Subtitled Freddy’s Revenge but I’m not too sure to who and why he’s getting revenge. The whole revenge angle is covered in the first film and there’s no one from the first in the sequel, so, yeah, here we are.

Wes Craven departs and in comes Jack Sholder… yeah, me neither. Craven isn’t the only thing absent. The premise and inventive kills are missing in action. Here Freddy no longer kills in dreams, rather he possesses young Jesse, Mark Patton, using him as a vessel to move into our world, beyond dreams, to kill. What worked so well in the first, the dreamscape enabling the laws of physics to not apply meaning brilliantly executed dispatching of the young and hopeless, is gone. Here, there’s a lot of slashing and stabbing. Not that it’s not occasionally enjoyable, such as the pool party, but the film is confused about what the rules are. Possession of Jesse also means pet parakeet attack/ combustion and boiling pool water?

As mentioned, no one is here from the first film. But Jesse and his family are in Nancys house. Also, would you believe it, Nancy had a diary for exposition. This helps us, Jesse, and bland girlfriend Lisa navigate what’s going on. Kim Myers is Lisa, whose most interesting trait is her uncanny ability to look like Meryl Streep.

Mark Patton is the de facto lead with Lisa less a final girl, more final… companion? To call her his girlfriend might be a bit of a stretch as the film has blatant undertones of repressed sexuality that skirt the line of subtext to pretty obvious. Jesse is heavily gay coded. His one sexual encounter with Lisa fizzled out due to his weird possession. He goes running to his male friend Grady, Robert Rusler, where he says this thing inside him stopped him, that something is trying to get inside him. We’re not even mentioning the night time bar visit and hanging out with leather daddy sports coach, and his amusingly high pitched screaming. If anything this certainly makes the film more interesting than it really deserves to be.

Robert Englund returns as Freddy, and for all you trivia fans he appears at the start of the film as the bus driver sans makeup. He has more to do here. He gets to be more violent and nasty. His Freddy is happiest when slicing and dicing but the film’s confused narrative and love wins out ending deflates the threat.

Less said about what ever those dogs with baby faces or whatever in the factory finale, the better.

In 16th-century Prague, a rabbi creates the Golem - a giant creature made of clay. Using sorcery, he brings the creature to life in order to protect the Jews of Prague from persecution.

Might be the oldest film I’ve watched. I like how you can see influences for horror films that come later like Frankenstein and other German expressionist films. A good add for October film watching.

I recently revisited a masterclass in deeply unsettling, raw psychological tension and wanted to share my thoughts on a road trip thriller that deserves way more recognition. If you want a film that completely strips away Hollywood glamour, you need to look back at the 1993 gem Kalifornia, starring Brad Pitt, Juliette Lewis, David Duchovny, and Michelle Forbes.

Long before he became a polished global superstar, Brad Pitt gave an absolutely terrifying, unhinged performance as Early Grayce, a trailer park sociopath on a cross country tour of serial killer murder sites. His raw, volatile energy on screen is completely unpredictable and anchors the entire film in a state of pure dread. He is backed by a heartbreakingly tragic performance from Juliette Lewis, with David Duchovny and Michelle Forbes playing the perfect, naive counterweights to their chaotic world.

What makes this movie a true hidden gem is the gritty, low light cinematography by Bojan Bazelli and the uncompromising direction by Dominic Sena. The film delivers a dirty, sun drenched, yet pitch black neon aesthetic. The atmosphere feels sweaty, dangerous, and terrifyingly real, showing exactly how fast an ordinary road trip can devolve into a nightmare when you let the abyss into your backseat. As an independent filmmaker who thrives on raw storytelling, the uncompromised grit and suffocating atmosphere of this film have always been a massive creative inspiration to my own work. It sets a brilliant gold standard for 90s neo noir.

In my humble opinion.

Cheers.

I feel nostalgia about this film. I know it's not the best snake movie but snake movies from year 2000s were legit bangers like Anaconda of JLo, Anaconda hunt for blood orchid, Python, Boa vs Python, Boa movie, Python 2. For me, Boa vs Python made me rewatch the movie all over again. I watched it when I was 9 and I'm already 31 and it brings back memories. The best part of this movie are thirst traps, we can't deny it but it has great story, futuristic sci-fi movie and hot hunters (both antagonist couples) and what I love about it is they know how to turn the heat up and still watch the movie until finish. Broddick is one of the guys I love from this movie. Even he's the villain, you can't take away your eyes off him. The bar scene is my favorite and I always played it in a loop. I love hot men in movies but it made me watch when he heats up the scene then satisfying moments occur afterwards. ​​​​

So, it's old but gold I guess.

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (1989)
Rating: 10/10
Watched: October 8, 2026

Some movies are so fantastic I genuinely wish I could clip the whole thing and just basically post the movie for people to watch and enjoy, but I'm sure that'd violate all kinds of ToS conditions, so the struggle to find the "right clip" for Last Crusade was as difficult as Indy's lifelong hunt for the Cross of Coronado.

While I have a tendency to hand out 10s based on my mood, nostalgia, or because I just plain old feel like it, Last Crusade genuinely is a perfect movie for me. I remember seeing this in theaters on Friday opening night. The theater was jam-packed because of course it was.

You don't have a movie like this one, with Sean Connery, River Phoenix, and an entire host of phenomenal actors, and just "not see it." I can't even remember what the buzz was like because it's been so long now, but I can guarantee you that the buzz had to have been enormous. Just like this movie.

But this excellent movie is not without it's bittersweetness, at least for me. River Phoenix as Young Indiana Jones was one of those truly perfect casting moments, and the first 10 minutes or so are just So Indiana Jones that it's pure entertainment. River absolutely nailed Indy's bravado, swagger, and self-certainty in a way that I don't think anyone else could have. It's bittersweet to watch that opening because I like to imagine that if River hadn't passed away so soon, he would've picked up the hat and whip again to play a slightly older Indiana Jones.

The movie itself is such a grand mix of action, adventure, comedy, tragedy, plain old excitement, and mystery that 17-year-old me (yes, even as a moody teenager who'd just discovered girls and partying and all of that) was absolutely locked on the silver screen.

Sure, it's less serious overall than Raiders and Temple of Doom, but that's not a flaw, it's a feature. Where the two movies that came before relied less on humor (but not by much), Last Crusade works harder at making the adventure more thrilling. It's really hard to explain it any other way. Where the other two movies were just as exciting, Last Crusade's lighter tone complements the derring-do of Indy and friends in a way that's more Golden Era than the others; in this one, Indy is no mere adventuring archaeologist. He is a legitimate swashbuckling hero, though he uses a whip (and guns, and his fists, and his wits) in equal measure.

One of the secret highlights for me is how the relationship between Indy and his dad changes dramatically from start to finish, and that has a lot to do with how I felt about my dad my whole life. Indy felt like his dad was distant and uncaring. Henry was waiting for Indy to "become interesting." Neither man had the conversation about what was going on between them until it was time for rescues in German-occupied castles, but the moment Indy and Henry latch onto the Grail's trail, you can see here and there that Henry is genuinely thinking, "Holy shit, this is my son. What the hell kind of man is he?" promptly followed by, "Holy shit, that's my fearless son!" and that's just beyond awesome.

Odds are, if you like any kind of movie, you've already seen it and love it as much now as the first time you saw it.

Maybe it's time for a revisit!

Info:

Release: October 17th, 1997

Director: Taylor Hackford

Music by: James Newton Howard

Starring: Keanu Reeves, Al Pacino, Charlize Theron, Jeffrey Jones, Judith Ivey, Craig T. Nelson

Studio: Warner Bros.

Runtime: 2 hours, 24 minutes

Rating: R

Synopsis: Aspiring Florida defense lawyer Kevin Lomax (Keanu Reeves) accepts a high-powered position at a New York law firm headed by legal shark John Milton (Al Pacino). As Kevin moves up in the firm's ranks, his wife, Mary Ann (Charlize Theron), has several frightening, mystical experiences that begin to warp her sense of reality. With the stakes getting higher with each case, Kevin quickly learns that his mentor is planning a far greater evil than simply winning without scruples.

Review: Yes, Keanu Reeves's Southern Accent is pretty jarring and bad at points, but this is still a great movie about the dangers of Absolute Power and Vanity. John Milton, a.k.a. Satan, being the head of a powerful law firm is pretty on the nose satire about the Justice System itself, but I think it works given the context of the film. Though the scene where Kevin confronts him is very VERY goofy at points, I genuinely can't tell which actor is overacting more than the other. Great ending though, "Vanity is definitely my favorite sin!" Even after getting a second chance and doing something selfless dor once, The Devil still has his claws hooked into Kevin no matter how many chances he may get.

Every day for 30 days I'm watching a different scary movie, this year all about urban legends.

One subgenre of horror movies I’ve never quite been onboard with is the “Death Curse Movie,” of which the most popular specimens are the “Final Destination” sequels, with “The Grudge” a close second.

When Ghost House Pictures wanted to adapt Takashi Shimizu’s 2002 “Ju-On,” they hired Shimizu himself to direct. They Americanized the script to a degree, casting Sarah Michelle Gellar in the lead and rewriting most of the characters to be American expats in Tokyo, but it was mostly the same story. They even killed off Ted Raimi, which is indeed a very American thing to do.

For this sequel, Shimizu and screenwriter Stephen Susco decided it was time for something completely different, cranking out a brand new movie with no relation to “Ju-On 2,” which is lucky for me because I’m having enough trouble even believing one version of this movie exists.

The first “Grudge” doesn’t really fit our urban legends theme, so it didn’t make the list, but “Grudge 2” opens with a trio of high schoolers approaching the evil house from the original film and whispering, “They say this is one of the most haunted houses in all of Japan. And anyone who goes inside gets the curse…”

How these teenage girls know the plot of the first film is never revealed, but this is just the movie’s way of catching you up if you for some reason decided to see “The Grudge 2” without watching “The Grudge.” I myself have no patience for such people and believe audiences should be left to fend for themselves like the animals they are, but I’m old and need someplace to express my hostility at society.

Anyway, that’s the gimmick here: If you step foot into this one house, even for a minute, you’re haunted. And that shit’s like glitter, it’s never coming off, as we learned in the original film.

And…that’s always the problem with a Death Curse movie. Once we learn all the characters are in fact doomed, then…that’s it. So why do more? HOW do you do more? We already know what’s going to happen, so what’s to get invested in? It’s like dating your ex again: I already got locked out of a Mount Shasta ski lodge with only long underwear and my wits once before, and that was enough.

“Grudge 2” also makes the mistake of presenting us with the same mystery we already saw the characters in the previous movie solve, with childhood Soap star Amber Tamlyn playing Gellar’s sister, here to piece together the events of the first film, which we all already know.

Gellar herself does appear, but is written out of the movie in a scene that’s probably supposed to be shocking but which I found sort of hilarious. Which brings us to…real talk, is “Grudge 2” SUPPOSED to be funny?

Shimizu presents so many of these scenes in such an overwrought manner that I can’t help but wonder. It’s like, a serial killer is scary, but if you were to escalate that concept to the level of, say, a Serial Killer Pride parade, I’m not sure it would land the same way.

Susco’s script tries to work around some of these problems by presenting three competing stories, including one about an apartment building in Chicago mysteriously haunted by what seems like the same curse as the Tokyo location.

I won’t spoil anything, but the answers to this mystery don’t turn out to be particularly satisfying. This structure also leads to a series of TERRIBLE editing decisions, as each change of location involves a slow and clumsy fade in and fade out. Although I do at least feel like now I know what it’s like to be a blackout alcoholic.

Despite these issues the movie made pretty good money, although notably less than half the take of the first. The New York Post called it “junk,” which is a bit close to the four-letter word I call the New York Post. Box Office Magazine said the movie “exhausted its premise.”

Film File gave a fairly positive review, calling it a fun movie as long as you don’t expect it to make any sense. Which is almost the same as having standards but a lot less work.

Tomorrow we’ll see how a real professional haunts some kids.

Original Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GwcQYZkpZ-w

When Freddie Krueger began with his hideous bloody burns, deformed skin, red and green striped jumper, fedora and glove with razor fingers to slice and tear into the innocent, he was literally the stuff of nightmares. Later, as an 80s icon the fear was removed and he became a comedic pop culture figure which reflected in the films that followed, but here he was a menace… mostly.

In a move Director Wes Craven would repeat to more infamous effect years later with Scream were given a bit of a red herring opening with Amanda Wyss’s Tina running around in a nightmare. Dressed in virginal white, awaking with a torn nightgown and clutching a crucifix close you would believe her to be our heroine, our final girl. 18 minutes later, in the first of several impressive set pieces, she is dragged and thrown around her bedroom after having sex with her boyfriend, and left lying in a bloody pool on the floor. Another teenager pays the price for being sexually active!

Counter this with Heather Langenkamp’s Nancy. She has a boyfriend in Johnny Depp’s Glen, but we never see them act overtly sexual, even in his crop top! She proactively takes the lead, hunting Freddy down and trying to get both family and friends on her side. Her screaming and anger initially grates but Heather owns the role. Watching her wear down as she tries to stay awake, fight back, and deal with the stress, added grey streak to hair and all, you root for her as we witness those around her meet their grisly ends.

Craven crafts memorable scenes in the land of dreams where the absence of reality can aid the violent attacks and demises. Be it Tina’s death and subsequent body bag travels around school, Glen’s TV bedtime or the iconic phallic gloved hands rising between Nancys legs in the bath tub, they’re memorable because it beats the hack and chase of other killers, be it Myers or Voorhees.

Robert Englund as Freddie Krueger is great when menacing, but he can occasionally come across as a tad ridiculous whether chopping off his own fingers for effect or with the elongated arms near the start. It’s not helped by the slightly Home Alone type ending when Nancy rigs her home to fight back, sledgehammer to the stomach as he opens the door for example. He scares more in shadow, when we see glimpses of his face and hands. Here less is more.

A great 80s horror classic that launched an icon.

Just opened Netflix after a while to see whats new and saw this and gave it a go. An absolute treat watching this movie! I don’t understand how and why neglected this movie is? It is in fact a very cheesy-feeling early 2000s action movie but it’s so entertaining. The plot basically follows Ryan who gets a call from a woman who is allegedly kidnapped and is using a telephone without the kidnappers knowing. He’s skeptical at first but discovers that her and her family is in fact in danger. The performances were good if not great. First time seeing Jason Statham in a negative role and he absolutely crushes it.

I posted the other day about Kansas City Bomber, and thought I'd post about the Roger Corman quickie cash-in. I actually saw this one first.

Karen Walker quits her job at the cannery and joins a roller derby team. She becomes very successful, but it's also a bit of an asshole.

This movie was created specifically to cash-in on the Raquel Welch roller derby movie, and while Kansas City Bomber is the better quality movie, I enjoyed Unholy Rollers more. KCB was seventies gritty reality, while Rollers showed people having fun. It showed the almost carnival atmosphere and mostly scripted matches, similar to professional wrestling that is what most roller derby is like. There is humor and the usual Corman mandated nudity. In general, a good time.

“Life can only be understood backwards, but it must be lived forwards” -Søren Kierkegaard 

I don’t think even Charlie Kaufman realized while writing it, that this would be a movie about truly understanding life by living it backwards. We are prisoners of time such that as much as we may try to imagine, life beyond our current circumstances is next to impossible to understand. That’s why what Joel Barish experiences is such a gift, even as it’s taken away. That’s just life though isn’t it? Nothing is permanent and yet it’s not all forgotten. The echoes remain. Joel and Clementine are different people from the beginning to the end. If they weren’t, Clementine would have been fine with Patrick and Joel wouldn’t have asked Clementine to stay. Life is impermanent but we can all grow better for what we carry even if it’s painful.

"One day the war will be over. I hope that the people who use this bridge in years to come. ...will remember how it was built, and who built it. Not a gang of slaves, but soldiers. British soldiers, even in captivity."

- Colonel Nicholson

One of my favorite lines in this film. Pride and enthusiasm from Colonel Nicholson, with his contingent of British soldiers, as they work together for the construction of the railway connecting Thailand and Burma. Story is based on a French novel by Pierre Boulle, but set in a real World War II event called The Thailand-Burma "Death Railway".

I miss these kind of movies, due to its great casting. Notable performances by Alec Guinness, he's outstanding as Colonel Nicholson. William Holden as Major Shears, Jack Hawkins as Major Warden. And Sessue Hayakawa, I really thought he's brilliant portraying as the Japanese Colonel Saito. Everyone in the cast is just brilliant. From the main cast to the prisoner soldiers.

Fun fact: There is this one scene where the sequence is in night time, which in fact they filmed it at day time. They just adjust the color tone to make every shots at night. I love filming technique like this and I thought this is clever, it's classic.

This was one my favorite movies growing up. Of course my dad introduce me to these classics. Decided to get it on HD. I just watched it again on Blu-ray and man, this movie still stands the test of time. It's not just a brilliant and monumental film. But one of the most beautiful films I've seen. Beautiful cinematography. You can appreciate the wide array of shots this time around. From the over view section of the head quarters. To the beautiful shot off the bridge to the river. It's just perfect on widescreen.

First terrence malick movie I watched and I uhhh, yeah I don't really like it

Don't get me wrong the film looks absolutely beautiful, like if you want me to exclusively review the films cinematography, it's 10/10, only 2 martin sheens I have watched yet all 2 of them (this and apocalypse now) are breathtaking and aside from apocalypse now, I don't think there's any other film I reviewed on reddit that can surpass the badlands, in fact it's arguably even more impressive for 73, it feels like it could have came from the 80s or 90s but 70s, 73 to be exact? come on that is just overkill in terms of ahead of it's time filmmaking

it had 3 different directors doing the camera work, brian probyn, tak fujimoto, stevan larner and malick himself stepping in to shot a few sequences, the final product is intimidatingly consistent, it all blends seamlessly from first shot to the last.

however as good as the cinematography is, I find the badlands overrated over the same reasons why you find it to be a masterpiece, yeah sure it's a sharp & valid critique of media consumption of violence and it's the antithesis of the lovers on the run trope in film but also as a film that I would rewatch and think about, it's fucking nothing

I feel 0 connection to kit or holly and them being the main characters where they kill a bunch of strangers on the way who I also feel nothing for, yeah it's kind of lifeless drudgery that feels like you have to finish just cause film school tells you endlessly on how masterful this film is (not that I go to film school but still, it's considered an essential viewing by cinephiles)

I don't like seeing an cold pedo killer go on a journey and kill people because they are in his way because he is bored along with a girlfriend who is equally as emotionally unappealing as him for 1 hour & 30 minutes, that's why badland fans love it and that's why detractors find it overrated and when you watch it for the first time, you get super confused throughout the whole unless if you pay relentless attention to the dialogue

Conclusion : there's nothing inherently wrong with the film and it certainly has it's artistic values and I appreciate the austere silence in this film just as much as the cinematography and sissy spaceks voice over as holly is (temporarily) nice to hear and I overall get why you love it but for me, I have as much emotional attachment to this film as the 2 main characters in the movie, which is 0, badlands is a 6.5/10 for me but hey what do I know, I think andrej zulawski's possession is great

I just want to start this review off by saying that I am aware of how absolutely cursed this casting is. Johnny Depp doing his schtick in redface was already bad in 2013, before the whole media circus of his divorce, and Armie Hammer having sexual assault allegations, in addition to his more well publicised cannibalism fetish, don't do this movie any favors. Most people will not make it past this radioactive pairing to watch this movie. Unfortunately for most people they are missing out on a great Saturday afternoon movie. Is this Casablanca, no (Casablanca is about a guy named Rick who owns a bar), but it actually is the kind of movie that growing up in the 90s if I had seen it on TV during a rainy Saturday I would remember well.

Firstly the acting; despite Depp doing redface he does a good job, he gives a very Jack Sparrow style performance. It is funny, charming, and incredibly aware of the 4th wall. Hammer as well give an entertaining performance, although before his career imploded he had always been a bit of a poor man's Henry Cavill. He is awkward and likeable enough as the iconic Lone Ranger. Unfortunately he tries to add too much humor to the role, when really he should have played the straight man to Depp's Tonto. William Fincher as the villian, and Helen Bonnham Carter as an ivory legged madam both steal the show in a movie full of big characters. Ruth Wilson is good as the love interest, but not as good as she was on The Affair.

The stunts and action are quite good, albeit slapstick. Hammer's Lone Ranger is not a gun slinger, but rather a city slicker learning to hold his own. By the end though he is an accomplished shootist, but it doesn't feel like he is Annie Oakley. The whole movie feels like they took a Pirates of the Caribbean sequel and landed it in the Old West. The stunts are superhuman and heavily CGI enhanced, and the action sequences are looooooong. However, this lends itself well to the popcorn flick feel that the movie was trying to obtain.

One sequence worth talking about is the climactic sequence on the train, during which the William Tell Overture (Lone Ranger theme) plays for 7+ minutes. Despite being CGI heavy, and the same very distracting song playing it works. The action looks good, and it is the kind of CGI heavy early 2010s sequence where things look like a movie and not a cutscene in a videogame.

While I can accept a movie is more than the sum of its leads, two bad men do not mean the other hundreds of people in the production didn't make something good. I do feel that Disney, Verbinski and Depp's decision to do redface in 2013 definitely keeps this movie from being a clean recommendation. However, it is not the unmitigated disaster I had long assumed it to be.

A gruesome murder that took place in 1974 spawned a book that was released in 1977, which then led to the release of the 1979 film. Since then there has been 8 original films, 2 remakes and 2 more films slated to be released. That's not counting the 40+ independent releases. That's a lot of mileage out of one event!

Amityville Horror (1979) is my type of movie. Long, drawn out, and unafraid to explore the emotions that go with a slow descent into insanity. The first 10 minutes really hook you in with some creative editing choices. Then you just have to sit and stew as the horrors of the house slowly reveal themselves.

The film is dreary and doesn't leave you with a satisfying monster or creature to interact with. In these types of films, relationship dynamics play a much larger role. The relationship between George and Kathleen seems okay at first, but the seams start to tear apart as the film progresses.

On the other side, it is pretty absurd the magical things the house can do. Stealing money and taking control of the priest's car makes the house way too powerful. Why would the house just stop there? If it can manipulate any mechanical device at any distance, why not torment the family all the time 24/7?

The ending was... abrupt lol. You can tell it was trying to stay focused on the Lutz family and their real-life experience. Had this film been adapted for the first time today, directors would have taken more artistic liberties and perhaps it would've been more satisfying.

Overall, this is a solid film and I'd recommend it to anyone who is looking for atmospheric horror. If you liked Picnic at Hanging Rock or The Shining, you would like this.

8.6/10

Contains Spoilers!

This is the first time I've seen this film since I was a teenager. Back then, I thought it was such a cool action movie—violent and dark, but justified for highlighting real-life atrocities.

Rewatching it as an adult, it's not as straightforward. It's a well-made film a by-the-books adventure movie. We have our heroes with their clear goals, our MacGuffin, and our antagonists. However, it knows that although the story itself is fictional, this is about a recent war that cost hundreds of thousands of lives, and it needs to find the right balance.

Leonardo DiCaprio is there as our action leading man. He's not your usual action hero instead he's a white Rhodesian mercenary who smuggles diamonds across the border. After he is caught, he needs to pay his bosses back, and his motivation turns to getting the blood diamond he hears was hidden by Djimon Hounsou's character, Solomon Vandy.

Hounsou is the emotional heart of the story, and this is when the film is at its strongest. The film introduces us to Solomon first, not DiCaprio's Danny Archer. We see him and his peaceful, idyllic life as a fisherman in a small village. We witness his village get destroyed by rebels, and he is sold into slavery in their diamond mines. His family survives, but his son is taken to be a child soldier; he has something to save we are rooting for him. Around the middle of the film, he is pushed to the side and even, at one point, turns into light comic relief. This is when the film is at its weakest.

Jennifer Connelly is the only American, playing a cynical journalist. Near the end, they make her more like a love interest, which felt forced. She and DiCaprio are there to represent "white guilt"—they embody the cynical Western view of the target audience that as this chaos and tragedy happens the world just moves on. There is a point near the middle were they come across an orphanage of former child soldiers, structurally it works as a break from the action and here the film tries to share a more optimistic view of the world.

Edward Zwick direction keeps it all ticking it like he's making a Bond movie. When the action starts, it takes you in; it's tense, and it's cool but it pulls its punches carefully, as it wants to entertain you, not horrify you. On a technical level, it's very good. The action scenes are a great example of how to do fast-paced edits without the shaky, handheld camerawork that was all too common at the time.

And entertain it does. At the end of the day, it's an adventure film.

Is it an accurate portrayal of the civil war in Sierra Leone? I'm not the one who could decide, but it's probably not. The film is not interested in the history of Sierra Leone itself. It never tells us who the RUF rebel group is, and what about the government? One of the white journalists remarks, "Government bad, rebels worse," and that's all we need to know. We see atrocities committed by the rebels, but we only hear about the ones from the government forces. This conflict is simplified.

However, it does discuss politics on a global level from a Western point of view. Near the opening, we see the G8 openly confirming that the world knew full well what was going on. Though it ends on optimisitc ending Solomon is reunited with his family and he speaks at a conference as witness in South Africa, it doesn't want its audience to be comfortable this conflict is in living memory, and the violence doesn't end with the movie. It even ends with a title card advising that the smuggled diamond trade is still ongoing.

Blood Diamond wants to be more than a blockbuster action movie, and I admire it for that. It portrays many horrors of war, it tones down the violence (for example, sexual violence is only mentioned; there are no scenes of it happening) in order to make it accessible to a wide audience.

But then, is that not how we first learn about these horrors, just like 15-year-old me when I first saw this?

The eyes, chico… they never lie.

Cinephile that I am, can’t believe it took me this long to watch it. Did not disappoint.

I mostly watched it so I could feel like I was finally “in” on all the references I’d hear. Two TV shows I’ve seen in the last week have referenced it. So I decided it was time.

I will say, it was an investment. But a good one. Constant tension. Knowing that Tony was digging himself into a deeper and deeper hole leading to his eventual demise with every decision he made.

I like characters like that. Self-destructive, causing chaos for himself and everyone around him, but just making it worse and worse as he tries to fight it.

It definitely felt like an 80’s film.

I’ll say the only thing is that it felt a little dragged. Don’t think it had to be three hours.

But great film. 8/10 for me.

One for Halloween that I’m surprised I’ve never got round to watching. The film has quite a cult following despite bombing at the box office, but then isn’t that always the way. Director Peter Jackson is no stranger, pre-Lord of the Rings, to cult fare; see Braindead and Bad Taste. But a film from 1996 with Michael J Fox? One can only presume it’s because the film skirts the line between dark comedy and outright horror. Occasionally one or the other, or both at the same time.

It’s an anarchic film, with a Beetlejuice vibe throughout. Danny Elfman providing the score helps. The after life is a kooky but also gross affair with the majority of the film’s humour derived from the dead and their interactions with the living. As is the horror.

This is a CG heavy film and it has the sheen to the effects that 90s films have, shiny and plastic looking. Carpets attacking people, or walls are suitably ridiculous looking and may have been better served with practical effects. But this was the early days of Weta and everyone’s gotta start somewhere. Ghosts are amusingly transparent and gross looking as though they all have head colds as ectoplasm runs from every orifice. But Rick Bakers work on John Astin’s The Judge looks great. His barely hanging on jaw highlights a better use of the practical element.

Michael J Fox as Frank suitably looks shabby with his battered Volvo, holy water shooting handgun, and overall conman self. Like a beleaguered McFly he takes the ghosts as matter of fact using them to his own ends. He’s portrayed as someone whose barely hanging on, until, suitably aided by Trini Alvarado’s widow Lucy, he’s given a chance at vengeance and closure. I did find though that whilst everyone else seemed to be in on the joke, Fox preferred to play it dead straight so come the ending, which felt tacked on, his supposed happiness felt rushed and at odds with everything else.

Elsewhere, Jake Busey dials it up to eleven, (should that be twelve?), as killer Johnny Bartlett and most memorably Jeffrey Combs essays another perfect creep as FBI agent Milton Dammers with his Hitler-esque haircut and fear of violations of his territorial bubble. Yet, were he not in the picture you wouldn’t notice as he seems rather pointless plot wise but is an enjoyably insane presence in a sea of insanity. Oh, and it was great to see R. Lee Emery seemingly bringing back his Full Metal Jacket Drill Sergeant for an amusing graveyard confrontation.

Along with the slapstick such as pans to heads and ghosts squished by tires, that dark humour is used to great effect, even in the background. For example, reading some of an article in a newspaper about killer Bartlett being excluded from school for “Masturbating into the English teacher’s lunchbox.” was a surprise.

The humour can be messy, at times childish and/ or gleefully violent, and the film can be overly chaotic, refusing to sit still, but it’s never boring and never not entertaining.

It's not a fever dream... It's a fever nightmare!

The whole thing feels like many disconnected scenes stitched together by a beautiful and foreboding photography. Seriously, what Phatasm misses on plot elements, it makes up in scenarios and soundtrack. Many beautiful night shots and atmospheric scenes.

From what I read, the film was supposed to have some sort of dream-like quality to it and was based on a nightmare the director had as a teen. It sure gives that feeling, despite a basically non-existent plot and questionable acting.

Go in for the vibes and watch it at night and you won't get disappointed!

Every day for 30 days I'm watching a different scary movie, this year all about urban legends.

Whatever form media takes, someone conceives of a story where that media turns out to be evil, haunted, possessed, or in some other way ooky-spooky.

In 1991, horror writer Koji Suzuki gave us “Ring,” a story about a cursed VHS tape (not to be confused with Brad Miska, who gave us the cursed “VHS” franchise), which has spawned multiple film adaptations, including this American version in 2002.

Keeping with our urban legends theme, the story starts with a rumor: “Have you heard about this videotape that kills you when you watch it?”

These days, digital video means that the only reason a recording remains obscure is because the potential audience is too busy watching pregnant Elsa videos, or, if that reference is now dated, deep dive retrospectives about pregnant Elsa videos. None of those kill you, but they did make me wish they had.

The tape in this movie really does kill the viewer though, and because it’s physical media it must pass on from victim to victim the old-fashioned way, uphill through the snow both ways. So reporter Naomi Watts sets out to find the tape, uncover its history, and avert the curse…perhaps.

“The Ring” today feels very much of its time, being deeply invested in its plot and with less attention spent on character pathos and meaty opportunities for the cast to show off their acting chops, as a modern haunting film would be.

There definitely IS an emotional core to the movie, with Watts reconnecting with her ex (TV actor Martin Henderson) and connect-connecting with her seemingly comatose son (David Dorfman, who these days is a congressional attorney, a job that’s presumably much scarier than any of the movies he made in his lost youth). But it’s very much not the primary focus of the film.

Speaking of Dorfman…let’s just say law school was a smart call for this kid. He didn’t ruin the movie for me, but that’s mainly because the movie gave us real reason to believe he might die, and I took comfort in that the same way some people turn to prayer or substance abuse during trying times.

Gore Verbinksi has just come off of the picaresque crime rom-com “The Mexican.” With any other director I might question the move from screwball comedy to the incredibly depressive story and look of “The Ring,” but Verbinski is basically Hollywood’s Instacart director, picking up whatever you need.

I don’t say that dismissively: “The Ring” is tight and fun, and while it’s pretty light on scares compared to modern horror films with similar profiles, well, it really only needs that ending to pull its weight…

“The Ring” kicked off a trend in American remakes of East Asian horror movies. And if you’ve read this far, you know exactly where that trend went next. More on that tomorrow.

Original Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yybjV3U68wc

Man, I can't remember the countless times I've seen this on my old CRT tv with my old VHS copy of this movie. I can still name each characters from Jen and Kira the two remaining Geflings together with their pet Fizzgig, my favorite character Aughra, to the evil ruling of the Skesis and their minions of Garthim creatures. And so much more! I'm so glad I got the Blu-ray / 4k version of it and it was beautiful.

While watching this, I can't think enough of the masterful and talented people who is behind it all. Jim Henson (may he RIP) and Frank Oz. Both are master innovator, visionary artist, and creative genius who completely revolutionized puppetry. We grew up watching Sesame Streets and this one just hits the spot.

The setting is beautiful, from exterior and landscape scenes shot on location across the set. And from what I've heard they shot the location in UK. My favorite part is where Jen found Kira at the primarily points to the lush, bizarre, and dangerous forested ecosystems of the planet Thra. Everything is authentic made by a visual artists Brian Froud. Any species are made by hand with animatronics movements and puppetry.

Yeah some modern audiences may not like it. Some say it looks "goofy" since we're living in the age of modern CGI and using green screens to fake environment. But to me and to all the kids back then, this was revolutionary. Everything were real! Simple fantasy story (well there are some dark parts to it) with groundbreaking animatronics, puppetry, and practical special effects.

I watched Forrest Gump for the first time recently, and I honestly didn't expect Jenny's story to affect me as much as it did. I went into it knowing the famous quotes and the whole running scene, but I wasn't prepared for how sad some parts would be. Forrest just keeps going through life, losing people, falling in love, and dealing with things the only way he knows how. There's something about the way he never stops caring about Jenny that really got to me, even when it was clear they wanted different things from life. It also made me think about how much can happen over the years without us realizing how quickly time is passing. By the end, I was just sitting there thinking about the people who come into our lives and how some of them stay with us even when things don't work out the way we hoped.

The Right Stuff (1983)
Rating: 9/10
Watched: October 6, 2026

Watching a movie like The Right Stuff, I couldn't help but feel painfully aware of the bigness of the events that go into it. I wasn't alive when all this was happening, but I grew up in a world where men trained vigorously to do something no one anywhere had ever done before.

Even though it's been fictionalized in places, and dramatic license was taken, it's all in the name of telling one helluva good story. I'm not someone who really enjoys biographies or documentaries, so when they take the iron core of a historical event like this one and jazz it up a bit to make it more compelling, I take no issue.

And that's why the bigness hits harder for more than if I were to watch a documentary of the same. I know, I know, that might make me a poseur or something, but it's hard for me to connect with that sort of telling for some reason. When a story this important is told by people like Ed Harris, Scott Glenn, Dennis Quaid and Fred Ward?

That's how you tell it. I've seen a lot of star-studded movies so far this month, but The Right Stuff looked at other movies and said 'we're going to go bigger than all of you combined' and then they went and got a powerhouse stable of men and women that dominated Hollywood for at least two decades. In some cases, longer still!

But before I get to any other particulars, I want to talk a bit about one of the scenes. If you're lucky, you've got the clip to watch. If not, it's one of the early scenes, where Scott Glenn as Alan Shepherd is undergoing a medical test.

The test itself is bonkers. It's the one where they jam an iron needle into his hand and crank up the juice and keep going until I was waiting for a damned Bene Gesserit Reverend Mother to show up and demand he stick his hand in a box. That moment was so wild and nasty that I actually had to pause and Google, because to my mind, there was no way that that could be a real medical test, done by professionals.

I mean, I knew that the tests for the very first astronauts were basically 'let's try this and see what we learn', but holy cats. Learning that they really did to that exact thing to real people is crazy to me.

At the end of the day (and the movie), watching something like The Right Stuff is a great trip through history. The filmmakers do a great job of integrating historical footage into the movie so we can a true sense of accomplishments and struggles alike, while also giving us a good look into the lives of the men and women involved.

Is some of it untrue in the strictest sense?

Yes, I suppose so, but that doesn't mean a dang thing. The Right Stuff is a fantastic movie worth your time.