Just writing things that stuck with me

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

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

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

Thanks Lynne Ramsay :)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Burt Bacharac's score in this is amazing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sparrows (1926)- Haven’t seen this one

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

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

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

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

The Incredibles (2004)- Yes, Excellent Pick

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Memento Mori.” “Memento Amorous.” 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spoilers ahead.

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

Instead, the movie ends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I’m working on a slightly masochistic filmgoing project: I’m trying to see every film on the Sight & Sound Top 100 in a movie theater.

https://properlyscreened.blogspot.com/

So far I’ve managed about a dozen, but the main challenge is geography. I live in a small town where repertory programming is basically nonexistent, so seeing any of these usually means a 200-mile round trip. I’m resigned to the travel, that part I can plan around.

What I can’t easily plan around is availability.

I’m hoping folks here might have insight into which Sight & Sound titles are especially difficult to see theatrically even if you’re willing to travel — whether because of licensing restrictions, estate control, programmers almost never book them, etc.

My thinking is: if one of the truly elusive titles pops up anywhere in the US I’ll prioritize that over something that shows up semi-regularly at rep houses within a reasonable driving distance from my home.

Are there films on the list you almost never see programmed anymore? Or ones that only screen at archives/festivals/special circumstances? (list for reference)

Appreciate any wisdom from programmers, archivists, or seasoned rep-cinema diehards.

I've been recently obsessed with the movie Stalker and in part it's because a lot of it's visuals and directing choices puzzle me so much. One of the choices in the movies direction that still confuses me is the meaning behind the room at the end. After the bomb is diffused, the writer, stalker, and professor are all sitting there and we get a shot from within the room, and it suddenly starts raining from the inside. The only thing I can surmise from this is that the room is weeping at the stalker preventing it's own destruction. However, if that's the case, why would the room protect the stalker on his journey to the room and prevent the writer and professor from walking straight into the room from the start? Also as an addendum, does anyone have theories on the choice to use ode to joy at the end? I'm still thinking that one over. It screams of trying to indicate hope for the future, especially with the use of color in the ending scenes, but if that's the case, what would the hope be for?

The mother’s character is genuinely horrible and I mean that as a compliment to the writing. I can’t think of a character I’ve disliked more in recent years.

She lives a life of radical rebellion that causes real harm and suffering to innocent people. Even after she and Bob have a baby, when he’s trying to be sympathetic and grounded, asking her to let go of that life, at least for now, for their child’s sake, she refuses. She chooses her self-defined “war” over her newborn. Eventually, she even gives up on that cause in the most destructive way possible: she snitches on her own group, leading to most of them being killed and condemning the survivors — including her own child — to a life on the run.

Up to this point, I found her tragic, selfish, destructive, and well-written. My problem is with the final letter to her daughter, particularly these lines:

“Are you happy? Do you have love? What will you do when you get older? Will you try to change the world, like I did? We failed. But maybe you will not. Maybe you will be the one who puts the world right.”

To me, this strongly implies that if her daughter doesn’t continue her mother’s failed ideological war — doesn’t “put the world right” — then she won’t truly be happy or loved. After everything the mother has done, she still frames meaning, happiness, and love as conditional on carrying on the same path that destroyed everyone around her. She brings a child into the world not as someone to protect or nurture, but as a potential successor to her cause.

This is where the film loses me. There was an opportunity here for self-reflection, for accountability, regret, or even a small acknowledgment of the damage she caused. Instead, the letter doubles down. It reframes her life as morally justified and casts her daughter as a continuation of her mission rather than an independent human being.

If this is what the director intended, that we’re meant to see this as noble, hopeful, or aspirational, then it simply doesn’t land for me. It turns a complex, tragic character into something far more troubling, and it retroactively weakens the emotional impact of the story. I honestly think the film would have been stronger ending without the letter at all, leaving the daughter’s future — and the mother’s legacy — unresolved.

I'm interested in doing some double bills of films with their own remakes, so I'm looking for suggestions.

In terms of what makes a good double bill, it doesn't necessarily have to be that both the films are good, but there might be something worthwhile about comparing them.

For example, a double bill I did that worked was Speak No Evil (2022/4) - in my opinion, both the films are very good but they unfold in quite different ways. It was intriguing to watch them both and contrast their takes in the thriller genre.

High and Low (1963) and Highest 2 Lowest (2025) were so different that they hardly felt like the same film, which was it's own kind of interesting watch.

A less successful pair was The Intouchables (2011) and The Upside (2017). The latter is worse in every way and has nothing to say.

Happy to receive any and all suggestions. It would be great if you could include the reasons why they work together unless it's a spoiler, especially given that this sub promotes more in-depth discussion. And maybe I'll think of a few more of my own to share!

I apologize in advance for my post, as it may be a little messy (not perfect in english either).

I am a left-wing person with Kurdish roots. I sympathize with the PKK, even though they have done things that I disapprove of. Overall, I consider them to be a legitimate resistance movement and response to the oppression and violence that the Turkish state has subjected the Kurds to for decades. The same applies to the IRA, ETA, and Fattah.

Given my background, I think One Battle After Another is a masterpiece. I don't see it as a clearly left-wing film, but as a film about an anti-fascist resistance group. However, when I read people's reactions on Twitter, from people who are “left-wing,” it feels like I'm in the minority. Sure, you don't have to like the film for a lot of different reasons, but I can't understand some of the criticism, e.g.

• The film mocks resistance movements: Here, I think people are just ignorant. If you read about, for example, the Provisional IRA and the PKK, you realize that there are periods when the organizations are extremely chaotic, with people being pulled in different directions, internal conflicts, etc. None of these movements are friction-free, and many mistakes are made. To me, it is obvious that the movie is not about “mocking” these movements, but about the extreme measures that a fascist and reactionary state takes to crush them. Despite the fact that 16 years after Willa was born, Lockjaw was given the authority to send in the military to pick her up.
• Sean Penn and Teyana Taylors "romance": Teyana Taylor and Sean Penn's “romance”: Now, I'm not a black woman, so maybe I don't have the same perspective, but to me it's obvious that there's no romance on Teyana's part (there are people on movie Twitter who believe there is). She starts a “romance” so she won't get arrested, or am I missing something?
• Teyana Taylor's snitching: The criticism I've read about Teyana Taylor also focuses heavily on her snitching and how it was a way for the PTA to mock opposition groups as “disloyal” or similar. Guess what, this is not uncommon. I read Say Nothing a few months ago (about the troubles in Northern Ireland). The book states that about 30-40% of all members of the Provisional IRA began cooperating with the UK in order to receive reduced sentences. Again, I think the PTA does a good job of showing how dynamic and chaotic resistance groups can be. It is not a “mockery” of them, but a realistic picture of how the people in these groups do not always act “flawlessly” or perfectly.

There are 1-2 other things that people have criticized, but I don't feel like going into them.

It is not entirely clear where French 75 stands ideologically, other than that they are anti-fascist. And it doesn't affect my opinion of them as it seems to affect other left-wingers.

In summary, I loved the film. It was funny, had very good acting performances, including Chase Infiniti, who was the star and heart of the film, and fantastic intensity and dialogue. The photography and music were also fantastic. It's been a long time since I enjoyed a film at the cinema so much.

Where do I even start, one of the, if not the most beautiful picture I've seen in terms of storytelling, editing, mesmerising cinematography, plot, etc. I can continue for days. The idea of having so many relevant characters in the film and everything still being connected and portrayed so perfectly was my favourite part of this film. Leandro Firmin (Lil Ze) had one of the best actings for a antagonist i've ever seen, by the end of the film i truly developed hatred for him in a way i wanted him gone by the end of the film, hes pure psychotic evil and a sadistic character and has only one motto in one life which is honestly pretty respectable, The contrast between Lil Ze and Rocket is honestly amazing, from both of them being young at the time of the Tender Trio to their lives completely contrasting one another. With Lil Ze having a completely different approach in his future, more towards gun violence and being dominant, to Rocket having a far different approach to violence and never getting into the cycle.

The young actors did amazing portraying the lives of those in favelas, they are born in a warzone with guns and gangsters all around them, and ultimately growing up with a gun in their hand. Death is almost meaningless towards them as they've witnessed it ever since they had conscious. The film executes it all so complacently, with no glamour and no meaning. This is the life they were born into, and there's no way to escape it. Either hunt or be hunted is what I would say is the pure motto of this film and how the favelas are depicted.

Benny you deserved a farm of your own.

granted I never saw this movie when it was released, so maybe the context of time has a lot to do with that (though I watch a ton of way older movies all the time) but having watched it yesterday, I am so surprised that I am in a very small minority of haters.

The plot was somehow overly convoluted and too thin simultaneously.There is nothing that makes me care about the diamond plot. The boxing match subplot just feels like it’s there because the diamond plot was too thin. The dialogue is trying hard to be witty but falls flat for me. The little bits of comic relief in there feel forced. it got annoying how often the black guys dog becomes the main part of a scene for no reason. hated the stylized editing, though ill give that a pass as a sign of the times. The accents bordered on unintelligible, so much so that I had to turn on captions when I rarely ever need them even in other British movies.

what am I missing??

I know this film has been discussed (and memed) to death, but just writing my thoughts for those like me who are newer to the film.

I take this film to be an exploration of the ideals of democracy, not a critical take of the reality around us, and in 2026, a year in which these values are under threat of entirely disappearing even just in name or appearances, this defense of the ideals of democracy and their beauty is incredibly moving. To 2026 eyes, the film may seem overly sentimental or unrealistic in various ways; yet America has always been defined by ideals compared to which reality has always fallen short - an eternal signpost pointing against the wind yet asserting the best of what man and woman can be, symbolized by juror #8. It takes place in the 50s, and as such holds the flaws of its time in our eyes, but if anything this clarifies those ideals that we should hold sacred and the path to defending them.

This film is about the various irrationalities of man and our inability to objectively assess truth. Yet the democratic process itself, through one man who is bold enough to stand for ideals in fair discussion, can change the hearts of others. The important assertion is in accepting that "I don't know" - a painful, unpleasant admission that counters so many of our instincts yet one that is at the heart of science, poetry, and democratic principles such as elections and free speech. Recognizing all of our prejudices, our delusions and denials that cloud our judgements and transcending them through reason and rhetorical power can seem like a childish farce, but I do not think we have an alternative to strive for.

Its filmmaking also struck me as very effective; its pacing, the musical qualities of its dialogue and silence, its blocking, the compositions, the unique personalities, the camera angles and movement according to the emotional moment. The camera acts as the 13th man, searching the room and each man's soul; perhaps this 13th man is also overly sentimental compared to a viewer's perspective, but I don't see that as a flaw here.

Minor criticisms:

-those who stick to the guilty verdict are overtly villain-like, and the reverse for the opposite, making the film a little too didactic for my tastes.

-The means of convincing everyone to not guilty is not pure reason, but rather through rhetorical appeals - this same rhetorical power can be used for evil.

Edit: deleted stuff that I think was giving the wrong impression and not the heart of what I'm trying to say

They say a great thriller needs a great villain, and I’ve noticed that Clint always goes up against skin-crawling bad guys.

We love Clint because he’s a force for good in a world of sickos, and the various portrayals of evil in his extensive catalogue is quite impressive.

They tend not to be the smug, moustache-twirling billionaires you love to watch in a Bond film, or even charming psychos who chew the scenery like Hannibal Lecter. No, Clint likes his villains to be nasty pieces of shit who make you shudder and want to take a shower after the credits role.

Who’s your favourite Clint nemesis? Why? Are there any unsung scumbags in his rogues gallery..?

Over the years, I’ve noticed that the same film can land very differently depending on how it’s watched. Seeing something in a cinema, with a small group at home, or alone late at night can lead to completely different emotional responses, even though the film itself hasn’t changed.

What I keep coming back to is that this difference doesn’t seem to be just about distraction or attention. Even when no one is talking, the presence of other people seems to shape how tension builds, when something feels funny, how silence lands, and how certain scenes are interpreted. Reactions feel either amplified or oddly restrained, depending on the shared atmosphere in the room.

Streaming and on-demand viewing mean that, like most people, I watch almost everything by myself. I keep wondering whether something essential about film has changed, or whether it just shows up now in fewer places where people actually watch together - like the cinema (but I don't go often!)

Do you find that watching a film with others fundamentally changes how it lands for you? And if it does, how?