chevy was offered the lead role, but he turned it down as he felt the script wasn’t good enough. He later claimed that Tom Hanks tweaked the script)

1994: The Santa Clause (Role: Scott Calvin) (Actor who got it: Tim Allen) (Reason: Chevy was offered the role, but he had to turned it down due to scheduling conflicts)

1995: Toy Story (Role: Buzz Lightyear) (Actor who got it: Tim Allen) (Reason: Turned down the role because his agent advised him against doing the project. He didn’t want to turned it down, but went with his agent’s advice)

1999: American Beauty (Role: Lester Burham) (Actor who got it: Kevin Spacey) (Reason: Chevy was the 1st choice for the lead, but he turned it down as he didn’t like the content and out of fear that it would hurt his family-friendly image)

2007: Alvin & The Chipmunks (Role: Dave Seville) (Actor who got it: Jason Lee) (Reason: At some point during development, Chevy was considered for the role)

Ultimately, I think Chevy Chase is a good actor, but I think he was his own worst enemy and really had lost potential. He really could have had bigger success but from everywhere I read about the guy, he had a really massive ego and was very difficult to work. I feel it’s a shame, I think Chevy could of done more things, and really could of ventured into drama.

Overall, What are your thoughts on this? What roles do you wish Chevy Chase accepted?

General Discussion threads threads are meant for more casual chat; a place to break most of the frontpage rules. Feel free to ask for recommendations, lists, homework help; plug your site or video essay; discuss tv here, or any such thing.

There is no 180-character minimum for top-level comments in this thread.

Follow us on:

• Letterboxd
• Twitter

The sidebar has a wealth of information, including the subreddit rules, our killer wiki, all of our projects... If you're on a mobile app, click the "(i)" button on our frontpage.

Sincerely,

David

I just got out of Nosferatu: Radiohead at The Mariemont in Cincy. What an interesting way to watch a silent movie!

The sort of droning and grim synth of Kid A made for an even more otherworldly viewing experience. I’ve never seen Nosferatu on the big screen, making the effect work really stand out. One artistic addition they made, and I think really works, is color gradient highlights (red and blue) for various scenes.

The werewolves eyes, Orlock seeking blood, and the psychic premonitions all were glowing visual reminders AND pulsed to the beat. The effect was not overdone, and certainly not subtle, but it added a great deal to the theme. The very first example being the flowers Hutter gives Ellen.

What are your thoughts on these kind of subtle or complimentary artistic liberties with older material?

The next one is Buster Keaton: Sherlock Jr.

I wrote this essay about similarities between Tetsuo: The Iron Man and the works of Dziga Vertov and thought some of you might get a kick out of it.

Tetsuo follows the Metal Fetishist, who inserts metal into himself through painful self-surgery, and a businessman, who is undergoing a similar, less voluntary, transformation into a man of metallic flesh. Undergoing their transformations, the two come into conflict as well as connection when they discover their relation to each other: the Metal Fetishist was the victim of a hit-and-run, and the businessman was the driver.

Before I go further, let’s talk about Dziga Vertov.

If you’ve attended film school, odds are that you’ve seen Vertov’s 1929 film Man With a Movie Camera. Allow me to briefly transport you back in time to your classroom discussion. As far as filmmakers and film theorists go, Vertov was one of the most “science fiction”; he admired machinery to the point that he saw the camera as a progression in the evolution of the human eye. In Man With a Movie Camera, his eye for machinery and praise of the camera is evident. But in Kino-Eye and some episodes of his Kino Pravda series, Vertov expresses a deep admiration for the capabilities of the camera that it does not share with the human eye.

For example, in Kino-Eye, Vertov marvels at the camera’s ability to show the “resurrection” of a bull, first by showing its corpse, then by showing it alive. He also shows many clips of divers jumping into a pool in reverse. However, that was not just the camera but a symbiosis between cinematographer and editor that allowed these miracles to occur.

Vertov’s admiration for industrial machinery went as far as him yearning for a more precise human through mechanism. One of his more famous writings follows:

“In the face of the machine we are ashamed of man's inability to control himself, but what are we to do if we find the unerring ways of electricity more exciting than the disorderly haste of active people?”

However, while Vertov admired the precision of new technology, by the time Tetsuo was released in 1989, it was known that machinery could malfunction and succumb to the same chaos that caused humans to falter as well.

If I could briefly make a literary reference, it’s like comparing Plato’s Republic with Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Both texts depict nearly identical societies, only one is utopian and the other dystopian. Similarly, Tetsuo and Vertov are philosophically compatible, only Vertov saw technology as utopian, while Tsukamoto saw it as dystopian.

While Vertov filmed machinery in factories, Tsukamoto shot stop-motion sequences of scrap metal. While Vertov edited an eye over the lens of his camera, Tsukamoto depicted a man slowly, involuntarily evolving into a mass of metal flesh.

Tetsuo often seems like a silent film, aside from the sound effects and occasional dialogue. The already vague plotline might result in a variety of interpretations from the many montage sequences, but the core of the story remains the same: an inexplicable metamorphosis of flesh into metal. Montage is used in Tetsuo to convey the mutual connection between the businessman and the Metal Fetishist, both in the hit-and-run incident as well as their mutual transformation.

Additionally, Tetsuo is an extremely amateur film. Every once in a while, I’ll come across a film that oozes with what I call “the joy of discovery.” It’s like the main character of Camera Buff, whose recently acquired 8mm movie camera became a symbol of liberation from his office job. Tsukamoto filmed Tetsuo in a similar way: it was cinematic liberation. The camera angles and movement reek of excitement and joy, despite the graphic details of the film. I believe Man With a Movie Camera was shot with a similar vigor.

While watching this film once more, I could not help but imagine a resuscitated Dziga Vertov sitting in a dusty art-house cinema, 35 years after his death, watching this odd, new film from Japan called Tetsuo: The Iron Man. Seeing the flashing images of industrial machinery in Tetsuo would have looked very familiar to him, just disjointed compared to his own work throughout the 1920s. However, if he had been a fan of body horror, I imagine a smile creeping across his face, illuminated by the silver screen.

A core component of Vertov’s film theory was the truth captured by the camera versus the biased perspective captured by the human eye. However, “truth” to Vertov was tied to the perception of the camera and the result of the editing. Once again consider the sequence from Kino-Eye in which Vertov shows the “resurrection” of a bull. This is false according to science, but to him, it was the capturing of a separate truth because the audience has a mutual perception of the same sequence. Conversely, if one individual person were to witness the actual resurrection of a bull with their eyes only, it would be unbelievable, false.

So, once again we return to Vertov sitting in a dusty art-house theater watching Tetsuo. How can he deny the truth of the businessman’s metamorphosis? There it is, right before him. There it is, right before the other people in the theater. There they all are — the audience — simultaneously perceiving something that has been documented forever on film.

Please don't judge me too hard I'm new to this sub and certainly not know as much as a lot of you about film.

I hope it won't seem to out of place but I feel like giving context is necessary to explain my confusion.

So I've been quite interested in film since my teen years and when I saw Lost River I instantly fell in love. To be honest, at the time I was a big fan of Ryan Gosling as an actor, which could have impacted my rating of the movie and also I was alone in the theater when I watched it on the big screen, which could also have had a huge impact on how great the screening felt. Lastly, I was 14 at the time.

When I got out of the theater I felt totally changed, this movie had moved me like no other, it was an instant crush, it was the best movie I had ever seen. To go a bit deeper, I, of course, loved the aesthetic (today neons and stuff like this don't please me as much), but also the story. This is the part I've seen most people criticize but I loved the simplicity of it. I know the story is a bit easy, a bit wanky, with simple roles and black and white characters, simple storytelling. But for me it was what made it work. What the characters represents, on a surface level, was what gave the movie this kind of tale story-telling (pardon my english). A movie with more fleshed out characters would have probably be great also but it would not have been Lost River. I feel like it's not a miss, like he had an idea and fail, I feel like these characters are just how they're supposed to be.

Now I also see a lot of critics about how Gosling's trying to mimic the great and completely fail. But, like every teen at the time, I watched drive, was really interested in Winding Refn's work, and for me, even if Lost River has some undeniable visual references from it, I feel like, compared to Drive, it's really, really not that bad? Now I have to say I still have a lot of movies and directors to discover and I've seen a lot of comparison to Lynch, that I only know on a surface level, but after seeing a lot of people reference Blue Velvet while talking about Lost River, I'm going to watch it. So I'm open to more recommandations because I feel like maybe this is the best movie I've ever watched in this genre because I don't know others. Maybe, when I watch Blue Velvet or other I'll realize that Lost River is indeed a cheap version, a poor hommage, to greater movies and director.

It feels weird because for a lot of the movies that are in my favorites, the critics seem to always fit my point of view, but for this one, I was flabbergasted. It also felt really weird because I recently watched I saw the TV glow and I quite frankly hated it so for me the critics of Lost River and I saw the TV glow felt literally swaped.

To make it quick and I hope clear enough, my question is: Am I a bigot for liking Lost River? Will my opinion change while I dive deeper into this genre? If the movie really is as bad as people say, what could make my view change? I understand likes and preferences but when it's for a 8/10 movie that feels like a 10/10 to me or the opposite, it makes sense to me (it is the case for a lot of my favorites) but this one is like a 10/10 in my mind but a 3/10 for others.

Sorry for my bad english and I hope I did not get too lost and am still understandable. Thanks.

I have no idea why there is a trend of very dark movies that make many movies nearly unwatchable. Our obsession with unsaturated/muted colours has also been heightened by the combination of orange and teal LUT. Most are completely unrealistic and for many that are pushed to the extreme, the look is just horrible.

Despite not liking recent Wes Anderson movies, I can still appreciate his aesthetics. Every movie director seems to be trying to outdo each other by creating darker, more orange, and teal movies. Currently, TV series are replicating that trend.

They appear to lack the understanding that a dark theme can be conveyed through a movie or series without the presence of a dark visual aspect. Although the British series Utopia has a dark theme, it is visually vibrant and over-saturated.

In modern cinema, I’m growing tired of the overly muted or graded style. Even things shot to be naturalistic seem consistently desaturated or colour-specific amplified. I struggle to think of a film where the sky is actually blue or the grass is green in the background.

Even as a Westerner living in North America, for a lot of us we grew up watching the Hong Kong film stars such as:

- Jackie Chan

- Jet Li

- Tony Jaa

- Andy Lau

- Donnie Yen

and of course the infamous Bruce Lee.

Who is your absolute favorite and why? I've always loved Jet Li and maintain that Once Upon a Time in China is one of the best films ever. I advise everybody to check it out as it had a 90% on Rotten Tomatoes.

Soo I recently watched Dragged Across Concrete by S. Craig Zahler and it was one of the most raw and brutal experiences I had this week while watching a film. I point out particularly the use of sound of Zahler: from the funny scene of Vince Vaugh eating a sandwich to that horrible scene of the lady getting shot in the bank. Same in Bone Tomahawk or Brawl in Cell Block 99, this director seems to put a lot of effort on creating sensory reactions on us (beyond the images in his films). So I started thinking on other directors that uses sound alongside their visuals in order to create a unique style.

As I'm technically new in this fascinating world of cinema, I can only tell two other directors that I clearly remember their particular use of sound. One is David Lynch; specially in his very first film, Eraserhead, where the sound plays and important role on creating this nightmarish atmosphere. Another director is Peter Strickland and his most recent film Flux Gourmet where I can only tell that I felt uncomfortable most of the time (something similar happened to me with The Substance).

I can mention other filmmakers but I coulnd't tell more about them (since I didn't watch enough of their films) such as David Cronenberg, Jonathan Glazer, Andrei Tarkovsky or Lucrecia Martel. So I would really appreciate some movie/filmmaker recomendations from you, nice people, that have this creative/efficient use of sound so I could watch them and keep the experience in my mind for the longest time possible.

I think we've all heard that phrase a lot but I wonder if any movie really encapsulates the idea that a filmmaker can put a lot into the aesthetic of the film and neglect the rest of it (story, character, theme). Micheal Bay movies come to mind for me. They're dumb, typically nonsensical, effects-driven action movies but I can't deny Bay has a certain flair for dynamic visuals and I can't help but turn my brain off and watch him work.

https://letterboxd.com/hootsmaguire/film/rosemarys-baby/

The delicate balancing of the modern, space-age and contemporary with the Gothic; the satirical and political with the ghastly and nightmarelike; Catholic and Jewish symbology and myth; patriarchy and femininty; alluring phsyical beauty with repulsive moral and ethical corruption. So many strands held in tension, both in the script/storyline and in the imagery and character portrayals.

At nearly all points along the way the studio executives would be clamouring for more lurid details and more explicit hints at the Satanic denouemenent, while Polanski was paring it back to less and less, resulting in a more subtle and creeping form of horror. The result was something that, while not exactly new, was more sophisticated in execution than nearly any other horror film made up till then. Maybe only The Haunting (1963) was as quietly effective, though Seconds (1966) by John Frankenheimer, though relying on sci-fi magic rather than witchcraft, was extremely close in style.

Of course he'd had Polanski's earlier efforts at psychological horror: Repulsion (1965), made in Britain, would predict something like this could be made; The Fearless Vampire Killers (1967), a goofy vampire spoof, would argue against its possibility. Horror was just then making the journey once more from schlock populism to the solidly middlebrow in taste, and this film would take it all the way there in the US.

Polanksi had fine material to work with in the form of a solid horror novel by Ira Levin, steeped in the sophisticated spirit of its time, dealing in Manhattanite urbanity and a type of intimate paranoia of the type that the director loved to get his teeth into. It seemed partly a spoof of the ancient myths of changelings and demonic spawn, the stuff of grimoires and medieval dungeons, only transplanted to the mid-town Manhattan of media and advertising. Levin and Polanski's Satanists would not be crazed witches in backwoods meetings, but doctors, businessmen, and actors.

Dennis Wheatley's novel of Satanic terror The Devil Rides Out came out as a respectable British horror movie the same year (starring Christopher Lee) and showed that if the spirit of Aleister Crowley was hanging around a demonic story, it could work for the mainstream non-teen audience. Sure enough, the setting of The Dakota Apartments, where Crowley had lived, as the standin for the fictional Bramford Building gave it that combination of evil and haute-bourgeois glamour that the revived middlebrow horror genre required. After 30 years in the tombs, "elevated horror" was to rise again in Hollywood.

This was an America that, though prosperous as never before, seemed to be more psychologically fragile than ever. When Rosemary is waiting in the obstretrician's waiting room, she picks up a Time magazine with the cover caption Is God Dead? in lurid red letters on black. This was an actual Time cover of 1966, the same year that Anton La Vey set up the Church of Satan. Though 97% of Americans polled still believed in God, the chattering classes of New York and elsewhere had moral-panicked themselves into believing the opposite.

Other social and political crises had hit hard: the JFK assassination, evoked in Rosemary's dream during her ordeal when she hallucinates the dead Kennedy alongside his wife Jackie; the Cold War; Civil Rights and the struggle for Black equality; feminism; the growing conflict in Vietnam, only now becoming an active war for Americans. A revealing essay in "We Are The Mutants" website outlines the many cultural and moral panics that underlie Levin's novel and the Polanski film, adding to its neurotic texture and general paranoiac ambience. It goes on to claim that the Levin novel "is not just a brilliant horror thriller; it is a classic of American literature, as surely as The Scarlet Letter or Wise Blood."

Culturally, hugely significant changes were afoot in the world of cinema. 1968 was the end of the Hays Code in Hollywood and the coming of a new 'permissiveness' that would air out a lot of the neurotic and sexual anxieties of the American middle classes for the first time - an outcome the Hays Code was in place specifically to avoid. 'New Hollywood', which engaged mainstream film with a new crudeness and frankness that both fascinated and repelled the middle-to-highbrow sector of society, was now in full swing. One of the leading lights in that movement would be Roman Polanski.

According to writer and critic Heather Greene,

*Polanski’s film was produced before the Production Code Administration was completely dismantled, and the conversations that ensued between the producers and the censorship office demonstrate the prevailing attitude of filmmakers at the time... On Feb. 29, 1968, [PCA administrator Morris Murphy] notes that the administration would grant the film its certificate despite the studio not eliminating the phrase “Oh shit!”*
Greene, Lights, Camera, Witchcraft A Critical History of Witches in American Film and Television (2021)

This meant that the film was transitional in several ways: it signalled an end to the Hays Code at the same time as it spearheaded the horror genre's reinsertion into respectable middle-class culture, which it did with one Oscar that year. This process that would be sealed with The Exorcist's triumph at the Oscars in 1974, some five years after Rosemary's Baby led the charge. At this time, the subversive force of 'mainstream horror' would briefly be allowed to emerge in Oscar consciousness, only to be resubmerged in favour of worthy but dull social dramas in the years since.

What kind of thing was this late-60s 'elevated horror'? It would not be so crass as to offend the middle-class sensibility with buckets of gore and such Gothic features as spooky castles. Or rather, it would sublimate those Gothic trappings as the nearest 'real-world' equivalent. The nearest thing to a vampiric aristocrat in New York society was a well-connected doctor, so that doctor would be the vampiric force sucking vitality from the healthy virgin.

The nearest thing to a vampire's castle was an apartment block in the Gothic Revival style - so the film would open with a slow pan across the derangement of the Dakota building's rooftop, a fantastic space of disorder lurking behind and above the relative sanity of its facade. That same building would hint at secret chambers and menace in the basement, and the first victim Terry would possibly fall victim to its curse. The Dakota was a sophisticated entity with an eldritch curse - just like the novel's Bramford building, and just like the film itself would become in popular folklore.

So sophisticated was it, in fact, that it would cast doubt on its own supernatural force. This wasn't true of the novel's author, Ira Levin, who expressed remorse at the novel's place in promoting the growth of the type of cult-like violence that sophisticated folk imagined was sprouting everywhere, and was personified in Charles Manson's Family, who murdered Polanski's wife Sharon Tate just a year after the film opened. 'Levin, a Jewish atheist, said, “I really feel a certain degree of guilt about having fostered that kind of irrationality.”' [quoted in Greene].

But Polanski himself - another secular Jew - was hostile to the whole supernatural element. “[The Satanist] aspect of the book disturbed me. I could not make a film that is seriously supernatural. I can treat it as a tale, but a woman raped by the devil in today’s New York? No, I can’t do that. So I did it with ambiguity.” [quoted in Greene].

Just over a decade later we would see a similar thing happening in Kubrick's The Shining (1980). Kubrick, yet another atheist Jewish artist with a profound understanding of how film can influence the human imagination, either subtracted or ambiguated all the overtly supernatural elements in the source novel. Levin, Polanski and Kubrick all knew just how susceptible the American public was to a real-life panic based on superstitious scares and wanted to minimise their own responsibility.

How this plays out can be seen in the central and critical sequence where Mia Farrow's Rosemary is drugged by the "chalky mouse" and taken to a ceremony where she is apparently raped by Satan himself, who has been evoked by the full coven of witches in their nakedness. The whole film preceding builds up to this moment and to a large extent the rest of the film dwindles away from it afterwards.

Polanski constructs this as enough of a druggy hallucination, featuring the Kennedys and a fantasy yacht, that anything that happens here is dubious and the presence of her husband Guy (John Cassavetes) could stand in, in the real world, for the devil. This ambiguity is returned to in the final scene, where the phrase "his father's eyes" reintroduces the doubt that maybe the baby's father is after all his legitimate progenitor Guy, a restoration of the 'natural order' that never comes to pass.

The fact that Polanski takes comfort, or tries to generate cover, from a version of events where a woman is drugged and raped in front of a crowd of naked strangers in a sick high-society orgy instead of being inseminated by the Lord of Darkness, is alarming enough. That in some way this is a representation of 'the natural patriarchal order' as opposed to the threatening disorder of a Satanic apocalypse provoked by an anti-messianic Spawn of Satan is reason enough to doubt the worthiness of preserving that order. But such is Polanski's purpose in generating plausible deniability about the supernatural in his supernatural tale.

But in fact, both Rosemary's Baby, The Exorcist, and The Shining would each do their own small part to contribute to the "Satanic Panic" of the 1980s, in which middle-class America mass-fantasized witch covens operating through fantasy role-playing games to steal and brainwash their children.

But without the echo-chamber effect of the mainstream media echoing the nightmare imaginings or fabrications of rogue policemen and publicity-seeking exploitation journalists, the public would have been content to leave horror fiction firmly in its place, as fiction. As a fiction writer myself, I know that there is always an American expecting to exploit supernatural fiction for their own commercial agenda and/or moral crusade.

Shane black wrote the role of Martin Riggs with William hurt in mind but he was not a big enough name and too obscure according to the studio. In my opinion he wrote the role for him Possibly after seeing his performance in the big chill

I don’t see him fitting Riggs especially when it comes to the scenes with fisticuffs, plus he didn’t have the charisma that Mel Gibson did he was good actor but not Mel Gibson, he had charisma just not as much as Mel Gibson no offense, Riggs was a much more unstable character in early drafts though and there wasn’t as much humor, as that was added later at the request of Richard Donnor who thought the original script was too dark this is the exact same thing that happened with his lethal weapon 2 script as we all know. Hurt most likely would have turned it down anyway or maybe he did if he even got a chance to read the script.

https://screenrant.com/lethal-weapon-actors-considered-play-riggs-murtaugh/

"Trap" could have been significantly better if you could hear Cooper's ('The Butcher') thoughts throughout the film. The reason a lot of people get a comedic tone from many scenes is because it's very much like watching a sitcom without a laugh track. Or an episode of "You" without narration.

It's up to the audience to imagine his thoughts, by the way he looks at things, or his facial expressions. Maybe this could have worked in theory, but it didn't ultimately work here, despite an excellent performance by Josh Hartnett. I would have loved to hear his thoughts during all these scenes, it would have made the movie so much more interesting and tense, and less unintentionally funny.

Smarten up the script a lot, give the FBI profiler lady some character, make her more interesting, make us fear her for her intelligence and skill. Start the film with her finding the latest 'Butcher' crime scene, a quick 5 or 10 minute scene is all we need, and have her geniusly conjure up a more believable and logical reason for trying to trap The Butcher in such an unconventional way. Show us how much of a genius she is.

"Trap" could have been so much better.

I’m exploring Kiarostami’s filmography chronologically for the last two months. And I’m currently finished up to ABC Africa, Those later films by Kiarostami have been hard to access, except the ones have been released by the criterion. I’m finding a hard time to find those films, I would have much appreciate if anyone share their links to those films, thank you🙏🏻🙏🏻

I am speaking more about Hollywood movies.

Last night I had a spooky double-feature, Halloween III: Season of the Witch (1982) and Invaders from Mars (1986). Both of these films feel very 80s and it got me wondering, what does that mean?

It’s not just that it was produced during the 1980s. The style, music, storytelling, even subject matter all seem to play a part. But where did that aesthetic come from?

Not going too deep, the ancestors of the Hollywood 80s film seem to be the blockbuster films of the 70s: Star Wars, Jaws, Halloween…etc. Basically B-movies done at the level of A-movies.

So what do you think defines an 80s film? Is it an alchemy of different things?

Sticking with the genre theme, why does The Texas Chain Saw Massacre and Assault on Precinct 13 feel like 70s films, but Poltergeist and They Live feel like 80s films. Same filmmakers, different feel.

If Elisabeth doesn't actually remember and consciously experience herself as Sue, the whole exercise is pointless. Why would she be addicted it the experience lived by what's essentially someone else (even though she has to keep being reminded it's her, but doesn't that just prove the point?), why do shit for that?

It's kind of dumb because the story could make it be her experience easily, and still explain why she'd sometimes choose to stay in it longer. Simple hangover logic.

Then the more she degrades her original body the less she can stand to be in it, leading to more damage. At that point, the split can grow further until she doesn't feel like the same person or want to associate with her deformed self. The scene where Sue beats up the old Elisabeth towards the end would still make sense (and obviously the splitting is explained by Elizabeth's attempt to terminate). All the decisions would still be explainable and get much more weight.

I like the movie, it's really disgusting. But why fuck up the whole character motivation for a reason that adds nothing to the story?

Please don't downvote opinions. Only downvote comments that don't contribute anything. Check out the WHYBW archives.