I should have said The Killer's themes were more broadly about a dissatisfaction and ennui with work in general, a structured world with no purpose - that's really the broader theme beyond just being a hitman. But I feel like it could've gone further in exploring that. It wasn't really much depth and he played it too straight overall.

When Evil Lurks, yeah, I sort of thought the opposite of you. I did enjoy it, a nice grisly, dark horror film. But ultimately it just didn't hit me as hard as Terrified, which was just this completely gonzo, wild piece of film and seemed to go way further in immersing you in the pitch black terror of what was going on. But both are well worth seeing.

My main issue with Terrified is that, for a good portion of it, the "evil spirits" were just doing their things in the background, or in the dark corners of the homes where they were doing their stuff etc. or just being "non-lethal" overall, so to speak, and it progessively escalates the closer we get to the end. It was still done very well and way better than the average horror film, and the immersion was indeed great and is very well constructed.

Compared to that, When Evil Lurks starts with hearing gunshots in the night, then the two brothers discovering what they discovered, and then getting to that neighbor's house and chaos ensues. Basically it feels like it starts where another movie (something like Terrified) has just ended.
There's a lot of screaming and shouting (and for me that's the least you could do in terms of communicating in such situations), the characters just don't have the time to explain everything on their way, and the tension was very palpable. I felt that from start to finish. There's a shitstorm coming and they're barely ahead of it and have to act fast or they will meet a grisly end.
I absolutely loved all of that. Although I also expected something else:

I thought Terrified had more focus to it overall. But ultimately it's good that this director is out there giving us some cool unadulterated, badass new horror flicks. I am going to give both another watch soon.

Insidious: The Red Door - Remarkable to see a movie that appears to have no aspirations at all, not to entertain or illuminate or anything... background noise... a movie with no ideas. The horror movie equivalent to beige wallpaper. A movie that exists to be turned on in the background while you check emails and fold your socks. The characters' struggles are the most bare-bones, broad stuff ever, the scares the equivalent to elevator music, with no real gravitas, no danger really felt, no real deeper meaning beyond "here's a scary face." Whole thing wallows in ridiculous self-importance for the story, which is pretty impossible to care about. It doesn't even have the decency to be fun, instead being far too busy trying to tell some incoherent story about family trauma. But the script can't hold the weight of it, and the whole thing feels like hot air. I was exhausted when I was done watching this - what wasted time.

Yeah I didn't like the new Insidious either. The only aspect I kind of enjoyed was the comic relief roommate character.

A scary movie I watched barely a week ago should have at least one scene that stays with me. For Insidious 5 [?] I'm drawing a blank besides "more of the same, except the kid is in college now."

All of those James Wan offshoots to me are just like the MCU of horror; I can't even deal with this anymore. But a friend wanted to try it so I figured why not.

The original Insidious back in 2011 I liked a lot at the time compared to the then-current slate of awful remakes going on in horror. But it didn't age well, wasn't really that good once I saw it on DVD later.

My friend tells me we both watched the third Insidious movie years ago and I have no memory of that... surely a sign of a good movie...

I've heard great things about Godzilla Minus One. I don't think I haven't watched any of the Godzilla franchise in my life before. I'm interested watching the animated series though, the one from the 90's, which I need to try in some point.

My latest film I've watched from The Marvels. The post-credit scene really caught me off guard, I was really surprise. No spoilers.

Frank and Julia. The best aspect of the original Hellraiser is that it is a kink-filled romantic drama that just happens to have horror elements involved. The cenobites are not even the villains and only appear for like 9 total minutes out of 93. The newest Hellraiser also missed so much of what the original story/film(s) so commanding. There was very little sex, very little intrigue but most of all, there were no effective cenobites. The designs were good but they looked far too plastic, whereas in the originals it genuinely looked like pulled mutilated skin.

~ ~ ~

If there is one director I have never understood the obsession people have with is the utterly terrible and overrated James Wan. The guy has made exactly one good movie and that is not only thanks to great actors but is also one of the most cliched stories imaginable. If I had to rate his awful filmography and describe them, they would be:

1. Death Sentence ( *** ) - Considering this is actually Death Wish 2, it really works, but how hard is it to make a traditional revenge flick?
2. Dead Silence ( **1/2 ) - Genuinely creepy at times but saw the twist coming from a mile away
3. Furious 7 ( *1/2 ) - Brain dead story and a terrible film for Paul Walker to go out on
4. Aquaman ( *1/2 ) - The less said about a story of a superhero who talks to fish the better. One could say the film has a turd of a story
5. Malignant (*1/2 ) - Hey James? Dean Koontz called and wants credit for Hideaway and, especially, the Door To December you blatantly ripped off
6. Saw ( * ) - This is by far Wan's worst movie because the story is so laughably bad that it makes incoherent children's stories seem grand and epic by comparison. Truly when people think of Saw they think of the VASTLY SUPERIOR sequels
7. Insidious ( 1/2 )
8. Insidious 2 ( 1/4 )
9. The Conjuring ( -***** )
10. The Conjuring 2 ( WORST MOVIE EVER )

While those movies are all bad for various reasons I will never forgive Wan for spearheading the single worst trend in all of horror, the bloody awful 'supernatural' films. Exorcisms are not real, because spirits (demons/angels) are not real, ghosts are not real thus haunted houses are not real, possessions are not real. Ever wonder why you never see firm atheists get invited to an actual exorcism?

The fact that the films act like they are legitimizing Ed and Lorraine Warren who were nothing but money-hungry charlatans out for notoriety as they pretended to be demon hunters for God bullocks makes me despise Wan even further. No movie has ever pissed me off more than the fucking despicable Conjuring 2. If I had to make a choice between suffering scaphism in a death camp so awful that it made Auschwitz look like a Costa Rica vacation or sitting through that awful fucking movie or its disgusting spinoffs, I would choose the former. That is how much I despise the supernatural horror genre and Wan's despicable application in helping them return to popularity.

It's fine to disagree with prevailing opinion (I've called Halloween '78 overrated many times). But disagreeing with prevailing opinion while insisting the masses are actually on your side is a bit odd.


IMDB ratings show the opposite, with the closest sequels still being a full point lower than the original.
7.6 Saw
6.6 Saw X
6.6 Saw II
6.2 Saw III
6.0 Saw VI
5.9 Saw IV
5.8 Saw V
5.7 Jigsaw
5.5 Saw 3D
5.2 Spiral

Also checked Rotten Tomatoes and Letterboxd. Two sequels (Jigsaw and Saw X) have higher RT audience scores than the first movie. No sequel beats the original on Letterboxd.

The first two Insidious movies are really good but they unfortunately set the scene for this awful subgenre of horror. The "jumpscare-demon-haunted-house" stuff that is not even scary.

I think you misunderstand my point and that could very well be my fault for how I worded it. I realize I am in the minority of people who prefer the sequels to the original but... I was not referring to ratings or Letterboxd scores or whatever else.Saw is a franchise that is so extreme in its delivery that it has always been love it or hate it, but rather you ask a fan ( like myself ) or a critic ( throw a dart ) there is unanimous agreement that the sequels are what people think of. Critics will say the films are nothing but traps when, in reality, most of the films are spent with the characters either talking or they are a police procedural. Obviously there are traps in them and they did get more extreme as the franchise went on but that is one aspect I give the films credit for. Look at how many times people have been horrifically injured or died on the set of movies ( The Crow, Vampire In Brooklyn, Resident Evil 6, even The Dark Knight ) and the biggest reason given for those tragedies are people trying to cut corners and save time/money. Saw on the other hand is a series that, according to critics, was nothing more than people in dangerous, yet ALWAYS practical, traps and were forced to be made within 365 days of the previous ( a situation doubly-filled with a chance for someone to be maimed or killed on set ) and yet not a single death/injury ever occurred. In Saw 5, the most marketable trap is when FBI Agent Peter Straham is in what has been dubbed by fans as the Cube Trap and that was 100% practical, no CGI at all. Scott Patterson had to have his entire head submerged in a box filled with water and act(?) like he was drowning.

I, as a fan, think the saga is superior to any other horror franchise to exist. How many other franchises have the balls to have the villain be triumphant? ( Remember how stupid it was when in NOES 4 Freddy was brought back by a dogs piss despite part 3 evoking Jesus into the equation? ) To have a fully fleshed out story instead of each sequel being both a retread and so shallow it could fit on a single ply sheet of toilet paper? ( How many Puppet Master/Friday the 13th/Halloween/Hellraiser sequels have the exact same script just switching out the characters names? ) Furthermore, how many horror franchises have a realistic premise and mostly stick to that? How many other franchises can have a story with a political bent come 5 sequels in and not feel out of place since healthcare had been at the heart of the story since the very first sequel? How many horror franchises have the big bad(s) going after the police and FBI? Something that is FAR MORE challenging to write than ditzy teenagers ( played by 20-30 year olds of course ) who have the self preservation of a wild turkey in a rainstorm.

I am not trying to die on a hill ( pun NOT intended ) in defense of the Saw franchise and I can poke fun at even my favorite entries ( 2, 3, 4 & 6 ) but, again, rather one is a fan or a critic of the films, when people think of Saw ALL of the elements they mention as either loving or hating, as brilliant or stupid, began or was solidified in the sequels. The ONLY aspect which defined the franchise and originated in the original and not the sequels was its rapid-fire editing during the traps and you know what? That was NOT James Wan's idea, that was actually proposed by editor/future director Kevin Greutert.

~ ~ ~

Do not misconstrue, I can enjoy silly popcorn horror as much as the next person but I cherish horror when it is grounded in reality and about something that can really happen. Take, for instance, The Conjuring or Breakdown? The former is a preposterous ghost story, the latter is a tale of survival when a couple's move across the country goes awry after their vehicle has a breakdown. The films tagline is literally It Could Happen To You and the film is bone chilling ... So knowing I prefer realistic scenarios over brain-bending stupidity I do NOT hate the original Saw because of its shortcomings, I hate it because its premise and concept are realistic yet fails to deliver upon that. Seriously... 2 men awaken in a dilapidated bathroom, kidnapped by a psychopath who forces them to play a game of psychological torment to escape. Know how much of that description is unrealistic? ZERO and, YET, lets compare the opening scene of parts 1 and 2, shall we?

Part 2's opening scene(s) are of a person put in a very realistic and gruesome trap ( which also has no blood or disfigurement mind you ), the drama of a corrupt cop having a spat with his criminally-budding estranged son and a wicked as hell transition to a crime scene that plays out like a police procedural. Absolutely NOTHING about those three scenes are unrealistic in anyway. Now...
Part 1's opening scene is a person waking up underwater, face up, in what would have to have been several minutes. The story literally jumps the shark so hard that it is ejected into Earth's orbit within the opening seconds and yet that is the film people say is superior?

I appreciate the thoughtful response. You definitely know more about this franchise than I do. I've seen 'em all except Saw X, but many of the later sequels I've only watched once and couldn't name any characters beyond obvious ones like Jigsaw and his wife.

We'll have to agree to disagree on this point:


I can't prove this, but my sense is that general filmgoers would associate the Saw franchise with Tobin Bell's character, clever traps, more explicit violence than the typical R rated horror flick, flawed characters who get 'taught a lesson,' and a big reveal at the end. All of which were established in the first movie.

Put differently, I also suspect (again, no way to prove it) if you told mainstream audiences "Describe the final moments of any Saw film," a whole bunch of them would say

Go and see Godzilla Minus One.
Proper movie

I liked the first one in theaters - then it just didn't hold up when I watched it a second time. After that I can't be bothered...

Dream Scenario - The first half of this went by and I was all ready to say this was a top five all year for me. Just a crazy absurdist comedy - the casting of Nicolas Cage seemed to be the cherry on top of everything this weirdo funny-scary nightmare carnival was conjuring up. Creative directing and strange comedic timing. I was into it. Then they get to the second half and it feels like there was a sort of hurried attempt to make it "relevant." I don't think the social commentary in this was thought-through. It's funny because I can tell it isn't supposed to be some sort of anti-cancel-culture rightwinger screed, but it feels like the scriptwriter didn't really take their time and hone and sharpen what this was supposed to be... then, the ending, too, feels rushed and like they didn't know what they wanted you to feel either. But I liked the zest and ambition and style overall. Nicolas Cage's weird face in this will live in your fuckin dreams.

Naga - New Saudi Arabian thriller. Girl goes into the desert for this party and ends up on this vaguely psychedelic crazed chase all through the night... really creative. Stylish as fuck. A fun weird ride, just eye-catching. Kind of loose in some ways, and the first act or so builds up more suspense than there maybe really is in the climax... but it's creative and cool and the lead is good. I like finding interesting things like this.

It's a Wonderful Knife - This whole thing just felt superbly lazy and half-assed. Holiday horror is such a ripe thing and can be done in a lot of cool ways, so it sucks when you get something like this that just doesn't seem excited about anything it's doing. The supernatural premise is sort of skimmed over, the actors aren't given much of anything to work with, and every dramatic element of the story is essentially swept under the rug, rendered ineffectual and sped through as if the director was just aching to go home. You don't get a sense of why any of this matters, and the story and execution are uniformly clumsy. In the last five minutes of the movie, an important character reveals they were thinking of killing themselves on Christmas, and it's sorta just glazed the fuck over. The whole motive behind the killer is absurd. It all just felt flimsy and paper-thin. A waste of time, though some funny parts from how lazy it all feels...

Silent Night- really liked it. Had kind of a Punisher feel to it.

Then you are missing out. William Easton is a great character and his game is one of the series absolute best. I was an active member on the franchises official forum House Of Jigsaw and after Saw 6, both director Kevin Greutert and Easton's actor Peter Outerbridge engaged with fans on the forum. Saw 6 has one of the best scenes in the series that proved just how crucial the fans were.
- One of the oft-repeated lines by fans after Saw 5 was from the opening trap, "Right now you are feeling helpless," and the writers wrote that into the script. THIS SCENE utilizes it and symbolism very well. The building tension as Hoffman paces the room looking for a way out as he undoubtedly knows he will be caught, the double meaning of his line of being anxious about the decoding of the tapes voice goes hard, for sure feeling helpless. It also applies to the other agents because they’re in the room with whom they suspect might be more involved, up to and including being an accomplice. The way Erickson talks about scientific findings regarding uric acid levels and Eccrine gland residue acts as a perfect crescendo of the ever building tension before mayhem ensues. But I suppose that masterclass scene in using symbolism to build tension before exploding with a horrifying evil of Hoffman murdering three people, one of which he sets ablaze while still alive, is inferior to a scene of a person levitating and another throwing squirts of magic water repeating the line, "the power of Christ compels you." Excuse me while I call the Academy Awards.I have been following the series since before the release of Saw 2 and besides the twist ending, everything you listed originates in the sequels. No one knew a thing about Jigsaw from the first film other than his name was John and he fancied himself as different from serial killers, despite being the very definition of one. Clever traps? The original film is 103 minutes and you know how much time is spent on the traps? 9 minutes! 9!!! The film is also inexplicably tame so I am not sure where you are getting more explicit violence from. The original NOES had buckets of blood and that was 20 years prior, furthermore you know what film came out just 246 days before Saw and makes it look like a Sesame Street episode by gory comparison? Passion Of the Christ. That film is nothing BUT torture porn and people were supposedly emotionally wrecked by it despite it being manipulatively shallow and boring. Flawed characters? The first real flawed character in the franchise was Eric Matthews, who originated in Saw 2, the only character in the original one could claim was flawed was Amanda and that is a stretch. Jigsaw is no better than the people he sets up in traps, unless you are talking about hypocrisy.The twist in the original is one of the dumbest and poorest excuses for a twist ending ever put to film. The story is a Whodunit and you know what the number one rule of a Whodunit is? The observer has to be given a fair chance at figuring out the mystery. A good example of a Whodunit would be the board game Clue, ever played it? If so, you would know it is not fair if someone just pulled a random person out of whole cloth and claimed that was the killer. So maybe the Jigsaw killer was Dimebag Darrel, or maybe it was Fred Flinstone, or maybe it was your own front door. The twist has to be something that was right there in your face the whole time, to where when you watch it again knowing the twist, you can point out all the ways in which the film(story) fooled you the first time. A GREAT example of a twist ending is 2009's The Uninvited. I knew the film had a twist ending and it still completely fooled me. The killer in Saw was just some guy laying in the background the whole time and, with that, I feel the need to write something on this... Obviously you can skip this next part if you want but it needs to be spelled out to strengthen my original post about how awful James Wan's movies really are.

~ ~ ~

I saw the original film in 2005, before the release of Saw 2, when me and my closest friend watched it. He loved the movie and brought over the DVD, talking about how much I would like it because of its 'realism'. About 35-40 minutes in or so I turned to him and said, "I bet you I know who the killer is not," and when he asked I answered, "the guy on the floor." ... Now my friend paused the movie and with better acting than ANYONE in the film claimed he only paused the movie because he did not want me to miss anything and kept a poker face in that he did not lead on I had correctly guessed the ending. He asked why I thought that and my exact response was, "No one would be stupid enough to write that because NO ONE could ever pretend to be dead that long."

Seriously, the film's story takes place over 8+ hours and Jigsaw never once had to fart? Never once had a really irritating itch on like his foot or something? Never did the pathogens in the air make him have to sneeze? Laying face down for long periods of time is a bastard on ones bladder and yet he never had to take a piss? He is also laying in a water substance atop a concrete floor. Both Gordon and Adam were electrocuted BY HIM ( proving he was conscious the whole time ) and the ONLY possible way they could have been would be through their shackles, which were always on the floor. Jigsaw should have been at least jolted by the electrical current since both concrete and water are electrical conductors.

Zepp is worst red herring in the movie by far, perhaps in horror history. Try to see where I am coming from with this here. The whole time the film wants you to believe he is the Jigsaw killer, which I did not believe for a split second. He commits the acts of kidnapping and attempted murder, aggravated because he is using a weapon. That is two felonies with one of the victims being a young minor. You do realize that those charges would bring about a life sentence, right? There would have to be some pretty powerful dirt on you to make you do that, right? Yet the ENTIRE motivation for doing something THAT illegal was that Jigsaw had poisoned him. He could have done ANYTHING else instead of what he did, yet I know some will claim he did not have enough time, but... ...It was, again, after 8 hours and he still has the strength to fight off a woman, get stabbed in the outside of his knee with a pair of scissors, get in two shootouts with a cop ( with a high speed chase in between those ) and then get into a physical fight with 6'5 Danny Glover before winning, and then opening a very heavy door to the bathroom. That sound like someone who is barely able to live due to a poisoning?

He could have gone to an ER with his evidence(see: cassette tape) and informed the police officer that is ALWAYS on duty there. Considering he would now be a direct link to the cities notorious serial killer, the hospital would there ( or after transporting him to a poison control clinic ) give him the greatest care imaginable. Within 3-4 hours they would have identified what he was poisoned with and EXACTLY which antidotes were needed to inoculate him. But I suppose none of this would have occurred to him to do, considering... HE WORKS AT A FUCKING HOSPITAL!

~ ~ ~

See what I mean about how unforgivably stupid Saw 1 is? NONE of the sequels besides Saw 7 EVER had that much brain-bending stupidity, in fact they were mostly very intelligently written. So as I said people often think of aspects that were introduced in the series ( a la rapid editing to exhibit raw emotion, signaling out a corrupt police precinct, multiple victims in a 'game' needing to work together to survive, one person being responsible for the lives of others in traps, incredible transitions and traps befitting of the persons perceived evil, etc... ), rather that is because they love them or hate them. Find them smart or dumb, find them entertaining or boring. James Wan made a terrible movie that had just enough of an original idea that the producers found a different director ( Darren Lynn Boussman ) in order to spice it up and make it more appealing. This has been my entire argument that even if you love and worship on the ground of Saw, the series belongs much more so to Boussman or Greutert than it EVER did to James Wan.

These are my twenty favourite movies released in 2023: https://www.imdb.com/list/ls562434076/

1. Last Suspect (People's Republic of China)
2. A Guilty Conscience (People's Republic of China)
3. Ride On (People's Republic of China)
4. Ransomed (Republic of Korea)
5. Gran Turismo (South Africa & Japan)
6. Cyber Heist (People's Republic of China)
7. Godzilla Minus One (Japan)
8. John Wick: Chapter Four (United States of America)
9. Mission: Impossible - Dead Reckoning, Part One (United States of America)
10. Raging Grace (United Kingdom & Republic of the Philippines)
11. Past Lives (South Korea, Canada & United States of America)
12. No More Bets (People's Republic of China)
13. A Haunting in Venice (United Kingdom & United States of America)
14. Expend4bles (United States of America)
15. The Creator (United Kingdom & United States of America)
16. The Hunger Games: The Ballad of Songbirds and Snakes (United States of America)
17. Under the Light (People's Republic of China)
18. Rebound (Republic of Korea)
19. Creation of the Gods I: Kingdom of Storms (People's Republic of China)
20. Full River Red (People's Republic of China)

Chinese cinema has been particularly excellent this year!

Leave the World Behind - Just vacuous. It tries to lean into an air of seriousness as a "plausible" end of the world movie, but without substance of any kind. The plot circles around some conspiratorial reasoning behind what's happening, even hinting at some parallel to real life that might be Saying Something, but it's all hints. "There's definitely SOMETHING going on," it says with a knowing wink, but it's a smokescreen, there's never an actual stance taken on anything. It's the veneer of importance and class but it's hollow inside. Wasn't this the same fucking guy who did MR. ROBOT? What happened? Because of the self-serious "sophisticated" air it's also turgid and avoids any genuine visceral excitement or action. Characters, dialogue, etc are all forgettable, with even the attempts at developing them falling flat because they just say exactly what they mean with no obfuscation or complexity, and any conflict is just surface-level. It's all so dull and yet it seems to take up so much space.

While watching Leave the World Behind I was quite into it. I liked the suspense and all and was waiting for something else to happen at the end of it. There were some vague hints here and there there might be some otherwordly forces at play, or something like that (I've seen Mark Kermode's review before and he mentioned Annihilation and I absolutely love that movie). So I was thinking all of this will be going into that direction but nope. I was disappointed, but I still enjoyed it while it lasted, though I won't be tempted to see it again now that I know that all of that builds up for nothing basically.


What about The Wandering Earth 2?
I've seen the first one when it came out and thought it was nice, nothing exceptional or anything groundbreaking but it had a lot of stuff going on that was cool.
Then I've seen so many positive reviews for the second one and people said it was much better than the first and that was true. It basically opens with a 30 minutes epic battle scene that's going wild in many ways, it was just awesome.
Everything was going well during the first 2 hours. The Chinese "we're the only good guys who truly care about humanity" message was there but it was tolerable (and it's also a nice change from the usual same thing with American movies), but the last hour was basically just that and it started becoming tedious with all the sad music and slow scenes and that Chinese diplomat guy giving lessons on humanity on every opportunity.
Another issue I had was with the non-Chinese dialogue. At first I thought it was just horrible dubbing and that's fine I guess as long as it was kept for stuff that's not crucial, but then it seemed to me like those dialogues were actually made by AI and not just poor dubbing? I mean, hearing the "American guy" always talking in the same angry tone no matter what, sure, that's politics I guess, then hearing some oddly spoken things in French here and there, OK, whatever. But at some point there was also someone speaking in Classical Arabic in that United Nations thing in the movie and just, no. Arabs don't speak in Classical Arabic like that, especially not if they come from the same country or region. So with those 3 language uses combined (and there are other languages used but I only know these 3) it seemed very weird to me and I'd really like to know if it was AI or just horrible dubbing.
Besides those issues, the movie was still fucking awesome, at least for its first 2 parts.

^ The Wandering Earth is a movie I've actually seen before. I wasn't even aware there was a 2nd one. I'll have to watch that one if I can.

The last movie I tried to watch was the new "Barbie" movie....It was stupid to me, so half way through I just cut it off and watched something else...

Man this was just awesome. I didn't hear about it anywhere before, and I certainly didn't expect to see a good psychedelic movie coming from an Arab country, let alone Saudi Arabia in particular. And the depiction of the use comes from someone who really knows how these things work. When I saw the guy getting out the 2 cups, I immediately thought about mushroom tea, then I thought, no way, this has to be alcohol or something, the story is in Saudi Arabia after all. Then an hour later or so the guy asks the girl if she's starting to feel something and oh, that was not alcohol.

I went in expecting a horror thing. You know, something very usual like a crazy zombie camel chasing people in the Saudi desert, but it was something else. The comedy was excellent, and although it seemed to build towards that horror side during the first part indeed, at some point it went into a different direction, and I much prefer that than the zombie camel route I was thinking about. And again, the comedy was on point. I had a lot of fun with the dialogues given the situations, and how much trouble the girl is risking.

I'm mostly fine with the lack of explanation, and my theory is that military AI started everything, something like a more realistic version of Skynet... and since Sam Esmail (director) is the author of Mr. Robot, that theory makes even more sense. But, I would agree that movie is much more interesting at first sight, and it's not something I'd rewatch soon (if ever).

The Beekeeper- if Jason Statham did a John Wick movie. Loved it.

I watch the original Lethal Weapon movie after a long, long time (probably saw it in 90's last time). I was surprised I still enjoyed it a lot. I have no intention to see the remake.

Zone of Interest was really harrowing. Jonathan Glazer makes these unforgettably disquieting things. I maybe liked 2013's Under the Skin more, a more fluid, surreal nightmare, but this was so unflinching, so cravenly malignant. A real tour de force.

American Fiction, not into it. Found it to mostly be preachy without real substance. It kept going off in odd directions and never seemed to find an emotional core. Just annoyed me.

^ ZiI trailers are all I've seen and I do not know if I want to watch that movie.

I've now seen 11 of the 39 features nominated for an Oscar this year. I've only seen 1 of the 15 shorts thus far. Hoping to complete the Deathrace this year, as I missed out last year because I spent too much of the beginning of the year out of the country.

So far, the two run-away favourites for me are Past Lives and The Holdovers.

It's not "fun" but it's a really powerful, bizarre experience. I love horror movie, and this went as far as you can get with a certain morbidity and terror - a very real terror.

Lots of good stuff in the Oscars this year. Several of my favorites got nothing - Asteroid City, Priscilla, May December, all wonderful, rich experiences.

I guess I couldn't have expected Skinamarink to get up there. Oh well.

May December did get one nom: Original screenplay.

Okay, I will (check) Zone... out when I want to get fucked up. I was meant to go see Asteroid City in a theater, but sadly missed it. Wes Anderson knows how to make eye-striking movies, and they are often thought-provoking. Is it as "Fallout: New Vegas" as the trailer made me think it is?

Role Play. Don't bother. Super formulaic female-secret-assassin-but-also-family-woman movie without a real payoff. It was billed as part comedy but I didn't laugh once. Fight scenes were mediocre. Kaley Cuoco is a great actor but the script failed her here. Bill Nighy was the best part of the movie. 3/10

Wrath of Man. Also don't bother. A brooding Jason Statham doesn't work here. The end was very disappointing; was hoping for more of an action sequence but never got it. I like Jason Statham but this isn't his best. 4.5/10

Bullet Train. A huge surprise for me. Everyone played their role great. It was action, heart, and loads of comedy all in one. Kept me enthralled all the way through. Brad Pitt played his role great and I loved the banter between Tangerine and Lemon. 8/10

I completely agree about Bullet Train.

Went into it with zero expectations or really knowing anything about it and loved it.

Saw dune part 2 in imax. Needs to be seen on the biggest screen/sound system.

Haven't seen a movie in theaters since the B&W version of "Godzilla: Minus One". A stellar movie in any color (or lack thereof) and more than worthwhile even for non-fans of the Godzilla series.

Just wanted to plug this movie's greatness, which like the last 3 or so posts about it I'm sure will be ignored. Now the rest of you can get back to echo chambering over James Wan or giving a hand job to the latest fart-smelling quasi-indie thriller.

What a needlessly confrontational comment for no reason.

Drive Away Dolls was cool - a nice light-hearted crime comedy type thing. My kind of seedy, raunchy fun... Ethan Coen still has his eye for how to tell a story like this and the actors sell it well.

Dune: Part 2 was an improvement over the first. Best Villeneuve in several years now - he leans more into what used to work for him and makes a really dark, punishing, dire story. Really visually impressive - hypnotic and weird. Good telling of the book.

Percival Everett's Erasure upon which "American Fiction" is based is one of my favorite novels. Just a brilliant satire that chews on culture and philosophy mercilessly. Highly recommend. This garbage adaptation irritated the fuck out of me. Jason England, whose critiques I love to read came through with a shining piece;

https://defector.com/american-fiction-a ... imentalist

Zone of Interest (the Martin Amis novel is also really good) was my favorite film from last year. Jonathan Glazer stays masterful at his craft.

I'll have to try the book then. It seemed like there was something there, but the movie filtered it through a really toothless, shallow satire that was more fitting of bourgeois liberals looking to laugh at inoffensive nonsense. Shame since there was some talented enough acting in there.

Just re-watched Mishima: A Life in Four Seasons. Beautiful and savage stuff. Portrait of a kind of deranged mindset that we've seen reoccurring in many forms before and after - extremism filtered through art, and artistic sensibilities taken to some logical extreme. Panoramic and fragmented, a film with a billion ideas all done well.

Bought this on DVD - bringing fucking physical media back... also bought Kill List, another recent favorite. Watching that soon too.

Wrote about Kill List: https://letterboxd.com/griffin1991/film/kill-list/

Not a lot of surprises at the Oscars last night. I think it's been the worst kept secret that Oppenheimer would win the big one.

I ended up seeing almost every film nominated in all categories (Including all 15 shorts) and my clear and far-away favourite was Past Lives, but I knew it had no shot of winning. The three wins that bothered me the most were Giamatti not winning best actor over cillian murphy, War is Over winning best animated short (Ninety-Five Senses or Pachyderme were both so much better) and Henry Sugar winning live-action short (I truly believe it won based on names alone. Almost every live-action short was better than it.)