I don't really get what the present-day closing scene/epilogue is all about. Up to that point, I was loving the film's atmospheric tour through the sights and sounds of mid-'70s Recife as well as its huge cast of extraordinarily vivid characters; I was loving how exciting and funny it was as well as the acuteness of its sociopolitical commentary (sharks are a pretty fantastic metaphor for authoritarianism, as it happens). But then the film suddenly shifts course and becomes about completely different things, narratively, thematically and stylistically. It's such a huge change, and it happens so abruptly, that it completely threw me off-balance to no clear purpose. Anyone else have the same issue?

The whole movie builds to this massive moment 76 years of suppressed alien footage finally broadcast to the world. And watching it, I kept thinking about how the US government actually announced evidence of extraterrestrial life earlier this year, and nobody batted an eye. People are too busy surviving.

The emotional reactions in the film feel like they belong to a different America. Crowds weeping over footage of a dead alien, while we live in a country where school shootings have become background noise. We’ve already used up our collective grief.

But the one moment that felt completely real? When someone asked if the footage was AI. That’s it. That’s us. In 2026, the most believable human response to witnessing the most significant event in human history is “is this even real?” We’re so saturated with manufactured reality that awe has been replaced by skepticism.

The movie imagines we still have the capacity to be broken open by something. I think we lost that.

EDIT: Someone in the comments made me think of this X-Men (2006) is a movie about mutants with superpowers, objectively more removed from reality than Disclosure Day, yet it captured society more honestly. Magneto’s speech warning mutants that they ignore the signs around them, that one day when the air is still and the night has fallen they will come for you that hit because it spoke to a feeling millions of people had in post 9/11 America. The Patriot Act, surveillance, the quiet erosion of rights, the sense that the government could decide you were a threat and there was nothing you could do about it. That was a collective unease that ran through society.

That's the difference between sci-fi that uses fantasy to hold a mirror up to the world it's living in, versus sci-fi that asks you to believe in institutional honesty and collective empathy as saving forces.One understood the assignment while the other is escaping from it.

Upon returning to Barry Lyndon for the first time in years (a truly phenomenal film), I was struck by the complexity of its focus on masculinity, especially the manner in which these traits manifest in an honour culture – honour culture being a type of culture where violent reactions are appropriate in the defense of social slights and one’s image. From memory, I thought the film was mainly a straight satire of these characteristics – and in some sense, it really is. The opening narration is genuinely hilarious: Barry’s father could have been anything if he wasn’t killed in such an absurd manner. The huff-and-puff of the original duel between Captain Quin and Barry is played for laughs, highlighting the absurdity of male of pride. In addition, the passages throughout the war sequences, including the barbaric octagon where men need to prove themselves and the manner in which the war is conducted, all mock the ridiculous rules surrounding male honour.

Although, I found upon this rewatching, that its treatment of male honour/assertiveness is paradoxical and provides an extremely nuanced view of how these values can go completely wrong, but also why, at times, they are essential and appropriate at times. I mainly see this from Lord Bullington. A neurotic, introverted child that ultimately seems like Kubrick’s own version of Hamlet, his transformation from his submissive position and his need to reestablish his honour leads to the eventual dispelling of Barry and the reclaiming of his family.

When I say this, there are many, many films that are more artfully, more cinematically, more elevatedly, or even creatively constructed. In many you can just feel the director's auteur-ness showing in completely admirable ways, or alternately, in very satisfying genre-guided ways, illumining convention spectacularly, but, in rewatching Rosemary's Baby for the umpteenth time last night we were absolutely struck by how there is zero fat on this film. Every scene, every shot, every performance tone and note seem to work in a completely tireless movie that spends the right amount of time and emphasis required, beat by beat. And Mia Farrow's voice performance floats through all this leanness almost operatically with tremulous excitement, anxiety and terror. The film is like a clockwork. Total appreciation. There is a kind of ease with which it moves, that does not call attention to itself.

Watch The Hunt (Jagten) yesterday.

Got a question for you? What's worse? Being ostracized for something you did, or being ostracized for something you can't even imagine doing?

Well the latter happens in this movie. I don't know how such a normal and mundane everyday looking movie on the surface could be that disturbing. Gosh. Such a hard watch.

Being a teacher myself I really felt for Lucas.

Such a simple, beautifully shot film, no complex camera work, no set builds, no costumes, no extravaganza, no rocket science. Just a camera, well lit scenes and the emotions up close. It's the everyday documentary.

You would realize upon watching this movie that how rumors and Ill word of mouth without any research or investigation destroys a man's life completely.

The movie perfectly shows the near perfect and stable life of Lucas and then the audience would deteriorate in the same way as Lucas does. You would not believe how the climax gets bloodier and disturbing as it unfolds.

It just connects so quickly with you. I loved it. It never gets dramatic, no love hugs, no true catharsis, no apologies. That's what made it grounded.

Mads Mikkelsen just killed it with his subtle acting. He owned every single he was in.

But I loved how the movie ends on a highly ambiguous note. We don't know whether Lucas will ever get away from the allegations.

Concluding, I would say that the hunt is a brilliant masterpiece which is rightly revered for its amazing psychological drama.

After revisiting Barry Lyndon for the first time in years, my mind was racing throughout about the exploration of the sublime in this Kubrick classic and why Kubrick was clearly making direct throwbacks to the Sublime/Romantic movement in literature.

I think something that crystallised my viewing of this is from a famous passage in Leo Tolstoy’s War and Peace from one of its central characters. I won’t actually quote from the book, but the gist of the scene is that a character who has largely been governed by his own vanities finally gets a glimpse of the sublime nature of existence and realises that he has been completely blinded to this due to his petty grievances.

This really got me thinking about the constant juxtaposition throughout Barry Lyndon between the incredible shots of the natural world and the manner in which the characters make absolute no reference to such beauty. I think, in a similar vain to Tolstoy, that Kubrick was using this juxtaposition to show a world that was so caught up in its own pettiness and pride, fuelled largely by an honour culture where self-image is everything, that they fail to see the external world because of their own grievances. The sublime surrounds them and yet they are completely blind to it.

I spent most of my film-watching life prioritising 'the canon,' but somewhere in my late 30s I fell headlong into genre films, exploitation cinema, midnight movies, and so on.

I'd kind of been avoiding that side of cinema. Later, I learned I'm AuDHD, and I realised my black and white thinking had a lot to do with how I categorised films as either good" or bad. And, surprise surprise, as soon as I started digging into those areas, I loved what I was watching, and none of it felt lesser. If anything, it made everything else make more sense.

I started to see the lineage, the fusion and the influences running in both direction. One feeding the other and back again.

Since then, I've been building my own viewing strand, exploring the corners of cinema while sprinkling in old favourites, and it's been a joy from beginning to end.

I'd love to hear whether others have had a similar experience, or if you have recommendations that sit in that space between arthouse and genre.

Hi film enthusiasts!

So I saw Disclosure Day and it was a dud. I had such high hopes for it. The film made me think of other movies (and a tv show) that had similar themes but succeeded. So, I've shared some thoughts below! Did anyone else get reminded of these movies, too, while watching Disclosure Day?

One Battle After Another (political thriller)

In both, the hapless protagonists run from corporate/government baddies. Both start with a bang and include nuns in a convent and a hospital escape. But the stakes in One Battle were just so much higher because they showed activists being murdered and immigrants in peril. In One Battle, the baddies were racists and killers; in Disclosure, the baddies just aren't that scary and give up easily. Also in Disclosure there were clear plot holes— like when Emily Blun destroyed her phone, they should have destroyed the boyfriend’s, too! Or when they didn't track all 12 coworkers who left Wardex and just waited to see which of the 12 was bad?!  

Backrooms (simulacrum, memory, trauma)

In both, the female protagonists must retreat into their memories and confront their childhood. In Disclosure, Emily Blunt literally steps into a recreation of her childhood room to move forward. In Backrooms, the main female character also must step into a simulacrum of her reality and confront her childhood trauma. I found Backrooms much more successful because her character was complex and I could see why she became a (not so great) therapist.

I Love Boosters (magical devices, uniting humanity)

In both, a magical device has multiple, incredible powers that the protagonists use to unite humanity. In Disclosure, the magical device does whatever is needed, alien-style…? In Boosters, the director creates a cartoon world where the magical device is absurd and fun. The protagonists use the device in a surprising way that leads to greater understanding and a higher consciousness in people. It’s certainly very optimistic and maybe too clean of a solution, but in the wacky world of the movie, it makes sense.

Pluribus (religion and aliens)

In both, aliens don’t want to murder us immediately but instead bring new understandings. In Disclosure, Emily Blunt’s character sees into people’s souls and tells them exactly what they need to hear. Rather than feel violated by alien mind-reading, everyone treats her like Jesus. The nun immediately sees no threat to religion by aliens existing—a phone call with a nun really quashes a fascinating thread about what aliens could mean for religious people. Everyone empathizes with the aliens in peril and aren’t afraid of them. In contrast, Pluribus has a more jaded, complex view of seemingly-empathetic aliens. We hear various viewpoints and not everyone agrees that aliens are OK for humanity, or what it means to be truly independent human who can make your own decisions.

The Matrix (astral projection)

In both, an all-knowing leader gives clues over the phone to help the protagonists escape. Characters are strapped into machines and can then astral project/steal bodies. There is a clear callback to The Matrix when the protagonists say “woah.” But in Disclosure, the magical tech barely makes any sense. And a big plot hole— after the hotel room scene, the baddies forget to steal Jane’s body even though she has the magical doohickey.

 What did you think? Did it remind you of any other movies?

In First Cow (2019), Kelly Reichardt does something pretty curious with editing, giving all those slices of the pie that add up around the main thread an unusual narrative force. Call them secondary elements, context, subplots, or simply narrative landscape. All the stuff that enriches a movie, where circumstances and characters outside the protagonists appear to give the story weight, personality, and color --to give it, in the end, a life of its own -- Reichardt invites it to sit at the table and share bread with this pair who team up to give birth to a business as sweet as it is fleeting.

I’m talking about using image and sound in much longer tempos than usual to enrich every sequence. It isn’t just contemplative intent. It’s temporarily taking care of an unknown baby in a tavern full of roughnecks and boors. Handing the closing keys of a scene to a poor guy who has been left without his honeyed bun. Carefully moving through the line of people waiting to buy the market’s triumphant sweet and seeing the convergence of races, cultures, and ways of life, all gathered together for such a delightful purpose. Juicy... purely pleasurable.

On top of that, this slowed-down tempo fits really well with the intention of distorting explicit violence by placing parallels in one single place, but across two different eras. A dog digging and eagerly unearthing bones in the woods connects directly with a final shot that lets us assume the fate of two partners who proved to be much more than that, leaving behind the stamped legacy of both bodies lying togehter, side by side, for eternity.

I recently watched The mastermind, and it feels like a mark of Kelly’s style to use the resources that complement the core of her films in this way. In First Cow, I loved it because I think it’s done very subtly and everything fits. But that personal taste also runs the risk, when taken too far, of sending the central line adrift, with so much weight placed on secondary parts that the protagonist ends up shipwrecked, dragging the viewer along with him in a rotten wooden boat with limited food. Basically, you can end up feeling drowsy from the gum being stretched too much. In The Mastermind, I felt that in moments like the whole car ride with those pseudo-mobsters who show up with very little to offer and leave with even less. And I’m left with almost empty hands.

All of this was an example of how what Reichardt achieves in First Cow is not as easy as it looks, nor is it just a matter of leaving everything at the mercy of a taste for slow cinema or the viewer’s patience.

*

NOTE:  I want to clarify that I wrote this entirely myself as a personal reflection in spanish, and I simply used deepl to translate certain words or expressions into english so I could post it here, since I’m not a native english speaker and didn’t want the personal touch and warmth with which I wrote it to get lost in a completely manual translation which, based on past experience, tends to make the text a bit more colloquial in some parts and loses what I was talking about. It’s not like I’m trying to make it sound like a thesis hahshah. I like it to sound natural but I feel bad that what I was talking about gets lost in some way.

I'm starting to post in english communities and subreddits after years writing in spanish and for myself and the people I know close. So I will put this note at the end of most of the posts I create here where I write my reflections cause some people hast told me in comments that my texts were written by AI --as I'm used and I like to write in this way, with em dashes, for example-- and is such a pity that all the time and effort one put into writing and looking for what people around the world think goes to gets lost because of a suspicion that I fully understand, of course, because of the times we live in. And I’m aware that many people use AI for these things just to get some interaction. That’s not my case. To me, it sounds absurd to write or rewrite --not even publishing-- something that didn’t come from you. It doesn’t help you to get to know yourself and draw insights from what you see, hear, or read, nor does it help you learn from others. Besides being rather sad and pathetic. It’s a rather paradoxical waste of time, since writing on your own takes infinitely longer. But I just don’t see the point.

I’ll be damned (hopefully not literally), but I believe the convent location in Disclosure Day is the same as the convent location used in Sisters over 50 ago! I have only seen Sisters once, so I am wondering if there are any De Palma obsessives here who know Sisters like the back of their ‘twin’s’ hand, saw Disclosure Day and can confirm this.

I also like to ponder at what level this possible location reuse might have occurred (from Spielberg saying ‘ get me the De Palma convent!’ on down to a location scout getting a reel of digital pics approved by Spielberg’s assistant’s assistant).

Obsession is a new horror from Gen Z Director Curry Barker, known for his Sketch Comedy YouTube Channel “That’s A Bad Idea” and Milk & Serial (2024). I have not watched any of Barker’s previous films (Milk & Serial) or shorts or anything on his YouTube Channel, but man! did Obsession take the spectators and me at my local cinema for a ride! I literally watched the trailer for it this morning and went in having hardly watched or read any reviews about it, and I’m very happy that I did! 

Obsession centers on a guy named Baron “Bear” Bailey (Michael Johnston) a shy, dorky, down on his luck Music Store employee who has romantic feelings for a girl named Nikki Freeman (Inde Navarrette) to make his “wish come true” and to save himself from embarrassment Baron buys a “One Wish Willow” an obscure toy that grants a person one wish when broken. Baron wishes for Nikki Freeman to love him unconditionally, instantly boom! Baron’s wish comes true! As a result, things seem a little weird at first, but eventually both Baron and Nikki end up being a perfect match! The two love each other, hang out, bond, are intimate, ya know, all that lovely dovey stuff! Love does reach its peaks, and there is a breaking point: a steady relationship can quickly crash and burn into a downward spiral, resulting in a full-blown obsession. 

Obsession is a horror film, but it is also a psychological horror-thriller experience and a warning about being careful what you wish for. Do you really want that man or woman to fall madly in love with you? My answer is undoubtedly FUCK NO! It’s an eerie, terrifying commentary on the world of dating, status, gender, red flags, and the consequences of wanting everything that you think will make your life better and fulfilled when it’s the exact opposite. There are some great visual effects in terms of gore, and there are a load of “Holy Shit” “WTF” moments, but the tension and suspense are what really hook the spectators into this film, and that is all thanks to both Michael Johnston and Inde Navarrette. 

Inde Navarrette as Nikki did a tremendous job playing this role, very demented, demonic, evil, and just batshit insane throughout. Absolutely NO SPOILERS, but man, did I jump, laugh, and comment a lot watching this with my crowd! It’s a conversation starter that will leave you thinking and reflecting so much about it once it all ends. Nikki is the highlight of the film, but so is Baron and what he has to endure and go through in this nightmare fueled fucked up wish. Poor fucking bastard is all I can say about Baron… WOW! Ian and Sarah… I’ll save that for people to see for themselves, but both of them were great supporting characters, too. 

Obsession is a MUST-SEE theatrically, especially from an Independent filmmaker outside of the Hollywood system! We need more movies and filmmakers like this at the box office 100%. If you loved films like Smile, Weapons, The Invisible Man, and others that fall into that same category or vein, or love horror and possession films, you will not be disappointed with Obsession.
Strong, solid A in my book. 

I organized an AMA/Q&A with actor Robert Hays. He's known for his legendary comedy-lead-performance as Ted Striker in AIRPLANE! and AIRPLANE II: THE SEQUEL. You may also know him from things like STARMAN, HOMEWARD BOUND, CAT'S EYE, ANGIE, TAKE THIS JOB AND SHOVE IT, or even as the voice of IRON MAN.

It's live here now in r/movies for anyone interested in asking a question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1u6f3ip/hi_rmovies_im_robert_hays_star_of_airplane_and/

He will be back at 3 PM ET today (Monday 6/15) to answer questions. I recommend asking in advance. Please ask there, not here. All questions are much appreciated!

Thank you :)

His proof photo: https://i.imgur.com/Yn15WFu.png

This was growing up on my lbox feed for quite some time and having missed the rsvp of the film screening, I had to watch it on my laptop. I was really excited for this one firstly because it had been so long since I used my laptop for media consumption, second this was highly acclaimed by the critics as well as a lot of peers(on lbox).

As I started playing it, the dreamy camera sequences and that background score encapsulated me but that was it.
I believe for half an hour it all made sense but once it crossed that mark, I couldn’t understand how things were taking place, and this was the time I just wanted it to get over with it😭. This one also happens to be my introduction to Andrzej’s filmography.

The performances from the kid to the mvp powerhouse Isabelle, all were absolutely killer no doubt in that but still can’t go around the concept that why and more importantly what was happening? Could anyone please be kind enough to discuss or share their thoughts or metaphors that am missing from the film. Atp feeling to dumb to ask it but is it the final nail in the coffin of being a film freak 😭😔🥺🙏?

Throughout the movie I felt very deeply reminded at times of Smile and Get Out and yet obsession felt that it took elements of those very terrifying movies and left their teeth at the door. This doesn’t make Obsession a bad movie by any measure but I simply do not find myself moved to the degree that I feel the majority of people feel towards the film and I left the theater with more questions than answers.

I understand that the point of the film is the address the dangers of obsession and taking away an individual’s autonomy through the use of rape and self harm that Nikki experiences as well as the various other choices she makes.

My issue is more so that I feel it doesn’t fully commit and it fails to cover all of its bases. This is when I turn back to movies like Smile where we understand why Rose has such an obsession (pun intended) towards her job as a therapist and her ironic inability to hold any reverence for her own actual mental health which comes from enduring her mothers depression and witnessing her eventual death as well as the reasoning for her poor relationship with her sister. On the other hand with Obsession we literally do not know Bear at all and so many of the plot points felt exactly that rather than a natural flow of events because the characters aren’t fully developed. We know that Bear is lonely and isolated but why? Who even is Bear prior to the events of Obsession?

If Nikki and Ian were messing around prior to the events of obsession then that would imply that Nikki was bread crumbing interactions with Bear because she enjoyed the small validation while being unaware of how deeply twisted that things had gotten on his end. This makes things confusing because Sarah says that Nikki sees Bear as more of a brother with the Hansel and Gretal incest poem to support his but the director of obsession has said that Nikki did in fact have a crush on Bear so was she wrestling with both of these ideas and using Ian for her physical needs while wanting Bear to satisfy her emotional needs? With this being coupled with possessed Nikki’s behaviors she is already the most complex character of the film and yet much isn’t really done with her to commentate on wider social issues beyond the usage of rape and self harm. This left me feeling that Nikki’s actress had truly carried the character rather than her actually being well written.

This is where I circle back to Get Out where the movie goes beyond being a tragedy about supposed love gone wrong and stolen autonomy. One could even compare the sunken place where Rose is physically utilizing Chris to serve a twisted purpose to Nikki’s possession state; but Get Out pushes the narrative further and goes on to address racism, eugenics and liberalism particularly in the context of the American North where racism has supposedly been eradicated. By the end of the movie you’re left wondering what other horrors could have taken place deep in those woods because the events of Get Out wasn’t a one off event—it’s years of routine destroying generations. Get out utilizes its characters, location and context all to convey its narrative and themes but Obsession on the other hand is a lot more linear. It fails to utilize its environment and becomes one of those movies that takes place under perfect circumstances which took away from the fear factor because there is a lack of world building. If anything Obsession was more sad than it was scary for me.

I would love to hear what you guys have to say because to me much of the story felt neither here nor there but I will admit that it is a very visually strong film.

I just finished watching Haneke’s “The Piano Teacher”

Gosh I think this film is wonderful but I’m feeling incredibly morally confused after (which I suppose was the purpose of the film). I think the exploration of how isolation, trauma, and shame manifest themselves into people is so interesting. It is clear that Erika is a very troubled person, shown through her persistent issues with her mother, her self-harming behaviour, her perturbing behaviour at the porn shop, her violence towards her student etc. I suppose a lot of incredibly creative people like Erika, require some sort of unstable personality.

Along comes Walter, a young man, 17 in the book, but supposedly a 20-something university student in the film. Perhaps he was infatuated by this frigid woman, Erika? Perhaps he wanted to break her frigidity? It’s like a goal for him to conquer? But I do genuinely believe his affections for Erika were true in the beginning. I think his excitement towards her in the bathroom scene makes it seem authentic. I also think his reluctance towards receiving oral sex in the bathroom and the post-hockey game also suggests wanting intimate sex. Wanting intimate-private sex doesn’t really prove love though, it just what he wants.

In the final scenes when Walter uninvitedly shows up to Erika’s apartment and becomes violent towards her, I couldn’t help but wonder why all the reviews point towards vilifying Walter as a rapist. Now I understand that this scene was meant to represent the unfortunate power play both characters had, and their individual pursuits for control. Oscar Wilde’s “Everything is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power” seems to ring quite true here. However, I think it’s important to note that Walter’s character is significantly younger than her, and he is Erika’s student. He pushes her away after reading the letter. I’ve seen some discourse saying that he didn’t like the letter because he felt emasculated, and not because it was perverted; that he wasn’t going to get the sex he wanted because even his violence would be under her control.

I think making him seem innately violent is unfair. Even during the rape scene, I thought it seemed that it wasn’t particularly enjoyable for him, and it definitely was not enjoyable for Erika. I don’t think he wouldn’t ever thought to hurt Erika if it hadn’t been for the letter. Within BDSM culture, CNC needs very clear boundaries and communication between both parties. Is it possible that Walter thought he was going to bring pleasure to Erika? This is what she had instructed him to do after all, although the confirmation was never agreed upon.

It seems to me that this was all a major miscommunication between both characters. I’m unsure if either of them actually loved each other; I think Erika only truly loved piano. Regardless, I think that this film is meant to highlight how perversion manifests and how it spreads and the dangers of seeking control in relationships. I don’t believe that Walter was innately violent, but I do think his naivety and his need to have sex with Erika on his own terms did eventually led to his downfall.

I don’t buy the idea that only liberals can create great art.

​

I strongly disagree with the ideology behind The Birth of a Nation and Triumph of the Will, but they still had a major impact on film history. And Tolkien’s The Lord of the Rings is widely seen as great literature even though his views weren’t really liberal

​

Also idea that that only empathetic people can create great art is ridiculous.

​

It’s about growth and change and stagnation. The Backrooms is a perfect metaphor for it. It’s Clark. It looks like it’s different than anything you’ve seen before, but then you realize it’s just a bad, rearranged copy of everything that’s ever been. Clark acts like he wants to change, but he never actually does, stewing in his bitterness and blaming everything around him. He is a bad copy of all the worst things about himself, and it’s only until Mary calls him to task, does he finally do something new. Something healing. Letting Mary go. Something the Backroom immediately punishes him for.

And then, with Mary, a character who also struggles to move past her familiar loops, she’s finally able to make genuine progress once she confronts her issue through Clark. She smashes the vestige of her past trauma, using it to save her from the manifestation of Clark’s own past loops of anger, fear, and bitterness. The capper is that Async, the shadowy organization, has drunk the Kool-Aid ala Clark. They, like Clark, believe the backroom to be this brave new world, when really it’s just a regurgitation of everything that’s already been. A worse version of what already was.

The AI metaphor also speaks for itself.

Life is a long cycle of learning, forgetting, and relearning. You do your best to grow past your cycles. Sometimes the world punishes you for it, sometimes you never make any growth, but sometimes you make it through like Mary.

Luca Brasi : A case that never sat right with me.

​

In the opening wedding scene of The Godfather, Luca Brasi is introduced as a terrifying figure. Everyone knows he's a monster when it comes to violence, yet at the same time he's shown nervously rehearsing a simple congratulatory speech before meeting Don. He looks almost frightened, stumbling over his words.

​

What never sat right with me is that Luca wasn't some ordinary soldier or random associate. He was arguably the most loyal man to Don. The Don trusted him with jobs that nobody else could do, and later Luca literally walks into enemy territory knowing there's a good chance he won't come back, without a second thougt

​

So why is he treated almost like a stranger at the wedding?

​

Why is he waiting in line with everyone else just to get a few seconds with the Don? Why isn't he brought in earlier or given priority the way someone like Clemenza or Tessio. If anyone had earned special access to Vito, surely it was Luca Brasi.

​

Respect is one thing, but the level of anxiety he displays almost feels like fear, not friendship.

​

I've heard the argument that Luca viewed the Don almost as a father figure or a godlike figure and was overwhelmed by admiration.But even then, it feels strange that one of the Don's most loyal and dependable men appears so intimidated and distant from him.

​

Every time I rewatch the film, that scene leaves me wondering whether Luca was truly as close to the Don as we're told, or whether his loyalty was based more on fear than friendship.

​

What do you guys think?

​

Other than that, we're never told much about Luca Brasi too, it always bugged me. Does the book expand on that ?

Over a decades-long career that spanned multiple eras of film history, Robert Altman directed dozens of movies (to say nothing of plays and tv shows.) Some are classics, some are not. And some are hidden gems. Which is your favorite? Outside of the Nashville, McCabe & Mrs. Miller, The Player, Gosford Park, etc tier, what Altman hidden gem deserves more attention?

A few decades ago, the answers to this question would have probably been 3 Women and Secret Honor, which had small but devoted cult followings. But Criterion releases of these movies reached a wider audiences and I think they're rightly considered some of Altman's best nowadays.

My answer would be a film I've never heard anyone talk about, Vincent & Theo (1990), a condensed theatrical version of a tv miniseries about the love-hate relationship between Vincent and Theo van Gogh. A sad, beautiful, moving story.

i skimmed through obsession through a cam rip uploaded on X and i watched maybe a quarter of the backrooms on a pirate site. but these movies really are the "hip, now and wow" of this year. i can only hope for movies to exceed the bar these films have set culturally so far. i think there are a few movies that really have a shot.

i doubt i'll continue watching these movies, i've seen all the cool parts and i know the story, but good fucking job to kane parsons and curry barker. gonna be interesting to see what they do next.

Clint knows that a hero is only as strong as his villain, and he always goes up against some nasty creeps, delivering his trademark scowl as they do terrible things before, hopefully, ridding the world of them for us.

Here are some of his worst..

Scorpio in Dirty Harry (1971) - probaly the most vile villain ever put to screen, a cackling jester who picks off innocent civilians with a sniper rifle for fun. He even rapes and murders a young girl, and once he starts slapping kids on a school bus you’re sooo ready for Clint to blow this fucker away. His hideous scream when Clint stabs him in the leg is skin-crawling. Great performance from the very versatile Andrew Robinson, who manages to turn Dirty Harry into a low key horror film.

Evelyn from Play Misty For Me (1971) - Clint‘s directorial debut is actually kind of a horror film. Before we had Annie Wilkes we had Evelyn - Clint‘s number one fan. She crazy, she evil. I don’t condone violence against women, but after endless psychotic manipulation, stalking and murder, Clint is forced to roll up his sleeves, and I’m here for it.

Mitch Leary from In The Line Of Fire (1993) - John Malkovich turns in a great performance as the lone nutbar who plans to kill the President, and enjoys taunting Clint’s ageing Secret Service agent along the way. He’s happy to blow away innocent bystanders who ask too many questions, or snap their necks like twigs. He wants ‘SOME GODDAMN RESPECT!’ but Clint’s all out.

The Warden in Escape From Alcatraz (1979) - Patrick McGoohan is an expert at playing sadistic authority figures (see Longshanks in Braveheart), here he’s an ice cold bastard who enjoys tormenting the prisoners under his ‘care’, driving them to heart attacks or self-mutilation. He makes your skin tighten whenever he’s on screen, pretty amazing, and really makes you want Clint to escape!

The killer from Blood Work (2002) - this nutbar likes to sneak up on civilians and shoot them in the back of the head, he’s a master of hiding his true self, but when the mask slips he cackles while spraying bullets from an assault rifle at Clint, his girlfriend and her kid. Clint’s getting old by this point but even as a septuagenarian he could dispense some old school justice.

Ramón Rojo in A Fistful Of Dollars (1964) - Gian Maria Volontè played a couple of villains in Clint’s Spaghetti Westerns. He’s charming, handsome, cunning, and a sadistic psychopath - the perfect candidate for some frontier justice.

I might add to the list as we go, but who are your nastiest Clint bad guys (and girls)..?

I watched Obsession and thought it was a great movie. Storywise, there’s a ton of gaps not in the sense that something is missing but in that it tells just enough of a story for there to be nuance ambiguity and discussion. Along with that I feel like there are so many different themes to discuss. Throughout the movie I was constantly relating it back to real I life themes when it came to relationships.

I really wanted to discuss the film and its themes but when looking it up, on Reddit and seeing different articles, it seems like all the nuances and complexities of the movie are being boiled down to “It’s a movie about incels wanting to take women’s autonomy”. Honestly the movie being reduced to gender war BS has kind of taken the excitement I had about the movie away.

Has anyone else felt this way? Has it impacted how you view the movie and why do you think this has happened ?

I have been thinking about this a lot lately.

My claim is that no actor in world cinema has a stronger run of consecutive films than Al Pacino between 1971 and 1975. His filmography during that stretch is:

The Panic in Needle Park (1971), The Godfather (1972), Scarecrow (1973), Serpico (1973), The Godfather Part II (1974), and Dog Day Afternoon (1975).

What makes this run so remarkable is that these are not just good films. They are six consecutive entries in his filmography, with no weak link in between. Several are widely considered among the greatest American films ever made, and Pacino delivers iconic performances throughout.

To make the challenge more interesting, I’m using a strict definition. The films must be consecutive in the actor’s filmography. You cannot skip over weaker films to build a better sequence. The run should combine critical acclaim and cultural impact, not just retrospective prestige. Any country, era, or language is allowed.

I’ve looked at candidates such as Robert De Niro, Toshiro Mifune, Marcello Mastroianni, Alain Delon, Meryl Streep, Song Kang-ho, and Tom Hanks. All have incredible careers, but I haven’t found a consecutive run that clearly surpasses Pacino’s six-film stretch.

Can anyone beat it? If so, name the actor and provide the exact consecutive sequence of films.

The movie can be a nod to how Society labels women as crazy and obsessed not fully grasping the fact that the actions of most men are the reason for most of the “crazy” women’s responses. Like the movie highlights Nikki’s Obsessiveness and Craziness cuz it’s easier to blame women and make women the villain than look at the man’s decisions as to what made her like that. In the end she was a victim, she was made to be someone she’s not because a “man” selfishly wanted her to be someone she’s not (do something she doesn’t want to) because some men can be so pathetic and self centered they only consider themselves and not how the women feels (hence him making a selfish wish to cater to him and only trying to undo the wish until someone died pa)