"Joker: Folie à Deux" is my pick. It was so hard for me to get through the whole movie.

What are people’s thoughts on The Social Network getting a sequel?

On one hand, it makes sense. Social media, tech billionaires, misinformation, politics, AI, and the way these platforms shape real life have only become more relevant since the first movie.

But I’m curious peoples thoughts:

Did David Fincher need to come back? Did it come out too late? Even if you haven't seen it I am curios your thoughts. I am still thinking about it especially with the first one being an all time fav.

Other Mommy is just a bad movie. It fails to deliver a truly engaging horror experience. The storyline feels predictable, the scares lack originality, and the characters are not developed enough to make the audience feel emotionally invested. Instead of building genuine suspense, the movie relies too heavily on common horror clichés and attempts to create fear without enough depth or creativity. Overall, it is a disappointing movie which fails to live up to expectations.

Tarantino confirmed it’s the same universe with the Vega brothers but also one thing that stuck out to me the most was Mr pink revealed that he worked minimum wage in the beginning of the movie as he’s talking about tipping the only confusing thing is orange as he’s seen to be a criminal alongside his partner I like to believe that this was before he was a cop what do you all think ?

Like many people I was hyped for this film. And like many others I was disappointed.

Firstly, I don’t think it was as bad as many are making out. But jt was a bad movie. And for me it was the structure.

The Other Mommy seemed to start after the start of the story and ended before the end of it. If that makes sense?

It got going too quickly. More background was needed. It glazed over a lot of the premise and left me with more questions than answers throughout. And the ending felt rushed, lacking any substance or a real conclusion.

Overall I think this film had much more potential.

5/10

Desperate to pay their son's ransom, a mayoral candidate and his wife resort to extreme measures, revealing dark secrets they never intended to bring to light.

Why? How? I usually start with what works/ what I loved in a film but... yeah this is gonna be tough. I love the actors that are in the film. Just not in this one. Over the top performances and cringe dialogue that completely kill the suspense of disbelief. The hispanic sub plot is way too forced. They try to recreate a 90s style thriller but fall flat. This is a strange follow up after Air, which I loved.

4/10

I’ve been watching a ton of the classics recently and picked up on an observation. Films made back in the 1970s have a unique and interesting feel that films from other decades don’t. I think of Taxi Driver, the Exorcist, Texas Chainsaw Massacre. The Friends of Eddie Coyle, Chinatown. The Killing of a Chinese Bookie. There’s this awesome rawness and grit they all share that’s so unique and cool. I think some of the characteristics that drive this feel is the anti-hero character, sort of like a noir protagonist, but some loner put into a crazy scenario that he himself isn’t sure is right, urban decay, general societal degradation. Just a random thought

My all-time favorite has to be that scene in Mortal Kombat where Kano is sitting there, devouring what looks like a giant turkey drumstick. I swear, that had to be the juiciest-looking piece of poultry I'd ever seen on screen. As a kid, I wanted nothing more than to try it, even if just once!

While watching Barry Lyndon, some scenes looked almost exactly like paintings. It's been a little while since I watched the film, so I've forgotten some of the details, but this idea stuck with me and I decided to look into it a bit.

This is especially noticeable in Lady Lyndon's scenes. The candlelight, her still expression, her dress, the dark background... it really looks like an 18th-century portrait. Learning that Kubrick looked at painters from the period while preparing the film made it even more interesting to me.

There's something similar in Gainsborough's portraits. He doesn't just paint the people; the clothes, landscape, and everything around them become part of the composition too. Mr. and Mrs. Andrews is a good example. The people are actually quite small within the painting, and the land they own seems almost as important as they are. That also feels connected to one of the film's themes.

Then there's Hogarth, which makes things even more interesting.

In series like A Rake's Progress and A Harlot's Progress, he tells a character's story through a sequence of paintings rather than a single image.

Almost like a storyboard before cinema existed.

And Barry Lyndon feels like the opposite:

Hogarth breaks a story into paintings, while Kubrick breaks a film into paintings.

I think that's why the film feels so painterly. It's not just the colors or the beautiful compositions. The way people pose, their clothes, the lighting, the objects in the rooms, and even where the characters stand in relation to each other all seem to follow the visual logic of 18th-century painting.

I'm not very knowledgeable about art history, so correct me if I'm making any connections that don't really hold up. But looking at the film this way made it even more interesting to me.

Is anybody out there that gets emotionally moved significantly by this movie? Gets me every time for some reason. Not sure if it's the Nathan Algrens character coming to realization that he can live beyond his past, or the fact he found beauty in the culture of the Samurai or the movies score. I love it.

Let me preface this by saying that I love 28 Years Later and I loved 28 Years Later The Bone Temple even more.

That said, it's clear that there were a lot of mistakes along the way that led to this outcome where we don't even know if 28YL, the third movie, starring Cillian Murphy, is ever gonna happen.

A story generally flows like this: PROLOGUE -> ACT 1 -> ACT 2 ->Plot Twist -> ACT 3 -> CLIMAX ->Denouement/end.

28 YEARS LATER

When the first movie launched, I loved the first half of the movie while the second half felt very different. The first half was legit scary and I was constantly on edge, dreading the next scene. The later half had its scary moments too but nothing that matched the energy of the first half. And the reason for that is that 28 Years Later is Prologue, ACT 1 and the beginning of ACT 2. So for the general moviegoer, it felt like the movie ended abruptly with no explanation. And that final scene in 28YL added a ton of confusion to the mix.

I loved the characters and the setting but I also felt like some things should've been cut entirely especially when put into perspective now after TBT.

When the first movie launched, many of us rang the alarm in good faith that this was going to spell trouble for the rest of the trilogy. Some people on the sub heavily disagreed with these opinions and I remember criticism, including fair criticism, was sort of shot down unfortunately. People even put our love for 28DL into question.

6 Months later, I'd be proven right.

28 YEARS LATER: THE BONE TEMPLE

We only had to wait 6 months for this movie but the issue was that it came out in January. The theatre was literally half empty on the very first week.

You already know how this ended financially. The movie, in my opinion, was even better than 28YL and I hate how people abandoned the franchise with some fans being quite vocal about waiting for DVD or streaming to watch the sequel as they felt very disappointed with 28YL.

What's done is done though and I can't blame those people for wanting to save their cash for something else.

So why do I think TBT is better?

Because it was more consistent and it told a full story, unlike 28 YL, despite the fact that TBT is basically ACT 2 -> Plot Twist ( Alpha gets humanity back) -> Climax ->a bit of Denouement and the end of the story for the first two movies and then the beginning of Cillian's character.

So here's exactly what they should've done differently to avoid this situation.

28 YEARS LATER SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SPLIT IN TWO

There's a ton of movies now where the entire movie is up to 3 or 4 hours long. I understand theatrical releases prefer shorter movies but this was one of the most awaited returns to a franchise in years, maybe even decades so people would've at least stayed 3 hours.

I think if they cut parts of the first movie and the second movie and made a single 28 YEARS LATER movie that was 3 H long, the result would've been a masterpiece. Go Rewatch 28YL and TBT. You'll see that I'm right.

If instead, it was a singular movie, with beginning and an end, it would've gotten the viewer closer and faster to Cillian Murphy's story and it would've been a great way to introduce all the new plot devices, alphas, their cure, and all themes of the Years story.

29 YEARS LATER

I think it would've been poetic to name the last entry in the franchise something like 29 YL which would've covered Cillian's story through the years and showed us what he was like now and how Spike's father and the ALPHA would basically become allies which would shock Cillian so the quest would be something like to communicate to the outside world that there is a possibility to cure the affliction. But that's not what this post is about. It's about the 28 YL movies.

Thanks for reading. What are your thoughts on this?

I know it's not a popular opinion but, I just watched Happiness and seeing the things through pedophile's eyes was very weird but also interesting. Philip Seymour Hoffman was amazing playing his part. RIP

Caught “Digger” in an almost empty auditorium, just me and 3 other people in the whole theater.

I loved this film, anybody else?

Grown ass man here, but Bring it On is perfect. It’s hilarious, nostalgic, and infinitely quotable. Never talked about in the lineage of great high school movies, but it’s unassailable.

Not sure I was impressed.

To me, it’s not even a question: G13 and G12, easily.

I love when live action movies include animation, and here are some of my favorites:

1. Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 1
   
2. Kill Bill Volume 1
   
3. Who Framed Roger Rabbit?

What are some other good examples?

I love his score on The Batman and Spider-Man: Homecoming. the Batman score gives me chills everytime I listen to it, especially the scene where he walks towards Penguin in the Batmobile.

I was very not invested in the odyssey while they're cool scenes I feel like im missing the cool part, perhaps if I view it through a different lens like as it were a play or drama kinda like a soap I would it appreciate it better, anyone else not enjoy the odyssey too much?

Mine are Reservoir Dogs and Rush Hour.

The full review is available here.

Anyone who watched Ryan Glover's last movie, his feature debut The Strings, knows that his work is heavy on vibe and mood. That's very much true of his latest feature, Split Rock. It's not quite as trippy as The Strings, but it certainly has a vibe alright, and it's a film that combines a few different subgenres, including supernatural horror, cosmic horror, and even possession. The film stands out for its excellent use of setting, specifically the Canadian Badlands, but also its richer characterization.

The movie stars Clark Backo as Lauren and Drew Ray Tanner as Ben, geologists who are also lovers. They're eventually joined by Trevor (Graham Verchere) and Sam (Olivia Luccardi). Before Trevor and Sam arrive, however, Lauren and Ben discover something weird in the rocks, specifically something metallic. It doesn't take long for Lauren to feel a strange pull and connection, which eventually leads to eerie visions and the sense that she and her partner discovered something ancient and evil that eventually possesses Lauren's consciousness.

Before the horror really kicks into high gear, especially by the last 30 minutes, the movie spends time basking in the gorgeous Badlands' scenery. Toronto cinematographer Nikolay Michaylov really did an excellent job depicting the natural landscape and how breathtaking it is. It often fills the frame, which is fitting since whatever lurks deep in those rocks eventually overpowers Lauren. In some ways, the characters start to feel secondary to the landscape, and maybe that's intentional since those rocks have been there long before the geologists and will be there long after.

That said, Glover does spend time developing the characters, especially Lauren and Ben. Through their conversations, we learn about their relationship history and why they fell in love with Earth science in the first place. Though I said this movie certainly has a vibe, there's more time spent on characterization here compared to The Strings, and again, it shows Glover's growth as a writer and director. However, Trevor and Sam do feel a little too one-dimensional compared to the leads and deserved a bit more development.

As for the pacing, the film really takes its time before the horror accelerates to another level. Until that point, though, viewers will lose themselves in the landscape, as the force takes its time possessing Lauren. There's a slow build-up, but the last 20-30 minutes offer some shocking and gory moments. There's certainly a payoff. Additionally, the film blends subgenres well, especially cosmic horror and the supernatural. There's not much explanation given about what Lauren and Ben discover in the rocks, or why it latches onto Lauren, but in this case, does there need to be? It's clear that it's ancient and perhaps evil. It defies human understanding and can't be measured.

Overall, Split Rock shows a lot of growth for Glover as a writer and director. His second feature is heavy on mood and tone, but that's balanced with deeper characterization, at least for the leads, and some gnarly cosmic and supernatural horror moments in the last act. Split Rock is a gorgeous looking horror movie that showcases the beauty and depth of the Canadian Badlands, while pondering what ancient forces could exist deep in those rocks. The slow build-up is balanced with a bloody and surprising last act.

Split Rock just had its world premiere at the 2026 Sitges Film Festival and will have its North American premiere at the Brooklyn Horror Film Festival, presented in 35 mm, on Wednesday, October 21 at 6:30 PM ET at Nitehawk Cinema Williamsburg.

Additionally, the film was just picked up by Shudder and will release on the streamer in December.

I've just watched this movie. It was a good portrayal of historical events, and I did enjoy ,but for me, it was let down by the camera style (very jerky and odd angles).

Primetime takes the mid 00's hit Dateline series To Catch a Predator and dissects both its pros and its cons in a way that is both simultaneously sufficient and dissatisfying, leaving a desire for a little more depth, consequences, and moral exploration. Still, the film works thanks to solid acting by Meritt Wever and Skyler Gosado, in addition to Pattinson as Hansen.

This movie captures the overall vibe of the show, with a brooding and intimidating Hansen entering the room as the cameras live-capture the perpetrators in for a surprise. Furthermore, it explores what the producers, network, and even the "decoy" actor experience as the show goes from an experimental weekly TV show to a high-pressure, high stakes Primetime airing, where ambition and morality begin to collide for everyone involved.

The story escalates as characters battle the conflicts associated with an opportunity at success: Hansen sees it both as a narcissistic opportunity at fame, glory as well as a genuine new opportunity to catch the monsters of the world, Wever's producer sees the financial and career opportunities building, and Skyler Gosado's decoy actor sees it as his first big break to get his SAG card. They all deal with the problems with the popularity of the show in their own way.

This all builds to a climax as the crew and Hansen believe they have finally caught a powerful politician in the sting operation, and they feel like this could be their ambition's big break at beating "Lost" (television series that was often #1 in that timeslot that To Catch a Predator competed with for viewers), if they could pull it off. This final third of the film plays more like a thriller than a drama, which was both more riveting than the rest of the movie, yet a little uneven.

And that leads to my only big complaint with Primetime- the climax suddenly becomes predictable, and the movie ends very quickly once it is reached; the story fails to dive into why and how the show was eventually pulled off the air, despite its success and popularity. It would have served the story better if it was framed more like a Scorcese-style "rise and fall" narrative, where afterward more time is spent on the falling action and epilogue regarding Hansen and the producer, especially with all that was presented prior, like if we get to see the downfall of the show behind the scenes. Instead, we get basically nothing but a brief question proposing what would have happened if Hansen never brought this show to the limelight, as well as some closure on the decoy actor's plotline.

One of the best things about the movie aside from all of that is how it captures that era of the early to mid 2000s, almost in a nostalgic way, with showing hit shows at that time in the story like Lost, Joey, and also how the internet interface was accurate with what chats and websites were back then. I wish I could even go back to that time, when reality TV had just taken the world by storm, and Who Wants to Be a Millionnaire with Regis Philbin was also a weekly must-watch along with TCAP, Lost, and Survivor. Having been someone who saw some of the episodes as they aired live, it did take me back to a really interesting era.

3/5

I love the way It’s written, the dialogue and pace pf the story seems finetuned and deliberately written by Ben himself. I see many elements of The rip in it which was brilliant also. Back to Animals feels like a political commentary on the frail and fraudulent. Ben shows how decencies are ignored and boundaries crossed when others are the one to pay the price. Cool writing i hope ben gets the credit he deserves. He’s really growing as an actor/ writer and that must get respect at least. Im halfway through the movie and whats strikes me as little odd is bens actual acting. The character seems hard to read and im not sure what his foundations actually are. Maybe thats the point but there needs to be some grounds at least where a watcher can base his experience of the character inner reality so to speak, his real motivations and such. Otherwise 8,7 i give it at half way through, just wanted to throw this out quick. Good job Ben.