6u532b

A beautiful big dumb mess of a film that maybe goes for three too many victory laps as it stands in your doorway unsure of whether you're gonna kiss or not before it leaves.
Lots to think about. Probably should have leaned in and just been a full blown musical, it's like 80% there.

Fumbles a fair bit in the second half especially but it's got such a wild energy to it that I couldn't help but smile and fall in love with it a bit. I think this is one of those "I'm feeling it rather than thinking about it" situations- really wish I saw it on the biggest screen possible.

This review may contain spoilers.

Didn't really grow up with the original. Two people I'm really close to have filled me in on all the weird omissions since I left the cinema, and I'm almost certain the animated version is better from the vague recollections I have of it.

However- I didn't mind this? I thought Stitch himself was extremely well animated and designed, Disney has clearly taken the on board that we're over dreary "realistic" CGI creatures so it was nice to see a character this cartoonish still feel larger than life.
Mixed feelings about the casting of Lilo. I think the actor did the best she could, especially considering her age. What I found difficult to grapple with though, is that most of the characters surrounding her are such caricatures that I found myself wondering why this really warranted a live-action update. It also works against Lilo's character because it's hard to believe a real human child would be so devoid of basic empathy even at that age, let alone the rest of the cast who felt cruel and uncaring to a cartoonish degree. Who would actually look at Nina's situation and just tell her that she has to "do better"?

As for the controversy around the ending- I don't know, man. I'm usually as anti-government/ACAB/system-critical as the next 30 year old leftie but I thought it was pretty clear what they were doing there. As someone who's worked in and care roles for a lot of my life; no, the power of "love" and "family stays together" often isn't enough to ensure a child has a healthy and secure upbringing. I also don't believe in children having to sacrifice their own aspirations in order to look after other family or siblings in the event of a tragedy. Its a bit sloppy how they handle it, but I'd also beg people to check themselves a bit if they think a major animated picture from the Disney corporation in the early 2000's was the most woke piece of media in its time. Who knows, I may be wrong. Gotta' rewatch it I suppose!

I'm sorry for liking the 2018 one more. I wish I didn't, but here we are.

Flawed masterpiece. I love it so much. Help.

Rankthology - Anthologies Ranked

Creepshow (1982)

Best Segment- "The Crate" or "They're Creeping Up On You"
Weakest Segment- "The Lonesome Death of Jordy Verrill"
Framing Device- Bookending story segment featuring a young Joe Hill being punished by his father for reading comic books, ultimately enacting his revenge in the final moments as some garbage truck employees find the binned comic book and read it excitedly. There are animated interludes where we see the titles of each story in the "Creepshow" book itself (in-universe) complete with skimmed Easter eggs and fake ments for products and other stories.

Highlights- Romero's trademark "no bullshit" pacing through direction & editing, surprising early career roles or comedic cameos (King himself, a young Ed Harris dancing goofily, Ted Danson, a villainous Leslie Neilson and Adrienne-Fucking-Barbeau), delightful moments of comic gore, a bug-infested finale that delivers on one last gross-out scare.

Overall thoughts- Crazy how this has five segments but doesn't overstay its welcome. "Jordy Verrill" is the weakest segment by default but certainly not bad and not without its charm, if anything, it's grown on me for just going all-out goofy up til the final tragic moments. As mentioned before, "The Crate" and "They're Creeping Up On You" are tied for the top spot, although Creepshow is a rare gem in that I think the quality is mostly consistent across the board. There's a mean-spirited tone that carries throughout the film, both incredibly juvenile and adult- which is apparently true to the EC comics that the film was inspired by. Total commitment to the bit. The only downside is that there's not much of an argument to be made that Creepshow ever really rises above silly fun, a genuine scare or two would have been appreciated. That's purely a taste thing though!

Rankthology - Anthologies Ranked

Black Sabbath (1963) - International Cut & skimmed American Cut for the sake of comparison

Best Segment- "The Wurdulak"
Weakest Segment- "The Telephone"
Framing Device- Just a greeting and sendoff gag by Karloff in the Italian version, a half-assed Twilight Zone riff introduction is inserted into the American Cut before each tale but we don't get the hilarious fourth walk break ending present in the international!

Highlights- Karloff, Terzano & Bava's cinematography, that fucking corpse in "The Drop of Water", crash zooms galore, the final meta gag (International Cut only).

Overall thoughts- Greater than the sum of its parts, perfect breezy background or "vibe" watch for a Halloween party. "The Telephone" segment is slightly broken and a bit underwhelming no matter which version you watch, although the International/Italian cut is mostly superior across the board. "The Wurdulak" is the standout no matter which version you watch, although one cannot deny the creepy imagery in "The Drop of Water". If you know, you know.

Depending on your tastes and sensibilities, you could either see the Spielberg/Hooper mesh as tonal dissonance or a total subversive asset to the film. I grew up with this movie as one of the first "real horror" films I was allowed to watch, so there's definitely a place in my heart for it regardless of how much it holds up on re-watch.

Luckily for me; I'm possibly even more fond of it now? I think if anything, knowledge of discarded drafts for what eventually became E.T. and the leftovers making their way into this film sort of just add to the intrigue of the overall package.
In Spielberg's heartwarming tale of a little alien trying to get home, the focus is on a broken family learning to hold onto their sacred bond thanks to space Jesus, whereas Poltergeist is a fascinating mirror image in which the family is relatively secure before the supernatural presence threatens to tear them apart.

Aside from a few tweaks needed, the structure of the screenplay is masterful in its simplicity; always picking the right elements to move the plot forward with gradually tamping tension and chills before exploding into a fantastical finale.
I think anyone watching this for the first time in 2025 would do well to go in not expecting a "frightfest" so much as a cosy entry-level horror film suitable for those dipping their toes into the genre. With all the talk of "elevated" horror these days usually focusing on some sort of inherited trauma or broken family dynamics, it's nice to be reminded that the OG handled it with such a deft hand.
The kids act like kids without ever crossing over into Goonies-level screamy annoyance and the adult characters are all drawn with a balance of charm, flaws and genuine empathy missing from a lot of blockbusters made since.

You could be cynical and say the "Spielberg of it all" is hokey and saccharine; but I'll be damned if I don't need more moments in these types of movies where middle aged couples remind each other how much they love one another before crossing the threshold between life and death.
Poltergeist has a great balance of fun haunted house gags, eerie practical and optical effect blends, cinematography to die for and memorable characters to guide you on a tour of the "space between spaces"*

* apologies to John Hurt and Indy 4

Grade-A shitpost of a film by my new favourite memelord, OsGewd Perkins. This man knows trash and I'm so grateful for that.
Been a while since I left the cinema feeling like someone nailed both the deliciously clunky internal dialogue of Stephen King and mean-spirited glee of his collaborations with the likes of George A. Romero! Perkins manages to make this a natural progression of personal themes explored in Longlegs whilst somehow also veering wildly away from it in of tone (however, if you read my Longlegs review, I'm not convinced that was meant to be completely humourless either).

My biggest hangup is the Corridor Crew-like CGI blood and gore effects taking me out of the kills somewhat. I prefer my 80's throwbacks to lean hard into practical FX, there's something way too clean and lifeless about corpses and their appendages turning into digi-doubles.

Flabbergasted by how competent this was.
FNAF as a film is constantly fighting its own flimsy video game lore, trying to spin the source material into something that actually makes sense (let alone "cinematic").

I still don't know who this is for. FNAF as a series is really not much more than a jumpscare generator for zoomers, cynically designed as a mystery box in a desperate attempt to keep people making four-hour video essays on vague plot elements that will never add up. I can say this because I also eat that shit up as a background watch while I'm doing work or tasks.
As a result of trying to take those threadbare elements and spinning them into a cohesive plot, the movie loses most of what makes the games appealing to that demographic. The surprise villain is telegraphed from the opening five minutes, every character is competently drawn but entirely functional within the story rather than interesting or empathetic, and even the animatronics themselves are stripped of anything that makes them remotely scary because they realised during the screenwriting process that it doesn't actually make a lick of sense to have them be overly antagonistic.

Props to the crew for sticking with puppetry and animatronics over CGI, but the hilarious byproduct of that decision is that the suits literally can't move fast enough to chase anyone on-screen or "jumpscare" characters due to their lack of mobility. Real 4D chess move right there, removing arguably the only truly iconic thing that the source material had going for it.

Strange mix of made-for-streaming aesthetics with the occasional unexpected creepy visual (LOVED the "vampires on the roof" scene).
Pullman and the rest of the cast honestly knocked it out of the park, it warmed my heart to see the cheesy glowing crucifixes from the book finally shown on-screen. I don't know what the fuck Straker's actor was thinking, but every acting choice he made was a huge swing and the man deserves respect.

The finale had me feeling conflicted. I adore the idea of using the town drive-in as an almost thematic reflection of both the rotting nature of the titular Lot and genre cinema itself, but the way it played out felt rushed and anti-climatic.

It's hard to separate the book from this adaptation entirely, particularly in the choice of structure and pacing. Almost every plot beats feels like the movie is sick of itself right out the gate, poor Father Callaghan gets absolutely shafted once again. Dauberman really struggles with compelling and believable dialogue, although I'd argue that at least here he knows not to overstay his welcome (see It: Chapter Two for a bewildering lack of self-awareness).

Overall, this is a real mixed bag. Fun and slight to a fault, occasionally creepy and subtle but mostly feels like every other streaming-era 70's/80's throwback. Stranger Things has a lot to answer for in overly clean digital VFX showcases that dip their toes into period settings whilst ignoring tangible aesthetics.

Oh, and Barlow sucks.

Watched on Friday February 21, 2025.

Watched on Friday February 21, 2025.

Watched on Friday February 21, 2025.

Every frame featuring Max Shreck is still incredible. I forgot how creepy it is when Orlock is feasting on Ellen in the climax- the perfect amount of underexposure, film elements worn down and degraded so much that it literally feels like the movie itself is cursed.

Now at 100 years old, the specific subgenres of horror that it spawned are really interesting to watch being birthed in this historical record. I can see how Eggers became more fascinated with the fairytale or "old myth" style framing presented in literal page turns marking each chapter and bookending the film.

Strange how time has been incredibly kind to this, and that the movie itself has become so intertwined with its metanarrative of just barely surviving thanks to bootlegging, only to transform into the most important footnote in modern horror fiction. It's the beginning of metafiction, fantasy horror, analog horror and possibly the "Unforgiven" of German Expressionism in how it broke the rules of the genre only to re-establish them and create a point of no return.

Nice little tribute. Interesting how even a love letter to the expressionist masterpiece can't help but "update" elements of the original film; Thomas goes to Transylvania to get his rocks off with a maid at the inn?
Adds an intriguing dynamic where his need to destroy Orlock and end the plague is almost to atone for his own sins of the flesh.

A lot of people will be turned off by the performances, I've seen the "community theatre vibe" comments in almost every other review. I find it interesting how barely anyone is willing to see it as a feature rather than a glitch.
Another expansion on the lore (if you will) is more explanation/clarification of Ellen's "abilities". I wonder if her visions of hellscapes were an addition made after Eggers' script leaked or if these dream-like sequences were intended from the beginning.

Jones is a lot of fun, as are most of the actors who can all be commended for their commitment to maintaining the expressionist style whilst delivering dialogue. I really appreciate the swing even if it yield diminishing returns for most.

Using original background elements from the 1922 version is another choice that I can see arguments for and against. My initial reaction to the Sin City-esque overly digital and glossy look made my stomach churn a bit at first, but I soon settled into it feeling more like an FMV game I would have discovered in the early 2000's. That's probably a good indication of how this recreation feels in general. Take the PS1 Dracula point-n-click games, some Dracula Unleashed (PC/Sega Genesis) and direct to DVD Asylum shlock; put them in a blender and you get this strangely enjoyable (yet not quite great) artifact of indie film.

Fantastic sequences of suspense, superbly edited (out-Hitchcocking Hitchcock in select moments!) and just a great film about shitbags getting what's coming to them.
I was a little worried we weren't going to get a final twist of dramatic irony to end the film on, as sometimes movies from the 50's have a tendency to wrap things up too neat and tidily; but thankfully this goes out with a bang.

There's an argument to be made that this is perhaps twenty minutes too long, I think it's well past the half hour mark before the plot really "happens" by modern standards, but I really enjoyed living in the world with these eccentric and misanthropic characters before the call to action.
I've got a lot more digging to do on the historical context as I was somewhat confused as to why the mains put themselves in such a reckless position and dire need of money to begin with- but I suspect there's a lot in here commenting on the history of colonialism and Europeans heading to faraway lands in search of exploitation for their own gain; only to end up in the shit.

I could've done without the incessant golden age raving love interest archetype ("don't leave me, I love you, I hate you, I love you!"), but I'm choosing to give the film the benefit of doubt that this was more satirical in the theme of men going out of their way to impress other men. There's a tonne of (un)intentional(?) queer subtext here in how much the female love interest is ignored for the company and intimacy of sweaty male archetypes.

My only other real criticism was feeling a bit cheated by the resolution of a mid-point set-piece in which the editing conveyed something was a matter of life and death but then it just... wasn't.
Other than that, this is a wonderful film that took me way too long to finally watch. Every time the film went somewhere dark and poetic, or made sure to not pull punches, I was reminded of how much European film-makers didn't give a single fuck about clean-cut heroes or upholding traditional moral values. I can't wait to see how Friedkin tackles similar subject matter in his remake/reimagining/whatever you'd call it.

2nd playthrough: Easy Mode, C rank.

Penalised due to plugging my ears for each jumpscare.

I love what Eggers did with this and there are some mighty brave swings, but it definitely made sense to me why so many aspects of the film are divisive in my second viewing.
Basically, I've come to the conclusion that RobEggz made a Hammer Horror movie for 2024/2025 audiences. Popcorn horror through and through.
It saddens me that even with jumpscares and gushing arteries, there's such an epidemic of media illiteracy and generational ADHD that general audiences are clowning this hard for being "boring"*** because... characters speak to each other about their feelings between the scary bits, I guess? Or ha ha goofy moustache and Lily Rose using her body to demonstrate demonic possession instead of transforming into a rubber CGI ragdoll.

Rob said he deliberately stayed away from rewatching Coppola's Dracula in preparation but that hamminess in the third act is absolutely a relic of growing up fond of the melodrama in that specific adaptation. Francis was going for that Hammer update in the 90's (more bobs, vagagne & blud!!) and I think cheeky Eggz is doing the same here but now with JUMPSCARES for the generation that flocked to see It Chapter One & Two.
I love that he did it, but it's a big ask of a modern audience to take it completely seriously or at least with sincerity. It's a similar phenomenon as to how Nic Cage and the Raimi Spider-Man films are allowed to live on because of memes and nostalgia, not due to respect for their earnestness.

Your everyday zoomer with a decent Tik Tok following and maybe enough general knowledge to recognise this as "Dracula" in some form is going to laugh at every instance of people in a room debating the root of evil, or Depp practically breaking the fourth wall as she glances *just* off-camera; practically addressing the audience with the revelation that her husband already has the job.
Marvel brain-rot is here to stay, and it's teaching audiences that anything heartfelt spoken out loud either needs to be undercut with a self reflexive quip, or can only be earned after twenty films where certain quippy characters are allowed to ponder their mortality before declaring themselves as Iron Man and snapping out of existence.

That's not to say Nosferatu's flaws are inherently the audiences' problem, though. There's an argument to be made that the tension of the film dissipates to an extent once the threat of being jumpscared wears off, and Eggers' embrace of his own label as the "historical accuracy guy" falls apart when the majority of the film takes place in a fabricated German town with all of the actors (British or otherwise) lathering themselves up in 1800's English accents. In my own research, I came across a thread (TM) in which an occult expert praised the film for referencing a virgin riding a white steed to locate a vampire's grave- but was quick to point out that the virgin in question was typically a clothed prepubescent boy, not a nude 20-something with perky nipples and a perfectly trimmed bush. As an update on 70's Dracula- this fits! Not so much in line with supposed historical or mythological accuracy, though. I'm sorry Robert, but if you run with that label, you're setting yourself up to be held to that standard.

Having said all that- I no longer have any real issue with the pacing, although specifically branding itself as a Nosferatu adaptation rather than another Dracula reimagining shoots itself in the foot when it's pulling from (as previously mentioned) Hammer films, Coppola's Dracula and The Exorcist as primary influences. It's linked to the 1922 and 1979 film by its emphasis on Ellen as arguably the protagonist-turned-Christ figure in her sacrifice; but even Herzog's film reverted the characters to their original novel counterparts (the Harkers, Renfield, Count Dracula etc).

I suspect this film will be hindered by its own baggage as time goes on; not to mention the fact that German Expressionist die-hards are also now protesting the mere existence of this remake.
I love it, but it's almost more of an experiment to me than a fully-formed film with its own identity. There are some interesting parallels to Gus Van Sant remaking psycho, except the very idea isn't nearly as offensive thanks to Robert Eggers' refusal to recreate much of the iconic imagery or lift any shots from its namesake source material. The closest we get is an update on the theme and visual representation of Orlock's silhouette. Nowhere to be found is a Schrek-like caricature skulking around the boat in a low-angle hero shot, or gripping his chest as he fades away with morning light.

In conclusion; probably my favourite Dracula remix, although Coppola's still may be number one in my heart in spite of itself.

*** EDIT: This is a huge sweeping generalisation. If you found any iteration of Nosferatu boring and ESPECIALLY if your name starts with a Jay- I'm talking about the zoomers who go see a movie for a place to unwind and chat or engage with cinema as a ive activity for a location change whilst being on their phone the whole time.
I have no beef with anyone who genuinely gave this a shot and came out dissatisfied 💜

I've watched it three more times since the Blu Ray arrived. Two of those times we're with the audio commentary (which I highly recommend).

Any misgivings I had about the ending first time round have been dispelled. It's perfect. Honestly, top five Australian films. New Wave nightmare-comedy renaissance.

Watched it with a group of friends this time and no one could BELIEVE where this went. Surprisingly great crowd-pleaser for such an offbeat relic of late-80's forgotten Aussie cinema.

Astonishing how there's literally no moment where any actor or crew member even slightly implies that there was a part of the film-making process that wasn't amazing.

Always fun to watch stuff get made and I'll simp for Hugh any day, but god damn they were really huffing their own farts on this one weren't they?

To: [email protected]
From: [email protected]
Subject: DO NEEDLE DROPS COUNT AS JOKES??!!??! (flagged IMPORTANT)

Body:
Ryan please I'm in the edit n trying get more jokes per minute, feigy is threatening 2 kill me. Can we put Avril Lavigne in the car scene??? I dnt no wat the joke actually is but I figure if I just tell Kevin it's ironic he'll take my dickfartpoop balls out of a vice lol.
Canada forever brother, just in case people forgot that's where we're frommmm xoxoxo

PS Deadpool peepee fart covknballs pegging.jpeg

This review may contain spoilers.

I'm barely capable of forming an opinion outside of very fresh thoughts and ringing in my ears but as I suspected- I ate this shit up.
There have been a lot of repeated words and phrases thrown around in the mostly positive reviews that I've clocked online; "psychosexual", "operatic", "melodramatic", "delirious" etc.
I would formally like to submit some of my own for consideration of the jury: loud, loud, loud, beautiful, loud, relentless and... loud.

My thirty years on this earth have been consumed by so many Dracula iterations and adaptations that I'm losing track of where and when the standard plot beats of the original novel begin to shift and morph. I, like Robert Eggers, watched Nosferatu when I was quite young as a somewhat formative experience. The difference being that Murnau's masterpiece came a bit later for me as I was completely consumed by Bela Legosi in the 1931 Universal film. I made my way through a few Christopher Lee ts before circling back to the 1922 "unauthorised" adaptation, but I was still quite mesmerised by it.

This is all to explain that my memory is a little hazy when it comes to the explicit differences between properties other than cut or combined characters, and how the third act unravels (even these elements have become somewhat murky for me). I'm going to have to do a bit more of a deep dive all over again to help understand why Eggers was specifically beholden to Nosferatu, as opposed to just putting his name above "Dracula" on the poster. From the minimal research I've done- it appears that he has a stronger reverence for the adaptational change in Ellen/Mina's arc. I don't the silent film having much emphasis on her as a protagonist, but I can certainly see how Herzog's version arguably gave her more pathos.

I'm rambling as it is, but like the novel itself and this 2024 adaptation- I'll make a mad dash towards the climax after a padded first two acts. "But you only just left the castle!", I hear you say. Well, too fuckin' bad. We've got a gang of merry vampire hunters to wrangle and it's getting dark, so we best be on our way.

Long story short- "Dracula" has always had pacing issues, along with a dash of too many uninteresting characters. Every subsequent remix or rehash attempts to fix both of these, to varying degrees of success. Robert Eggers' Bram Stoker's Nosferatu certainly does the most with its characters; all of which serve a very clear purpose in the narrative. As for its pacing, that's a bit more complex. For a good forty minutes of this film, I wasn't having what I would call "fun". From the opening dream sequence, I was karate-swatting the area in front of my face bracing myself for the next jumpscare. Seeing it in V-Max was an absolutely relentless experience for that whole castle staycation. Incredible painting-like cinematography and elements of Gothic surrealism paint each frame, and the effect had me hiding in my seat each time we panned, tilted or spun into murky shadow.
By the time Dafoe's Van Helsing (forgive me for not ing this character's name) shows up, it's legitimately like the sun peeking through the clouds after a month of nonstop rain. He's delightful, and gives the film a sense of levity. But it's also at this point that the realisation hits that the film is essentially approaching it's third act.
It's not necessarily an issue, but it does give the film an overall strange structure in which it feels almost like we're playing catch-up with familiar beats before it hits the finish line.
I was anticipating how this film would have time to fit in the iconic scene where the gang have to destroy the vampire bride of a certain party member carrying a child into her crypt, and then Orlock just shows up and kills the kids in a horrifying static shot. This is followed by their mother dying, and her grieving husband committing necrophilia off-screen before being burned alongside his family within their tomb. Did I mention the film ends about ten minutes later?

Nosferatu (2024) is the question and answer unto itself. Why Nosferatu and not Dracula? Why Robert Eggers? Why now?
Well- why not? Eggsy is clearly obsessed with not only Murnau's original, but the book that inspired it alongside every iteration it's had since. He seems to be a man following his heart in the form of interesting prompts that develop into films. A fascination with the occult, Gothic horror, mysticism, unparalleled historical accuracy and grand guignol gore have crept their way into every offering of his and I'm here for it.
Coppola's may still be a bit above this in my heart, as it seemingly inspired this film's melodrama and handcrafted feel more than anything- but I also appreciated the feminist perspective on abuse & trauma, or women being seen as sacrifices for the "betterment of men". I'm still conflicted on the incessant use of jumpscares, but they got me! Perhaps this is a modern update on the camp found in Hammer Horror; drawing parallels to our modern sensibilities demanding more scares per minute much like the 70's crowd demanded more bloodshed and boobies.

TL;DR- it's Dracula (kinda). I loved it despite (or maybe even partially due to) its flaws and I can't wait to watch it at home where I can control the volume. I'm sure I'll have new thoughts every time I watch it from here on out.

Finally, an amusing note about watching this in Australia;

Guardians of the Galaxy, every Harry Potter movie following the third entry and Nosferatu (2024) all share one commonality. They are all rated M in Australia. You know, recommended for "mature" audiences but certainly not enforced or restricted in any way. I would just like to pose the theory that the Australian Classification Board may have accidentally watched Nosferatu (1922) or Nosferatu (1979) because there is no way the shit I just saw got away with our PG-13 equivalent rating.

Quite a bit of fun! I never loved "Gladiator", but I may have to give it another go as I perhaps read a bit too much into its self-seriousness without giving it the benefit of doubt.
I quite enjoyed the "community theatre" of it all, especially with its homoerotic undertones, grand gugnol moments of gore and fun performances throughout.

Shame about the sort of lacklustre ending and some weird editing all round where I could tell dialogue had massive revisions, and the action itself was a bit of a mixed bag- didn't quite reach the heights I wanted it to. Shave off a good five or ten minutes dedicated to eye-rolling legacy requel bait, and I think I would have dug this even more.

I'm struggling to if this is how it also goes down in the play, but I don't love the inconsistency of Lady Bracknell suddenly not giving a hoot about the prior conflict upon the ending twist reveal- it feels all wrapped up a little too cutesie for its own good.

However, it might be the most perfectly cast film of this era. I miss that period of early 2000's period comedies and other literary adaptations that had gorgeous 35mm cinematography with fantastic production design and blocking that just lets the actors WORK. Absolutely delightful and consistently funny, I'd watch again for sure.
The "Lady Come Down" scene is absolute magic.

Extremely enjoyable with stunning animation and solid music throughout. Suffers from two major flaws and one minor flaw- the easier to digest being that there's some classic Disney Renaissance "THESE CHARACTERS ARE CUTE, PLEASE BUY THEIR TOYS" inserts (which the film gains an extra half point for making fun of during the hero montage). The worst offenders, however, being that if you have even the slightest knowledge of Greek mythology- you're team Hades the whole way through.
Even aside from being privy to the lore, it just feels like there's a plot beat missing somewhere. There's no conflict with Herc being even remotely torn between his earth parents and his God parents. This Zeus fucker sure is asking a lot of this kid to prove himself and there's no real in-universe reason as to why. It goes completely unquestioned, Hercules' mortal mother and father are never brought up again past the opening act, so his decision to reject godhood and embrace mortality with his newfound love just doesn't quite land for me.
I'm fine with mythology establishing that there are certain unquestioned rules when it comes to fate, proving oneself as a "hero", destiny etc. But when we're playing as fast and loose with the lore as we are here (and being quite self-aware about it), I need a bit more than "just because".

Having said all that; it's neat, tidy and a total crowd pleaser. Great gags and incredible creature designs! I can totally see why people have a soft spot for this one.

Got about half-way through. Yeah, more of the same, I guess?

It's a clip show intercut with B & C-list talking heads. It's also like 3 hours long. I really can't imagine it serving any other purpose than having on in the background while you're getting shit done but go off, Queens.

Wait- there's like three more of these? Fuuuuuck me.

It's potentially unkind to Coraline watching this after The Substance; a film so confident in its depravity and sense of humour that it makes Revenge stand out as being so self-conscious by comparison.

One of those frustrating experiences where almost every second gag pays off completely differently to how you thought it was going to go, but instead of being pleasantly surprised- you're left with the thought "ah, it was better in my head".
The seeds of Coralie's style and thematic exploration are here, but I feel like there was someone standing around on set stifling her and telling her to hold back. After all- the gleeful murder of r*pists, abs & enablers is no laughing matter. This is serious business.** Sure, have your crazy peyote trip sequence that will ascend to hallucinogenic heights unlike anything else on the screen, but then back to standard thriller fare please.

Unfortunately, I'm judging the film based on what the final product is- not the film it was intended to be at some point in the development process.
I'm glad Coralie Fargeat ditched whoever was keeping one hand tied behind her back for her follow-up.

** As a quick note- I really do appreciate the fact that this is a r**e/revenge movie without focusing on the first half in an exploitative manner. I just wish that we got the full reversal in which that same level of excess was carried out in the murder and/or mutilation of the perpetrators. It would have been so cathartic to see Substance levels of chaotic gross-out humour in the antagonists' demise. It wouldn't have been inappropriate as maximilist elements were already there from the first frame (glossy camera work, cartoon sound effects paired with extreme close-ups of chewing etc).

Still worth a watch, but bloody frustrating.

Kendrick is a great director- clearly more confident than the material she's working with.
Some absolute standout foreboding scenes and great performances that are unfortunately dragged down by the "second screen experience" brand of film making that Netflix has been aggressively enabling since day dot.

Trim fifteen to twenty minutes off this and we're golden. Settle on *one* protagonist, and either get rid of so much focus put on the TV event itself OR cut right down on the Zodiac-inspired murder vignettes as the two together create a massive focal whiplash that the screenplay needed another draft or two to pull off.

Wonderful to see Pete Holmes playing himself.

Watched on Tuesday October 22, 2024.

No review, just quippy review summaries and/or clickbait titles:

- Jim Henson Studios present 'The Nutty Professor Part 3' starring Demi Moore

- 'The Elephant Man' but what you actually pictured when you found out it was directed by David Lynch and produced by Mel Brooks

- The Anti-Barbie (but with more Kubrick references)

- "America", brought to you by

- "The Male Gaze", brought to you by Women (TM)

- That sicko twisted ass type movie your parents suspect is the only kind of thing you watch (they are correct)

Still conflicted over whether the opening shower scene is deliberately male gaze-y for the sake of subversion or whether it's just male gaze-y because boobs 'n bush.

What a banger, though.

Fede is the king of mid-tier genre films that have one or two stand-out moments or ideas to make them rise slightly above that level.

If this didn't go so hard in the last ten minutes, it'd be an easy 4 or 5 out of 10.
A great set-up with cool world-building and fantastic production design quickly falls into empty "memberberries" lane for most of the middle chunk. There are only so many times I can sit through the same fucking movie.

But that climax. Oh boy. It's funny sitting through a whole film that you're just sort of putting up with, finally to get arguably the moment that justifies its entire runtime. I bet it was also Fede's pitch that landed him the job.

Also, for fuck sake- when will producers and studio hacks work out that creepy AI Renesmee-dead-baby face de-aged monstrosities aren't cool, never were, and will never look remotely good or believable?

Maybe Jim can teach Marvel the importance of an effective climax.

Australian Gothic is SO BACK.

Shades of Wake In Fright, Long Weekend and every hellish kick-on you've ever been to on the Cenny Coast when your mate who really shouldn't drink starts to arc up with his usual shit.
There's a showing once a day for the next week at exactly one cinema in Newcastle, and you have to scroll past a litany of big studio garbage to find this *original Australian film* right at the bottom of the page like a certain cinema chain is ashamed to be showing it at all.

The crew behind this should be so proud that they made a modern indie masterpiece- balancing hilarity and nightmarish surrealism in a way that defies even the genre trappings of "horror comedy" or "psychodrama".
Birdeater's greatest trick is making you feel sick to the pit of your stomach with anxiety at the same time you're laughing along with drunken & r/tooktoomuch shenanigans performed exquisitely by a cast who understand the difference between being a deadshit, a shitcunt and a dogcunt.

My only minor gripe is I would have ended the movie a bit differently but that's really down to a personal preference thing, as I think the one we got is certainly suitable and serves great thematic purpose. It's a rare feat in that a film like this can make some really bold blocking and editing choices, clearly influenced by 70's new wave, not only to pull it off- but to rise completely above any sense of feeling like an experimental student film.

Biggest rug pull I've experienced in quite some time.
Longlegs is scary, hilarious, sometimes downright bad and consistently entertaining the whole way through.

With line deliveries that gradually feel more and more like a Tim Robinson sketch gone too far, hokey plot developments that are strung together by "because it's spooky" logic and a blatant aversion to really being *about* anything under the surface- if Marvel at its best is a good theme park attraction, Longlegs is a brothel where you're allowed to kiss on the mouth.

I'm 98% sure the sheer camp factor and barely surface level exploration of themes functions as both a celebration of 80's VHS bargain bin horror and response to/parody of A24's current brand of "horror = trauma" flicks that these days all seem to have the same third act lean into cosmic or satanic absurdity.

This is the stupidest "elevated horror" film I've seen in quite a while. The backlash is going to be STRONG. People will turn on this one once the hype has died down. It's a colossal disappointment when compared to the effective marketing and I am absolutely convinced that's the joke. Couldn't stop grinning ear to ear.

Great scares, big laughs, wildly underexplained big swings and I absolutely adored every second. Trash is fucking back in a big, bad way.

Had it logged previously as 4/5.
Fuck off, Bray. Maybe the greatest blend of thrills and whimsical adventure ever put to film.

Nobody to this day can pull off these tonal shifts, not even Spielberg himself.

youtu.be/jJ1Qm1Z_D7w?si=-ankg02FCDrpqTp5

^ for those who still think there's anything remotely groundbreaking about this evil shit.

The action in Winter Soldier is undoubtedly superior and this continuation has its fair share of sloppy pacing, effects and frustrating character inconsistencies. Especially when it comes to which "side" some fall on- seeming to be there out of plot necessity rather than consistent motivation.
However, I can't help but feel that the themes are more complex than WS, made all the more interesting ending on a reflective note without clear resolution.

There's an argument to be made either way about who is objectively "in the right", according to the Letterboxd reviews especially, but I think that ultimately reflects the intent of the film. At least here when our leads make stupid decisions i.e. choosing to fight instead of using their words, it's not only indicative of human nature- but how quickly personal biases can inform decisions that affect everything from interpersonal relationships through to international political conflict.

I respect the screenplay balancing essentially dual protagonists or antagonists (depending on your view) despite being a "Captain America" film, even if in title only.
Winter Soldier make have the veneer of a more grounded tone, calling itself a political thriller first and foremost- but it then crumbles under those ambitions every time the movie (by necessity, perhaps) embraces comic book conventions.

Civil War is unashamedly a "theme park movie"- which makes its themes play more like a cautionary tale or parable as it embraces those genre conventions to amplify the melodrama. In the melodramatic, we can explore emotional truth without being bound to the aesthetic of realism.
Sure, at its worst, CA:CW is nothing more than an 8 year old smashing actions figures together. They fight because it's fun to see our favourite superheroes beat the shit out of eachother, but here we are also asked to question the responsibility of those who hold power. By extension- how we hold them able for what lives are lost even when they're working for the "greater good". It's the constant moral conundrum we're faced with when we have no choice but to be reliant on our police or military, who are also susceptible to those personal biases I talked about earlier.

I find this to be a much more compelling "political" examination than the supposedly more realistic earlier instalment that, despite being a superior film in of pacing and action- has much less to question about the nature of government and authority. Winter Soldier treats the concept of "evil in your own house" as a narrative plot twist, whereas for me, Civil War treats it like something that's more of an inevitability when our heroes are free to use their power unquestioned. Fascinating stuff.

My eyes still glaze over a bit in the extended airport fight, but at least the climactic battle not only feels more brutal and intimate- it's also tragic.

Put on as a comfort watch before I went to bed. The action is still super well choreographed for the most part and I think the script does a decent job at being entertaining and pulpy enough to convince you that it's smarter and twistier than it really is, at least as you're watching it.

For as good as the set pieces are, I'm incredibly frustrated by how a good deal of them end in some kind of logic leap that's completely at odds with the more "grounded" aesthetic the film is aiming for. I'm left with the impression that the writers and the Russos just put themselves into a corner, trusting that the audience at large would accept TWO instances of characters escaping a threat by magically cutting a hole in the ground, or surviving a lethal gunshot to the stomach long enough to duke it out for ten minutes, lift heavy things, fall hundreds of metres into a river to drown and then waiting (presumably) another twenty minutes or so to be rescued from the side of said river. It's a very specific kind of plot armour that shits me off.

The paranoid political thriller stuff is a lot of fun, maybe tainted a bit upon the realisation that none of the leads or main ing cast across the franchise are revealed to be anything other than good. S.H.I.E.L.D. is compromised but don't worry- it's only background characters or brand new ones (who toooootally aren't the villain) who are actually revealed to have nefarious intent. I'd be much more interested to see a version of this where someone Cap has known and learned to trust ACTUALLY turns on him.
Bucky doesn't count due to brainwashing and Natasha doesn't count because they dedicate about 5 minutes total to questioning her integrity in the first act before it becomes pretty clear cut that she has double crossing "energy", rather than a genuine desire to actually play both sides.

Watched on Friday June 28, 2024.

You're all on crack if you think this is the best one. I'm all for hot takes and reappraisal but if you honestly think the extended sequences of multiple Johnny Depps on screen is endearing, charming or creative- I really don't know what to say.

Won me over a bit more in the second half when the action kicks up and the plot actually becomes interesting with so many double crosses and betrayals that it's just ridiculous fun- but the script and tonal whiplash just sucks for long stretches. This shit doesn't need to be three hours.

Also, everyone is just stupid now. Will should've dropped Elizabeth at the end of the last movie after smooching Jack and they are seriously incompatible. She acts horrid towards him and then the movie expects us to see his secrets kept from her (just trying to save his dad) as being remotely proportionate to each other. Even when he's resurrected to be captain of the Dutchman, she still just wants to kiss icky Johnny Depp. Could've done without the weird rapey humour in the opening set piece and this sudden shift to everyone lusting after her. I really don't understand the point of that scene where Chow Yun Fat forces himself on her but then they try to make it an emotional beat when he dies 30 seconds later? Just incredibly bizarre.

So yeah. Long and short of it is:
- the action is still great
- I like the spooky lore stuff (most of the time)
- the score rips
- third act is exciting
- put everything else in the bin and cut an hour out of this, you absolute monsters

Oh man, this starts with a real sloppy first act that goes too cartoony in its first big set piece taking place on a cannibal island detour that could have almost certainly been cut...

But from Davey Jones' proper introduction, this is a real fun romp that actually manages to correct its course into more of that spooky lore-heavy and adventurous swashbuckling.

Biggest gripe in the third act is that I really don't buy that Captain Jack is nearly likeable enough to ANYONE to merit "sailing to the ends of the earth" in order to bring him back- especially when there's still that Norrington thread hanging that would provide ample motivation for another pirate adventure.

However, I'll take it on the chin as the double climax of the three way stand-off (and resulting FANTASTIC swordfight) barrelling right into the ship battle is still one of the most inventive action sequences of the 2000's. The CineNation podcast I'm listening to as I keep up with this trilogy correctly pointed out that this is probably the point where the sum of its parts (particularly the direction and performances) begin to outperform the scripts they're working from by a solid margin.

It's a fair bit sloppier in of pacing and structure than "Fury Road", but I was completely won over by the expansion of the Wasteland universe and its cast of freakish characters.

Framing the story as chapters in some sort of Arthurian parable was a welcome counterpoint to the previous film's hyper-focused "one long chase" gimmick, and I think this would have worked even more for me if it tipped it's hat less to the preceding film (I know this sounds strange considering it's a prequel).

As for the callbacks and certain characters reappearing- I could take it or leave it. Miller has crafted a certain looseness to his continuity that implies an unreliable narrator across all instalments, presenting each film as a variation on the same fable rather than a true recollection of events. I think staying true to this mindset, being less bound to the specific shared universe of Fury Road would help prevent comparisons to the ittedly superior action of that film.

Having said that- Furiosa is at its best most of its runtime as we follow the hero's journey in a crazy batshit world of depraved inbred gang with fun silly names, and unforgettable character traits that invoke the spirit of "The Road Warrior".

"That has got to be the best (swashbuckler blockbuster of the early 2000's) that I have ever seen."

Watched on Thursday June 13, 2024.

Watched on Friday June 14, 2024.

Hot fucking garbage. Incredibly insensitive. Pure 90's Australiana rubbish. Someone dies by funnel web TO THE EYE.

2 stars for death by eye spider. Holy shit this was hilarious. Absolutely awful. I will quote this mess forever.

Absolutely bonkers mix of eurotrash influenced 80's exploitation cinema that *almost* has a point to make about the cyclical intergenerational trauma of our indigenous community.

Fascinating to see Australian Gothic subject matter filtered through an Evil Dead/Lovecraftian shlockfest, with nods to The Omen and even some shades of DePalma here and there. I was won over by the visual inventiveness and ambition despite feeling a little inappropriate as to how much the Aboriginal characters are more or less sacrificed to serve a white-centric plot. Points for portraying said characters sympathetically, but we still had a long way to go in granting them protagonist privileges in what ultimately should be a story told from their perspective.

Watched on Thursday May 9, 2024.

1. Sinners
2. The Monkey
3. Lilo & Stitch

Anthologies ranked

1. The Wonderful Story of Henry Sugar and Three More
2. Creepshow
3. Pulp Fiction
4. Monty Python's The Meaning of Life
5. Black Sabbath
6. Sin City
7. Tales from the Hood
8. Grindhouse
9. Twilight Zone: The Movie
10. Tales from the Darkside: The Movie

...plus 6 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

A ranking of sorts for all Dracula adaptations (no matter how loose) that I come across.

1. Bram Stoker's Dracula
2. Nosferatu
3. Nosferatu the Vampyre
4. Dracula
5. Nosferatu
6. Dracula
7. Dracula
8. Drácula
9. Van Helsing
10. Bud Abbott and Lou Costello Meet Frankenstein

...plus 10 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

Anything goes: everything I watched for the first time in 2024 regardless of original release year. In cinema & at home. Updated regularly.

1. The Zone of Interest
2. Birdeater
3. The Substance
4. Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga
5. The Fallen Idol
6. Fresh Air
7. Longlegs
8. Is Now a Good Time?
9. Love Lies Bleeding
10. Late Night with the Devil

...plus 16 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

Updated regularly. Cinema & at home- as long as release dates are 2024 (in Australia at least).

1. The Zone of Interest
2. Birdeater
3. The Substance
4. Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga
5. Longlegs
6. Is Now a Good Time?
7. Late Night with the Devil
8. Love Lies Bleeding
9. Gladiator II
10. Alien: Romulus

...plus 2 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

Folk horror or genre films with a distinct romanticism and/or deconstruction of "Australiana". Some, but not all "Ozploitation" is applicable. Updated regularly.

Criteria clarification: more of a personal preference- but Mad Max, Road Games, Wolf Creek etc are "Ozploitation" but not "Australian Gothic" due to tone, atmosphere and thematic focus.

1. Picnic at Hanging Rock
2. Birdeater
3. Nitram
4. Celia
5. Wake in Fright
6. Lake Mungo
7. Thirst
8. Next of Kin
9. Mystery Road
10. The Nightingale

...plus 7 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

Updated regularly.

1. The Exorcist
2. Picnic at Hanging Rock
3. All That Jazz
4. Don't Look Now
5. Jaws
6. House
7. Harold and Maude
8. Alien
9. Chinatown
10. Dog Day Afternoon

...plus 78 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

Spoops for snoops who want some chills without heart-palpatating thrills (jumpscare free... mostly)

• Picnic at Hanging Rock
• Persona
• Don't Look Now
• Donnie Darko
• The Lighthouse
• Raw
• Pan's Labyrinth
• Jaws
• Jurassic Park
• Army of Darkness

...plus 10 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

I've bent the rules a little, as I will not be watching 31 films. Instead, I have adjusted the rules so that I can tick multiple boxes within a single entry, and whatever number of films is left after I've crossed them all off? Well, that's it.

Rules as follows:

- 6 countries
- 8 decades
- 2 70's regional US films
- 1 Tobe Hooper film
- 1 Stephen King adaptation not the first go round
- 2 insect-centric films
- 5 films by David Cronenberg, Ti West and/or Charles B. Pierce
- 1 worst horror sequel from the 1990s that you haven't seen and can access
- 2 Christopher Lee films
- 1 film with a real life musician or band in it
- 2 animated films
- 1 horror film set in space or the future
- 1 Lon Chaney film
- 1 bloodthirsty old people film
- 1 German silent film

• Don't Worry Darling

  1/10/22- Don't Worry Darling- USA, 2022 (8/8 decades), (1 film with a real life musician or band in it)

• Dracula

  3/10/22 - Dracula- UK, 1958 (6/8 decades), (1/2 Christopher Lee films)

• Picnic at Hanging Rock
• Psycho
• Persona
• Suspiria
• Suspiria
• The Shawshank Redemption