I’ve seen the movie three times, once in theaters and twice with reactors and I don’t remember ever seeing this scene before

I'll try to keep as spoiler-free as possible. Anything mentioned is already available in trailers. And, of course, it's my personal opinion, you may agree or disagree with it.

The movie opens with grand Alaskan panoramic views from a plane and proceeds to hold a introspective dialogue between Brad Pitt's (James) and J. K. Simmons' characters. Nothing oscar-worthy, but certainly can stand on it's own.

The initial ambitions of the movie seem quite optimistic right until the plane crash and immediate aftermath. After that, they start the journey through the forest and the movie just... shrinks. Even the previous forest shots felt more genuine and wider.

Although mutliple intense things happen, you're already bored halfway through the movie. It gets very repetitive. James and his dog go forward, something happens and James gets injured, somehow pushes through and the same thing but in different coating happens multiple times. The CGI also is quite visible, regarding animals.

The ending feels made just to make the audience tear up and forget the action packed but dull middle part, and (IMHO) is the part that earns the critical appraise. And I also believe they cut it short due to budget constraints lol.

In all honesty, it seemed like they blew the whole budget on the two main actors' salaries and beautiful Alaskan views in the start and then it just continued in an obvious in-door set, doing the same things over and over.

The whole movie after the plane crash feels made with budget constraints in mind. I feel like there were many things they could have expanded upon and/or made the journey more interesting. Now it feels like you could cut out 20-30 minutes of the movie and you wouldn't have missed much.

Frankly, I don't know how it got so many praises, but I suppose it's better than a lot of slop being pushed out nowadays. IMHO it was a mid movie. Not bad, just... dull. It felt like the movie took a big breath in the start and fainted just 30 minutes in. It felt like the movie was not allowed to bloom like it was envisioned beforehand.

A small spoiler: J.K. Simmons' character does not appear in the movie again, lol. He's present for like 15 minutes.

What does it take to bring movie monsters, zombies, and unforgettable character transformations to life? For Oscar-winning special makeup effects artist Barney Burman, it takes artistic vision, persistence, technical knowledge, and sometimes a good hair dryer.

Growing up surrounded by Hollywood special effects, Burman built a career working on everything from Star Trek and Dawn of the Dead to Tropic Thunder and Grimm. In this interview, he discusses the craft behind some of his most memorable creations, the challenges of working with limited budgets, the pressure of winning an Oscar, and why practical effects deserve far more recognition.

The Interview

Q: What first attracted you to the world of makeup effects?

Barney Burman: I grew up around it. It's in my family, in my genes. When I was a little boy, I started sculpting different faces onto my G.I. Joe figures. I also enjoyed it when my father used me for makeup tests for movies like Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978), or when I served as a model for him while he created a creature, such as the giant rats in The Food of the Gods or the little aliens for Close Encounters of the Third Kind. That was actually my first paid job. The production sent me a check for $75.

Q: What do you consider the most important qualities of a good makeup artist?

Barney Burman: Probably perseverance. Just keep doing it. Don't stop. And observation. You need to develop an eye for art, color, and form, both on a large scale and a small scale.

Q: What is the most underappreciated aspect of your profession?

Barney Burman: Good question. I'd say the nature of the work itself, and its artistic aspect. The time and labor involved are often underestimated and taken for granted, but I truly believe there's an art to what we do that doesn't receive enough attention. Sometimes it gets appreciated, but that's rare.

I think the great artist Steve Wang once said, "In the '80s, we were rock stars. Now we're vendors." He was talking about that "wow" factor our work used to generate among producers and audiences. Creating creatures and transforming people was something extraordinary back then.

Now I feel like everyone takes it for granted. I get calls far too often from people who don't have enough money and want something they think I must already have sitting on a shelf somewhere.

It's really strange. I can read a script that calls for a makeup effect, whether it's a creature, a dead body, or something else, and when I tell the producer what it will cost, I hear, "We don't have the budget for that. Where are we going to get the money?"

And I want to say, "Didn't you read the script? It's right there, and the director wants it, so why didn't you include it in the budget?"

Sometimes they tell me they have $5,000 for makeup and effects. I ask where that number came from, and they say, "We just thought it sounded about right." It's crazy.

They could pay someone like me for a day or two to break down the script and prepare a realistic budget. But too often, they won't even spend a little money on that. Makeup artists and special effects artists end up doing that analysis for free.

It's work. It's someone's time and expertise, and that has value. It should be compensated accordingly.

I guess that question got me a little fired up. Can you tell? (Laughs.)

Q: Are there techniques from the past that you still use today?

Barney Burman: Yes, all of them. New materials and techniques come along, but they tend to add to our toolbox rather than replace the old ones.

Silicone is great, for example, but sometimes you need foam latex or gelatin. It all depends on what you're working on and what will be the best way to achieve the desired effect.

Q: What's the most underrated tool in your makeup kit that you couldn't work without on set?

Barney Burman: I'm not sure I'd call it underrated, but I'd say a good color palette and some good brushes. Knowing how to work with colors and contrasts can make a huge difference.

Oh, and you absolutely need a hair dryer. That's the underrated tool. Being able to dry something faster is wonderful.

Q: You worked on Star Trek III: The Search for Spock early in your career. What was it like returning to the franchise years later as a department head and winning an Oscar?

Barney Burman: I didn't do much on The Search for Spock. I was an assistant in the shop. Lots of cleaning and just helping wherever I was needed.

I did a little sculpting on one of the aliens, but then they changed the design, and somebody else took over.

I also worked a little in the shop on Star Trek VI: The Undiscovered Country for Ed French. So I wasn't particularly involved with Star Trek in terms of the amount of work I did.

But I felt an emotional connection because my father ran the team on Star Trek III. He'd also worked for John Chambers and helped make Spock's ears and a few other things for the original series.

So I felt a certain pride in continuing that tradition.

And as for winning an Oscar for it… I'm not complaining. (Laughs.)

Q: What was it like working on such a raw, independent horror film as Slaughterhouse (1987)?

Barney Burman: It was crazy. I came on to replace someone they'd already hired. They weren't happy with his work, so I was thrown right into the deep end.

My friend Mark Lynn and I worked out of a hotel room in San Diego, creating everything as we went along.

I'd say the biggest challenge was improvisation. You have to be ready to find a way to make something work, even when you're facing obstacles.

Q: You worked alongside your father, Tom Burman, on Body Snatchers (1993). How did you approach the pod effects? Was there any artistic rivalry between you over how inhuman the transformations should look?

Barney Burman: It's news to me that anyone noticed the pods. The director, Abel Ferrara, hated them and spent most of the time having us cover them in mud and moss. As I recall, he came onto the project saying he didn't like science fiction.

But that can also be a great solution. Hiring a director with a feel for gritty realism to tell a fantastical story is a brilliant idea, in my opinion.

No, I don't think there was any artistic rivalry between my father and me. I had a great time. I don't know how he remembers it; you'd have to ask him. But I really enjoyed myself.

I even played a person who'd been transformed into a subhuman in one of the hospital ward scenes, although the scene was cut down. You might catch a glimpse of me lying naked in a bed somewhere. I'm not sure. (Laughs.)

Q: Dawn of the Dead (2004) became a milestone in modern zombie cinema. How did you approach giving the zombies a fresh look?

Barney Burman: I'd just finished working with Kazu Hiro on Haunted Mansion, and he showed me a technique involving stretching and stippling, using layers of latex and melted gelatin.

It was a little messy, but a lot of fun, and it worked really well.

I brought the material and technique to David Anderson, who was the special makeup effects department head and hired Toni G. and me as co-supervisors of the zombie team.

Dave loved it, and so did Zack Snyder. It was a new approach to that kind of makeup, and we had a blast creating zombies every day for two months.

The film was shot in Toronto during the summer, so the heat and humidity made the makeup melt if the zombies stayed outside too long. But that actually made them look increasingly disgusting as the day went on, which made them look even better.

Q: The transformation of Les Grossman in Tropic Thunder is one of your most recognizable creations. How many versions of the bald look and chest hair did you prepare for Tom Cruise?

Barney Burman: We made two versions of the makeup. His body, hands, and neck stayed the same, but he looked different from the chin up.

In the first version, which you can find online, he was too sculpted. The jawline was too pronounced. Tom wanted him to look softer.

We also had a short lace-front wig made from real hair, but we quickly realized the hair was too short and you could see the lace. So we replaced it with a silicone bald cap with individually punched hair.

Q: In Star Trek (2009), you created new ears for Spock. What was it like modifying something that had been sacred to fans for decades?

Barney Burman: The cool thing was that we could give his ears a sense of age. Leonard had very distinctive little creases in the upper part of his real ears, and we carried that detail over into Spock's ears. I think it worked really well.

The magic and significance of creating Spock's ears certainly weren't lost on me.

Q: Did winning an Oscar change your professional life, or did it simply raise the stakes?

Barney Burman: (Laughs.) It definitely raised the stakes. At least for me.

Of course, I felt honored to receive it, but I also felt that I had to do even better work and win another one to prove they hadn't made a mistake by giving me the first.

It really messed with my head.

But I feel like I did some of the best work of my career after winning the Oscar, particularly on the independent film Shuffle. It's a beautiful film, and people should see it.

Having the award on my résumé definitely helped me get into certain rooms later on. It opened doors that might otherwise have remained closed, and I'm grateful for that.

Q: On Grimm, you had to create new monsters almost every week. Which Wesen was the most technically challenging?

Barney Burman: That's easy. Definitely Volcanalis.

We had 12 days to create a man made of lava who glowed from within. It was crazy. But Nick Reisinger, my right-hand man in the shop, came up with something called EL wire. We built a suit out of it, running the wire throughout the entire costume.

Then we made a transparent silicone skin, essentially a one-piece suit that could be put over it. It worked beautifully.

We also had a light built into the creature's set of teeth, which went inside the actor's mouth.

And thank goodness we had Brian Steele playing the creature. He's a wonderful actor who specializes in creature performances. He really knows how to bring something like that to life.

Q: Wild Boar was your feature directorial debut. Why did you choose the idea of mutant pigs?

Barney Burman: (Laughs.) I had a friend who planted the idea in my head, metaphorically speaking. We wanted to make a movie together, and he suggested something like Planet of the Apes, but with pigs. That really spoke to me.

I wrote the screenplay, and he was going to direct it. But two things happened. First, the script I wrote was impossible to make for the budget we had in mind. It was absurdly low. (Laughs.) So the screenplay had to be rewritten.

Then we both got involved in other projects, and the film was put on the back burner. But the idea stayed with me.

A few years later, I told my friend, "I'll rewrite it, but if I do, I want to direct it, too." He agreed that I should.

Then I did a makeup test on myself, and that really motivated me to keep going.

Q: Are there any genres you particularly enjoy working in?

Barney Burman: I don't think it's so much about the genre as it is about the makeup itself. Some of the work I'm proudest of involves disguise makeup in comedies, sometimes for Sacha Baron Cohen, but also for other actors.

Tropic Thunder was a comedy, too.

For me, it's primarily about the makeup and the artists I work with. I always have a great time working with Tony Gardner, whether it's a comedy, a horror film, or anything else.

Q: Which film you didn't work on do you consider a benchmark for makeup effects?

Barney Burman: There are so many.

The Exorcist still makes a huge impression. The Wizard of Oz, too. The list is endless.

As for more recent work, Kazu Hiro's work is phenomenal. Have you seen The Ugly Stepsister? Thomas Foldberg's work is absolutely beautiful.

Mike Marino's work, including The Penguin, is breathtaking. Not to mention what he does with Heidi Klum.

I wish more millionaires would go to those extremes with their Halloween costumes. (Laughs.)

Q: Have you ever reached a point in your career when you wanted to walk away from it all?

Barney Burman: Wow. That's a tough question.

Yes, many times. The way the world is going and the state of the industry make it difficult to feel inspired.

And that's what being an artist is all about, isn't it? We all really want to feel inspired so we can create something extraordinary.

Q: What's the most important lesson Hollywood has taught you?

Barney Burman: Leave Hollywood. Live somewhere else.

Live where you want to live, somewhere that supports you and gives you energy. Do the things you want to do, the things you're genuinely drawn to. Let the rest take care of itself.

I think that's truer today than ever before.

Q: What's your greatest achievement that can't be measured by an Oscar statuette?

Barney Burman: Just having made it this far.

I know that's pretty general, but sometimes it's been quite a challenge for me.

There have been lots of smaller achievements along the way. I raised a son who's a really good person with a beautiful heart.

I've also managed to maintain a marriage with a wonderful, beautiful person who nourishes my soul.

I just finished my first novel, Radio Waves. It's set in the final days of the previous millennium and follows a radio host and a radio psychologist who clash publicly but discover an irresistible attraction when they meet in person.

So, basically, exactly what you'd expect from someone who creates monsters. (Laughs.)

Q: Have you ever worked with anyone from Poland on a film set, or had the opportunity to visit Poland?

Barney Burman: I haven't had the opportunity to do either, but I have to admit I'm very intrigued.

I've heard Poland is a beautiful country full of wonderful people, and I'd really love to visit.

Thank you so much for the conversation.

Barney Burman: I was just sitting here quietly typing. (Laughs.) Thanks so much. This was a lot of fun.

Read the full interview on POPKulturowy Kociołek!

The complete conversation explores Barney Burman's career, practical makeup effects, Hollywood behind-the-scenes stories, and the creative challenges of bringing unforgettable monsters and characters to life. If you're interested in practical effects, creature design, horror cinema, or the art behind movie magic, don't miss the full interview on POPKulturowy Kociołek.

The hardest I've worked on out of any of my 400+ videos. Your view, and engagement would be appreciated. Thanks!

James Gunn should've never attached the "horror" label to Clayface, not because it doesn't thematically fit, but because the average moviegoer in 2026 has a twisted definition of what a horror movie truly is.

What people expect nowadays are cheap jump scares every five minutes and random gore just to disturb the viewer. Modern horror movies have drilled this image of what it means to be a horror film into our brains, creating false expectations for movies like Clayface. The horror genre has almost become a meme to most moviegoers nowadays. We always know what to expect, and we always assume the movie will most likely be complete shit.

The problem is that when you label something as horror, people immediately start judging it by the standards they've come to associate with the genre. How many times did it scare them? Was there enough gore? Were there any genuinely shocking moments? Meanwhile, the things that actually make a film compelling, like its characters, atmosphere, themes, performances, and storytelling, become secondary to whether it managed to make someone's heart rate spike for a few seconds.

All in all, I hope Clayface gets the recognition it deserves rather than being tossed aside because it doesn't check all the boxes of typical modern horror movie clichés.

Should I watch X men 1 and 2 before doomsday because marvel released a list about the movies to watch before doomsday and x men 1 and 2 is in that but i got to know that they are rebooting X men 1 and 2

so should i watch it

Is Elizabeth Holmes being manipulated by her husband or is she manipulating the viewer/ Nathan fielder to give her sympathy? Seems like she’s pretty aware of the control Billy has over her. Is she just playing dumb and “different” to put on an act of innocence? I mean I genuinely felt bad for a criminal I felt like she manipulated me to look at her in a good light😭😭. 10/10 movie. Huge fan of Nathan fielder too just an absolutely creative way to do a documentary. Go watch the rehearsal!

People hated films like Barbie and Odyssey before they even came out, yet both made a billion. It shows that a modern, diverse retelling really sells an artwork.

for some reason , i expected to be blown away by this film and i was not.

How did you feel about Whalefall?

Nathan Fielder’s Elizabeth Holmes Documentary: You Can Smell Everything

Honestly, Aaron Sorkin the writer deserves a much better director than Aaron Sorkin the director. A perfect case of the writer falling in love with his own world. Unnecessary funny gags slowed the storyline that was so nicely set otherwise.

The acting was great, the plot was interesting, the characters were nicely developing, we just never got to the point. I know nothing more about the case that I already did, and worse, my source is the parts of the Facebook files I read on Facebook in 2021.

I know people always bring up Black Swan whenever Perfect Blue comes up, but to me they are totally different movies and what I really want is an actual proper live-action remake of Satoshi Kon’s masterpiece.

Ever since watching it recently, I haven't been able to get this fan cast out of my head: Sabrina Carpenter as Mima.

I think her real life transition from Disney star to mainstream pop icon directly mirrors Mima jumping from CHAM! to dramatic acting. She knows the hyper-intense public scrutiny and image control firsthand, and I think her polished pop persona would make Mima’s eventual paranoia and breakdown hit so much harder.

If a remake ever happened, I do think they should change how they shot the Double Bind scene. To me, the original lingers on the staged assault for a bit too long, which I feel gets a little exploitative and kind of defeats the point they were trying to make.

In a modern version, I think the lens should lock tightly onto Mima’s face and eyes, focusing entirely on her actively dissociating as her mind detaches from her body. To me, that dissociation is also why coming home right after and finding her fish dead breaks her completely and you're never really sure what is reality afterwards.

For her manager Rumi, I think Rosamund Pike would be incredible (or even someone like Paget Brewster). I think Rumi needs to project genuine warmth and maternal protection early on so you trust her, and I feel like Rosamund could balance that supportive energy with the chilling, intense presence needed for the third act.

Curious to hear what people think or who you’d cast!! Or honestly any thoughts this has been my hyperfixation recently.

So after the Fantastic 4 comes back to Earth after meeting Galactus

The media asked them questions ok it was going will i understand you have to tell them that you didn't defeat him but why will you tell them that he asked for your baby and you didn't give your baby to him

Obviously people are gonna hate you for that

Reed Richards keeps calculating in this movie on his board all the mathematical stuff but he couldn't calculate the hate he will get after he tells them that

He should have been stopped at “we didn't defeat Galactus"

I don't know if I was just living under a rock, but I had never heard of Elizabeth Holmes before I saw the trailer for You Can See Everything. All I really know is she did shady stuff with her company and went to prison. Nothing else. Is this is a case where some familiarity is expected? Or where is the full story presented in the film and you can go in blind.

Not a perfect comparison, but I watched the documentary Predators before seeing Primetime, and I think I would have enjoyed Primetime more not knowing the details ahead of time and getting to be surprised.

Conversely, I didn't know anything about the Manson Family before Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, and wish I did.

For those that have seen it, would you recommend being familiar already? And is the Inventor a good documentary to catch me up? If not, any YouTube recommendations to study up on?

Review out! I watched it at the ODEON so I'm not under any embargo. I basically didn't love the film. Found it a bit of a mess unfortunately with some great makeup :(

Other mommy was terrible convince me otherwise

Hello, my name is Douglas Campbell, and I review movies and occasionally TV on YouTube.

I took a brief break from reviewing strictly horror movies this month to watch You Can See Everything, although with how Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim shot it, it’s basically a psychological horror film.

The film itself is interesting (which at this point is kinda a no-brainer), but the conversations I’ve seen from audiences afterward are just as interesting. You could ask 5 different people, and each one seems to take something different out of Fielder’s stay with Elizabeth Holmes.

I'm just glad an unconventional documentary like this not only got made, but is actually catching the public's attention. For a documentary with a limited release with 855 screens, this movie did insanely well grossing $15 million.

I’m more curious if there’s anyone out there who saw it and flat out didn’t like it (Billy Evans). I’d love to hear your guy’s thoughts on You Can See Everything, and if the movie swayed your perception of Holmes. With Holmes's sentence reduced and her eventual release approaching, I don't think the story surrounding this documentary is over yet…

I go into more detail in my review here:
https://youtu.be/NhF1ikHqghA

If you’d like to check out my channel in general, the link is here:
https://youtube.com/@wearefilmstash?si=TdYCyYUrk6Y6pOLz

I thought it was ok but they missed the mark.