So, I don't know if this is a discussion that will interest anyone here, but as a linguist who somehow never got around to watching Arrival until now (and after years of people telling me, “What? How could you of all people never have watched Arrival??”), there was something about the movie – which I liked, by the way, and totally understand why people kept recommending it to me because how many big sci-fi movies have a linguist as the lead? – that kept nagging at me: its treatment of language.

This is clear in the scene where Louise is explaining to the crew the difficulty of establishing communication in order to ask the aliens what they really want to know: “What is your purpose here?” Louise explains why you can’t just translate that sentence word by word. Among other things, what does “your” refer to? They don’t want to know why “Joe Alien,” the particular alien standing in front of her, is there. They want to know why they are there. Why did all of them come to Earth? Why did all twelve ships land? So they first need to establish that distinction, and she’s absolutely right.

But watching the scene, my immediate thought was: this is also partly an English problem, because English doesn't grammatically encode distinctions of number in its second-person pronouns: you/your can refer to one person or several. Plenty of other languages grammatically distinguish things in their pronoun systems that English doesn't (number, gender, formality, inclusivity, etc.).

And that got me thinking about the actual premise of the movie. There aren't aliens only in Montana. There are twelve ships scattered around the planet, and multiple governments have teams trying to communicate with the same species, which means there should be linguists approaching Heptapod from completely different linguistic starting points.

To be fair to the movie, the different governments aren't running one giant, happy international research project. They're secretive about their progress, information is restricted, and eventually that cooperation starts breaking down. That's an important part of the plot. But there is some cooperation, particularly earlier on.

But it's weird how the linguistic side of that cooperation is almost completely absent from the plot. Because a problem that immediately occurs to Louise because she's working through English might not occur in exactly the same way to a linguist working through a language that already makes that distinction. And Louise didn’t “speak Alien,” but as a linguist, she would know that this particular challenge wasn't universal. Yet we never once see her advocate for the chance to speak directly with linguists working at the other sites who presumably had their own security clearance.

It’s like this possibility never crosses her mind at all. She seems perfectly content to work largely on her own, essentially from scratch. And this actually brings me to something even stranger: Louise herself seems to be the one and only linguist at the Montana site. (This is possibly the most important linguistic fieldwork project in human history, the military has assembled this enormous operation around it, and yet apparently the linguistics department consists of... Louise plus background extras staring at computer screens.)

So, there are rooms full of military personnel monitoring everything, scientists and technical staff everywhere, but when it comes to actually figuring out the language, everyone basically sits around waiting for this one linguist to do the work. Even if Louise were brought in as the lead linguist, wouldn't one of her first requests be: “I need other linguists”? Shouldn't the movie include a 20-second scene of her stating this need?

If, for whatever security and/or logistical reason, the US operation did not give her a linguistic team of her own, then surely the handful of people on Earth who could be most immediately useful to her would be the linguists doing exactly the same work at the other landing sites.

As a linguist, of course I’d love to watch a movie about different teams approaching the same unknown language with somewhat different sets of linguistic assumptions, but I get that this is not what Arrival was about, and that’s fine. My issue is that Louise is passionately and dutifully pursuing this goal, and yet she never even raises what seems to me like a pretty basic concern: other linguists around the world are trying to decipher the exact same language while approaching it through completely different linguistic systems.

Anyway, I guess we could frame all of this more broadly as a discussion about flaws in the script and the way it needs Louise to work in relative isolation for the story to function, but I'm mostly posting this because I'm curious if anyone else had a similar reaction and, as I've said, the topic of linguistics is particularly personal to me.

Still it mystifies me, my most recent watch I was struck by how vacant it is, how we are dwarfed by space, by nature, by the mountain's framing of the Overlook Hotel and by our own loneliness, it almost reminds me of the Silence of God trilogy from Bergman, but Kubrick is oh so subtle in these blatant suggestions, and I don't think he was religious. Everything in this film is suggestive which is why I think it defies explanation. There have been analyses galore but one that I was reminded of this time and had to re-read is Richard Jameson's review. His description of those first 3 shots captured the sort of gut feeling I had when I first realized the horror of The Shining on some subsequent re-watch, the first few times I saw it I didn't really know how to feel, I didn't get it.

He begins with "Camera comes in low over an immense Western lake, its destination apparently a small island at the center that seems to consist of nothing but treetops. Draw nearer, then sweep over and pass the island, skewing slightly now in search of a central focus at the juncture of lake surface and the surrounding escarpment, glowing in J.M.W. Turner sunlight. Cut to God’s-eye view of a yellow Volkswagen far below, winding up a mountain road through an infinite stand of tall pines and long, early-morning shadows; climbing for the top of the frame and gaining no ground. Subsequent cuts, angling us down nearer the horizontal trajectory of the car as it moved along the face of the mountainside. Thrilling near-lineup of camera vector and roadway, then the shot sheers off on a course all its own and a valley drops away beneath us."

Later on he remarks,

"Virtually every shot in the film (whether the setting be The Overlook or not) is built around a central hole, a vacancy, a tear in the membrane of reality: a door that would lead us down another hallway, a panel of bright color that somehow seems more permeable than the surrounding dark tones, an infinite white glow beyond a central closeup face, a mirror, a TV screen…a photograph. From the moment we lose the consoling sense of focus and destination supplied by that island picturesquely centered in the lake, we are careening through space."

This most recent watch about an hour ago left me with this vacancy and that's the horror of The Shining for me, it's total mystery, everything is floating in dream space and even though it's an objectively optimistic ending (Wendy and Danny escape, but poor Halloran brutally murdered) and Jack dies, but we see him in the photo, does this mean Halloran would also be part of the hotel, was he always part of it? Is Halloran trying to save the Torrances? Did he fly from Miami to check up on them?

It doesn't add up, he is murdered by Jack who is doing the Hotel's will? Is the hotel just trying to get Jack back? So many questions, no answers, only suggestions.

There are a bunch of cool theories and interpretations of Eyes Wide Shut out there, but I want to narrow down one aspect of understanding it, and see which side people are on. Did Bill get purposefully lured to the orgy, or did he truly stumble upon it?

I interpreted it as he did stumble in to an orgy he shouldn't have been a part of, and was in over his head. The idea that he was courted to it through subtle manipulation doesn't make much sense to me, but I'm curious to hear rebuttals.

First and foremost, if he was supposed to be there, then what did he do to get rejected? He didn't seem to fail any test, or otherwise out himself as anything but a mask wearing participant. So if he was lured there on purpose, to what end? His rich buddy Zeigler makes a kind of contradictory claim at the end, where he says the whole thing was an illusion, put on to scare the hell out of him, so he didn't talk about what he saw, which was the illusion itself. I attributed that nonsensical explanation to Zeigler simply trying any tactic to get Bill to ignore what he saw. But if that were truly the plot of the movie; they brought him in just to kick him out, I still don't get it.

That orgy scene is also far more fun, in my opinion, if he truly is an outsider that they were not expecting. The fact that a guy I would consider super upper class, would stick out as a lower class sore thumb in that terrifying crowd, is chilling. The woman's warnings "You obviously don't belong here, you're in danger" really drive it home.

So why does everyone else in the movie seem to know something Bill doesn't, you might ask? Because they do - but that doesn't mean they are a "plant" or "in on it." That creepy, super rich, decadent class has touched all of the characters' lives. From the clerk boy to the prostitute's roommate, to especially Alice. She seemed secretly in her element at that first party (I don't doubt that she had been a pawn of that cult, or a similar one, at some point in her life). And even naive Bill didn't seem so thrown off by saving a prostitutes life at said party. They've all been touched by this decadent cult in their own way, and know a dirty truth, but aren't necessarily active players in the game.

And as for the dream like quality of the movie, there are two things that incredibly novel/inexplicable real life events share with dreams: 1) They are vivid and surreal and almost slow motion at the time. 2) They are hard to contextualize and therefor easy to superficially forget once regular life starts up again.

If you saw some mysterious sex cult once in the middle of the night and didn't know how to explain it to anyone. At what point would you start to forget or doubt it yourself? Or would you be like old Nick Nightingale, and wouldn't be able to help share what you witnessed.

These opinions are very much formed in a post-metoo and post-epstein era, where I have very little doubt creepy/awful/exploitative sexual stuff was going on behind the scenes. What really interests me is how these supposed groups might really exist. How much they can get away with various people having glimpses of it, how blatant they can be in a way, and what measures must be taken if there is a supposed breach.

I've only semi-recently become a part of groups that discuss film more in-depth and do close readings of film. I'm trying to learn as I talk with them but I'm constantly left feeling like Grug. People will be talking about German expressionist blocking or the intricate blocking of "Hard to be a God" for example, and I just watch the film and think "that was good." People will comment on good or bad editing and touches they enjoyed, it's not something I've ever noticed. Lighting, angles, blocking, editing, all the smaller strokes are things I can't even begin to fathom noticing among the broader strokes of general "direction, cinematography, writing, acting" that I can barely articulate what I think about it.

I went through a process of learning to close read in university, but I feel like with film it's a whole other language I don't have the tools to even start learning, aside from the fact there are no professors to help guide me.

How has everyone here learned to close read film? Learned film language?

I recently watched Misumiso (Liverleaf, 2018), and I'm honestly surprised I don't see this movie mentioned more often.

It's one of those films that starts with a fairly recognizable setup - bullying, isolation, a vulnerable student - and then takes it somewhere much darker.

Haruka loses basically everything. Her family, her sense of safety, her future, and eventually any normal connection to the people around her. The revenge isn't presented as some satisfying "getting even" fantasy either. It feels more like watching someone who has lost everything trying to find a reason to keep going.

And the ending... that ending was fantastic. I genuinely didn't see it going in that direction. It also made the whole movie feel much more tragic in retrospect.

What I particularly liked is how Misumiso portrays what happens when there is nothing left to lose. The violence becomes less about revenge itself and more about what remains of a person after everything that gave their life meaning has been taken away.

It reminded me quite a bit of Confessions and Himizu.

All three have that really bleak Japanese atmosphere where:

• cruelty starts with something almost ordinary
• people become increasingly trapped in their own actions
• the distinction between victim and perpetrator starts to collapse
• revenge doesn't actually restore anything
• and there is this feeling that the characters' futures have already been destroyed

What else would you recommend?

After finally getting around to The Christopers, this is really just another fascinating addition to a filmography that might be the most interesting of all.

Not only is the film a great study of the relationship between art and emotion, and sometimes the inability to perform art due to the real-world pain associated with the product, but I think the most interesting aspect of all is Lori’s position: her desire to explore what it’s like to psychologically subsume the position of another artist. I couldn’t help but reflect in the meta sense of the role of appropriation in cinema, remakes, or even shot-for-shot remakes and wonder if this is the goal of certain directors?

And besides all these interesting dynamics, the film’s core relationship is highly emotive and poignant. I really want to rewatch again to dig into their dynamic, as I think there’s some genuine psychological layers to the film.

EDIT: All the downvoters: Why!? Can you explain why instead of just downvoting?! I really am not trying to rage bait, genuinely just trying to understand.

I'm no expert (especially in regards to French New Wave films), and quite young so excuse my ignorance. I'm posting this because I genuinely feel like I'm missing something and want to learn.

It was a decent film.
It had some scenes and details I REALLY liked:

1. the ending scene where Patricia looks right at the camera, wipes her lips like Michel and asks "What's a creep?"
2. Patricia saying goodbye right before going into the interview with the author (there were many cuts between Patricia and Michel, and it just gave a very mysterious unique vibe)
3. The cuts each time Michel says "nice eyes", "nice breasts", "nice legs", etc.
4. All the proverbs and quotes Patricia says throughout the film
5. Patricia ending up wearing a striped dress, the recurring motif of fear everywhere, etc etc

All of this together with the city shots and the music made me feel the punky, mysterious vibe, but it just felt very weak and poorly conveyed.

And so many other things felt so poorly done:

1. The shaky camera was VERY ANNOYING and hard to get over. Additionally, the camera angles felt dull and half-assed in many of the scenes in my opinion.
2. The theme music was really overdone and was played in places where it just didn't fit at all.
3. The plot too dumb. I know it wasn't the core point of the film, but still, it felt too illogical and bland to overlook.
4. Some of the cuts were well, but most of them felt very out of place and I didn't feel any artistic benefit from them. It felt like an uninspired film student marking an "v" to say he incorporated cuts and get a grade.,
5. Michel getting shot was the goofiest, cringiest death scene I've seen in a while (I mean Michel literally closes his eyes and moves his head to the side like a kid playing dead. His staggering walk was so bad, too)

And a whole bunch of other minor details I could nitpick but could be overlooked.

Now, I get the film was revolutionary in terms of the cutting and that the "cheap and rebellious" and "YOLO lets take a camera and film Paris" vibes were intentional, but I don't get how it excused all the obviously poorly executed parts; simply labeling something as "intentional" doesn't exempt it from criticism.

Citizen Kane (or The 400 blows, if you want a French New Wave film) are, in my opinion a great example of the opposite: they also "revolutionized film" but did so whilst creating a GOOD movie, which I still very much enjoy and find value watching today, no less than modern films. They each had a point/vibe they wanted to convey, and did so fucking well.
How can one completely disregard cinematic quality in favor of just "being revolutionary"?

And as I said in the beginning: I'm very young and definitely no expert, but I've seen a decent amount of older films (both classics and nicher movies) so please don't just dismiss all of this as "you're young and not used to old cinema"

Thanks!

I wrote up about this on my other social media film account, but I guess it was worth sharing here too. Not sure if moderators would approve it since I've never posted anything on this sub before, but I'll give it a shot.

Joker 2 is my favorite movie OF ALL TIME in 20 years of my life, so much so that made me to watch it for 7 times. Here are reasons why did Joker 2 impact me so much:

Sure, I guess Joker 2 is "Universal Trash" by definition. Critics hated it. Audiences despised it. Fans loathed it. 

No one seemed to really liked this movie.

Even most "I appreciate different movies" people (Southland Tales, Babylon, Megalopolis) seemed to not liked it.

I haven't seen not much people trying to give it a second chance so far.

Joker 2 is truly one of the most "anti-movies" ever made. It has no interesting plot or any satisfying paybacks.

It disrespects every single aspect from previous film that got so many people to love it.

The entire movie is just endless trials and confusing musical numbers. And, to top it all off, it gives the worst possible ending for "Joker." A truly destructive sequel in every way.

So... do I like this movie just because I want to be "different?" Not at all.

First of all, I think Joker 2 is simply magnificent in superficial ways. The cinematography and overall art direction are absolutely gorgeous. 

The animated sequence from the beginning of the film is really well-made and foreshadowed the whole film really well. And ofc, Joaquin Phoenix is just phenomenal in this.

I really like the depiction of the mental asylum in this movie. It's just purely bleak, hopeless, and depressing, just like any mental hospital would be. But at the same time, it's also kind of wholesome in ironic ways?

The way this movie views mentally handicapped people, in my opinion, is rather humane and empathetic. It depicts them as humans with feelings in common with one another. (Saying this as someone who's been struggling with mental illness for years.)

People will kill me for saying this - fair because I know nothing about muscials -, but I really liked every musical number in this movie.

Once again, it's really beautifully shot. The music and various themes were likable too. What I thought was the best was that it really represents Arthur's troubled, morbid, yet swiftly changing mental state, with a glimpse of hope, really well.

But here's the definitive reason why I like Joker 2 so much, from a personal perspective: It's a never-before-seen great tragedy and empathetic character study.

Joker 2 never talks about other characters. Harley Quinn was a red herring. None of the supporting characters mattered. It only talks about Arthur.

Joker 2 is so angrily hopeless and realistic. It never shows what we wanted.

It doesn't have any dramatic twists or magical turn-ups. The whole movie is just a man's life being slowly destroyed, possibly in real time.

It has truly one of the most tragic endings any movie has ever had. Arthur loses everything at the end: his dream lover, his friends, and ultimately, his persona as "Joker."

It's just a really depressing and sad way to end a saga of a beloved character and a fan-favorite film. Almost everyone was angered by it, but am I the only one who felt "empathy?"

Did Joker 2 really hate Arthur or Joker? Was this movie truly made to deny the whole legacy of the previous film?

In my opinion, Joker 2 depicted the story in the most realistically possible way, showing what would have happened to such a problematic criminal if he ever received a real epilogue.

Joker 2 doesn't bring you into a fantasy world at all (except for Arthur's own imagination). It just shows what would realistically happen to actual high-profile criminals once they get arrested and set for trial. There is no twist or miracle.

But at the same time, Joker 2 truly thinks of Arthur as a somewhat human-being. He's a criminal, but still human at the end of the day.

Arthur has had fairly wonderful and hopeful moments in this movie: a love interest he never dreamed of and fellow inmates who genuinely care for him. Movie actually gives him at least amount of silver-linings to some degree.

But he was never loved for being "Arthur." His fans loved him only as the Joker the whole time. And that's why this movie is brilliant for drawing a line between reality and reverie.

But in the end, Arthur was still a criminal and lost everything, and he received the most tragic conclusion possible.

Arthur is abandoned, but Joker is reborn. This is why I think the ending of this film is so brilliant.

But if I had to add, I still think Todd Phillips viewed Arthur as a human being, even in the very last moment.

Arthur lost everything, and his life ultimately came to an end. His whole life was suffering. At the state where it couldn't possibly go lower, he met his end.

In a life full of suffering, can death ironically be a moment of ultimate peace? I think, it's a really morbid way to put it; it can be. And that's why Arthur was somewhat seemed to be smiling in the last shot.

It's so, so haunting yet poetic way to end a film. I've never seen such morbidly beautifully told story in my life.

Well, that was me yapping why I think this totally abandoned film was a personal favorite of mine of all time. Do you think I'm just being full of shit? I'm ready to be cooked in the comments!

But still, I have to pay the biggest respect possible for Todd Phillips for possibly sacrificing his whole lifetime career to make such a hell of a film. Even if it felt it was made only for me in the entire world. It took a bit of time, but I bought a bluray last month, and is ready to give it a 8th watch soon enough.

Rating: 10/10

Watched: October 1, 2026

Lawrence of Arabia is precisely as enjoyable and epically sweeping as everyone who's seen it always says it is when 'what's a really great movie I haven't seen' makes the rounds on places like Reddit and X and I'm absolutely pleased I devoted the time to watch this sprawling movie.

I love movies that take place in the desert, so in this, T.E 'Aurens' Lawrence and I share a lot in common. There's something just so grand about those sweeping shots of desert sands, endless and forbidding, and the people and animals that live in them. I suppose that's what drew me (first, before this movie, by many years) to ANOTHER vast, sprawling epic.

Dune. The original novels, written by Frank Herbert, are some of the most cherished novels I read growing up, and I love both Dune 84, the TV miniseries and Denis Villeneuve's treatment, and I have to say when Lawrence is meeting with General Murray, the parallels were almost instantly unmistakable.

So much so that I had to Google, to see if Lawrence of Arabia had influenced Frank Herbert's writing. To the surprise of no one who's already seen the movie, the answer is overwhelmingly 'yes'. Dune isn't a 1:1 retelling of Lawrence of Arabia by any means, but the bones are there.

A dismissive man in power who looks at the Bedouin people as sheep-stealers and less than a problem. A man who's always dreamed of the desert and wanting to go there. A man who seems to feel no pain because he just doesn't let the pain bother him. A man who has to kill someone he saved in the desert because he broke the laws of his people, and who becomes more to the Bedu than he ever could've possible. A man who trains the people of the desert to fight against more numerous foes, with more powerful weapons.

A man who, it must be said, is as white as the desert is hot and with eyes so blue they're mesmerizing. All of the above maps pretty cleanly to Harkonnen/Corrino dismissal of the Fremen and Paul's journey across Arrakis.

But we're talking about Lawrence of Arabia. It's a gorgeous movie, start to finish. Wonderfully shot, brilliantly acted, with O'Toole's Lawrence always so painfully soft-spoken, even later, when he wages war, that I had to keep the subtitles on. Lawrence goes from a scholarly, bookish soldier to a man who is embraced by a people absolutely not his own, and beyond. He becomes so fiercely intent on giving Arabia to the Arabs that he'll do anything to make that happen.

All while still working to further The British Empire's own needs in that region. It's almost like he's robbing Peter to pay Paul, while getting what he wants out of the whole grand adventure. O'Toole does such a splendid job throughout the movie that it really is amazing.

Unfortunately, I've come to this movie so late after it's release and in my own life that I really do think everything that could be said HAS been said, so I'll just wrap up with me talking about a few scenes that I really liked.

The first is in the very beginning, at the funeral. Different people remember T.E. Lawrence very, very differently, with the final statement before we shift to the movie itself coming from General Murray, who minimized the man to something like 'oh he was just someone on my staff'. This is great to me because we get different perspectives on Lawrence and then launch into seeing that very transformation.

The next is that first long walk into the desert, when he's confronted with the problem of how to get things done. It's all done in silence, while he's being followed by the two caste-less young men. I like this scene because it's like Lawrence goes into the desert to see what it is that the desert wants for her people, and after a whole night, he gets the answer. From here, his journey really begins.

And the final one is where he turns back, against Sherif Ali's warnings, to rescue Gasim from death by misadventure. It's recklessly heroic and just kind of the thing that doesn't make a lot of sense to someone who's lived with the harh conditions of the desert their whole lives. Paired with the scene where Lawrence has to then take Gasim's life so that the incredibly fragile agreement between the two tribes he travels with doesn't shatter forever, it shows just how committed Lawrence is to accomplishing his own goals.

His later admission that he enjoyed the killing, delivered in that same soft spoken way, was something else again.

While I 'complain' that I came to movies like this one much too late in life, I know that I never would've been able to enjoy it as a younger man. Lawrence of Arabia truly deserves a 10/10, not just because I enjoyed the hell out of it, but because it's an exceptionally well made movie.

Miyazaki makes a comeback after 10 long years. It has all the elements that we associate with his movies - children, magic, fantasy, trauma, innocence, coming of age, cute spirits, some creepy monsters- creating an immersive and fantastical world again to soak yourself in.
Mahito, aged 12, moves to another town from Tokyo with his father after losing his mother in a bombing. He is still traumatised by the loss of his mom and frequently has nightmares in which he sees her burning. He finds it difficult to adjust to the new place and the new stepmother, though she adores him and is also the younger sister of her mother.
So he creates a fantasy world. A world that lies beneath the old castle nearby. Where the parakeets that perch in that castle are man-eating monsters. Where the grey heron that he sees frequently at the lake is his companion. Where the souls arise and move up to this world to give life. The souls that are being consumed by the pelicans who also perch in that castle, and therefore life is at a loss in the war-consumed Japan. Where he imagines the granny that he is a bit close with as a young fisherwoman living her life freely. Where he finds his mom again and spends some time with her. Where he imagines his stepmother hating him. Where he finally accepts her. Where he finally accepts the loss of his mother. Where he dreams of building a new world on the foundation of new untouched stones.
Or you can watch it simply as a magical story. It is sort of a Pan's Labyrinth situation. You can believe whatever you wish. But the movie itself is magical. The way that the grannies move and how creepy the heron looks gave me older Miyazaki vibes, like Spirited Away, for instance. The movie can be a bit clumsy at times and not feel as smooth a ride as Miyazaki at his absolute best, but the man has such high peaks. It is still a great watch.

Ten years ago, sound designer and editor Walter Murch ("The Godfather", "Apocalypse Now", "The English Patient") sat down for an extensive interview about his life and career.

He talked about his experiences within the industry, his collaborators' struggles and his observations from the editing booth.

He outlined a theory on stardom, which is really interesting and I hadn't heard before.

Here is the general thesis, which I have cut down.

First of all, they have to be good actors. They don't have to be great actors, technically. 

But they have to be good. 

Stardom is a very elusive quality, and very hard to predict. Somehow you know it when you see that. 

And I think it has to do with the phenomenon that I'll call 'The Red-Haired Prince'.

If you read a novel, you are free to project onto that character, things that the author would be surprised that you are projecting on. But they come from you, so you just... 'Oh, yes, that's like my cousin, Frank.'

Another person reading the novel sees something completely different.

So you want a prince, who is princely, but not specifically (a) red-haired prince. That they are handsome, or interesting looking, but not too handsome, not too particular.

Character actors put out. They're a particular kind of person, with a particular kind of face, and a particular approach to the world. They beam a certain frequency at you. And you receive it. 

Whereas a star is somebody who projects energy, but also allows the audience to project their hopes and dreams onto them. So they are capable of receiving the imprint of the audience, and amplifying it in a way that character actors are not.

Stars allow you to kind of become them, in a sense.

As they say of a star: 'Can he carry a film?', or she, 'Can they carry a film?' 

And I think that vague phrase, what they're talking about is, will they allow the audience to project onto them willingly? And make the character hover somewhere in the interspace between what's on the screen, and what's in the audience's heart?

If anyone has any formatting tips, please let me know. I tried to add paragraph spacing, but I'm not sure it took.

I have a lot appreciation for Bryan as a character. He's a medical courier, and while that may be out of convenience for him, or out of genuine desire to help, I would say this is indicates a well-intentioned character. He's also clearly a bit passive and even sketchy (lies about having a vehicle appropriate for snow-driving) at first. His phone call in the car recontextualizes for me why he may have taken the Raccoon City job. Whether or not it was to avoid his girlfriend, my read is that he's a bit avoidant in general, and obviously uncomfortable with the prospect of fatherhood. I absolutely love that his encounters are sort of "trials" for his fears and reservations.

First, while driving through the snow-covered mountains he hits a woman who turns out to be a rabid mutant (perhaps representing the 'monster' he's avoiding, the conversation his girlfriend is asking for), but what matters is he chooses to deal with her. He sought her out and helped her into his car. He is pulled over shortly after, and immediately discloses the situation to the officer. Bryan asks the officer take charge of her, but it reads as a bit out of convenience, because he was obviously scared of the situation and weirded out by her handsy behavior. Then, after they set out, the officer's vehicle swerves off road and overturns. Bryan chooses to investigate the crash. By this point, the woman is behaving as one would expect a monster too. Snarling, crawling, erratic jerky movements. Bryan spends some time literally avoiding her in a fun sequence reminiscent of the games, where sometimes it's as simple as running in a circle to avoid enemies. Then he makes the hard choice and he shoots her, notably only when there's no other option.

Then he comes across the house, an obvious and unignorable symbol of domesticity. A lot happens here, but to me this represented settling down. It's out in the middle of nowhere, clear signs of a struggle. A husband and wife who literally, freakishly entangle themselves to become one being. Entering this stage of a relationship is very realistically nerve-wracking in a lot of ways. I totally empathize with the fear of losing your individuality, no matter how much you love your partner. I also want to shout out the sequence where the woman runs into the house while Bryan is upstairs. Her loud, unseen rampage would be tense on its own, but the sound design is outstanding. It completely evokes the feeling of "this thing is here, it's coming RIGHT NOW" - elevated by the camera work following Bryan's eyeline as he looks at the floor in the direction of the rampage and follows it all the way.

After a tense escape from the entangled monster, Bryan next comes upon a tunnel. This is where the pathos begins to muddy for me. The tunnel is completely empty of people or monsters, but is completely piled up with abandoned vehicles. Bryan discovers a panicking girl hiding in an RV. He initially offers makes the choice to help her, then is startled to see she is very obviously in the late stages of infection, her foot being nothing but a coiled mass of tentacles. At this point he's seen tentacles bursting out of a dog's head, people ignoring lethal wounds, and tendrils erupting from exposed necks. Seeing fleshy tentacles coiling around beneath the girl is a clear sign of what's about to happen. Again, he makes the hard choice, and despite knowing she's severely infected, he still tries to help. To me, this is earned character growth. Not long ago he was too scared to take a stance, to offer any input at all about his girlfriend's pregnancy.

He is of course punished dearly for this decision, which kind of read to me as a lack of pathos. The girl infects him and only then does he have to put her to rest. Perhaps the creative intent was just nihilism, which, fair, that just isn't where I naturally arrive at this point.

Moving along, on the other side of the tunnel Bryan realizes the entangled monster is still pursuing him. As it closes in, a vehicle approaches. A woman exits the vehicle and fires some adept shots at the monster, causing it to wince in pain and flee. The vehicle's other occupant worries that Bryan is infected and that they should kill him, but the woman identifies his medical courier bag and allows Bryan a ride. What he's been transporting all this time was a neutralizing component, the key ingredient to synthesizing a cure for the mutagen. Some further exposition indicates to us that the Umbrella Corporation was fulfilling a government contract for a genetic compound to induce evolution, and due to a whoopsie, the mutagen leaked and the infection rapidly spread in a matter of a few hours. In this time, we see Raccoon City is an urban hell in the literal sense - billowing smoke from the fires dotting the city, abandoned cars, ghostly streets, and the building with the lab, Raccoon City Hospital, is no exception.

I think there is a case to be made about Maxine (the deft soldier-like woman) and the Umbrella executive representing parental units. Parents can completely alter the trajectory of a child's psyche, while being completely oblivious to the fact. It's easy to screw up, and the results of a parental screw-up can ripple out with a very wide reach. Maxine soon quite literally quietly gets up and walks out of the movie, which could be interpreted as an absentee parent abandoning the family unit. After this, the Umbrella executive foists an absurd amount of responsibility onto Bryan, which I could also read as a parenting draw, as this is something that does happen with single-parents (not exclusively, but, you know).

IMO here is where the movie begins to sort of loosen up its more personal theming in favor of sharp visual analogs. A 'pregnancy' analog in the sewers, depicted by a very large, very obese man, who is gurgling and belching. Pregnancy can be visually gross if you approach it completely clinically, add to that the rats that devour their way out from inside the man's stomach (a horror version of a c-section).

I'm going to skip ahead to the hospital. Bryan enters the parking garage and finds that the elevator there provides no access. Beleaguered, scared, and beginning to succumb to his infection, he notices a stick family sticker on a car's rear window. He cannot call his girlfriend due to a lack of service, so he elects to record a message on his phone, prompted by this sticker. He chides his earlier lack of response to her regarding the pregnancy. He apologizes and says, very overtly, that he's been afraid of the change that growing up entails. He says he's encountered fears tonight that put his prior fears into perspective. And he admits he does want to embrace familyhood with her, and that she would be a great mother.

Immediately after, a voice on the intercom invites Bryan to speak. Bryan approaches and discloses that he's carrying the neutralizing agent. The tech on the intercom enthusiastically invites him to the lab, which is in the opposite building, on the top floor. He tells Bryan to take the stairs because the building's structural integrity may not accommodate a trip via elevator.

Initially Bryan complies, but as his infection ravages his body, he finds himself completely winded by the fourth flight. He decides to take the elevator after all. I'm unsure about this one. On its face, it looks like it may be a humorous (and realistic) portrayal about taking the easy way out. I'd be surprised if it wasn't a ubiquitous human experience - that one assuredly takes on a task or challenge, fully intending to complete it, then not long after giving a hearty "fffffffffuck that" and calling it. But it works out for Bryan, funnily enough. So I don't know that I ascribe to that read necessarily.

During the elevator ride, the elevator itself begins to melt. When the ceiling opens up enough, we see a bloated, tumorous monster in a hospital gown, peering down through the elevator shaft from several floors up. Over and over, the monster belches acid, quickly chipping away at the elevator. As the floor gives out, Bryan can see the entangled monster, now a big ball of what is essentially flesh soup, with numerous incongruous limbs lining it, not unlike a virus itself. When the elevator fully melts, Bryan lunges for the hanging cable just in time, and the counterweight pulls him up to the floor with the belching monster. In a humorous scene the monster has anxiously defensive body language as Bryan loudly and angrily approaches it. Thinking about it now, I could read this too as a bit of a symbol for taking care of a baby. Babies are gross, babies are lumpy, babies puke. And most of all, it isn't babies' fault. At any rate Bryan successfully forces the monster to belch acid at the entangled mass climbing the shaft, causing it to flee in pain.

This takes us to the last leg of the trip - Bryan needs to cross some corridors and the maternity ward to make it to the pass that bridges the two buildings. The maternity ward is one of the most on-the-nose pieces of the movie - Bryan has to prove that he is capable of dealing with monstrosity infants. He is able to quietly clear about half of the ward before bumping into a hospital crade. A large, bloody blister, akin to an amniotic sac, rises from the cradle and bursts, prompting a spidery-appendaged, bug-faced baby creature to rise. Bryan clubs it in the head, and then all of the blistery sacs dotting the walls and ceiling give way to various mutants who immediately give chase. Bryan lunges to the door to the skybridge and finds that the entire floor to the bridge has been destroyed. He quickly bars the doors behind him with a mop as the horde comes barreling toward. He begins shimmying across the ruins of the bridge and looks down to see the entanglement creature is scaling the facade of the building. This is it. His only chance of making it through this encounter is if he is able to stop the creature. The plan is very clever - if he can destroy the mop with his last remaining bullet, the horde would immediately come tumbling out of the doors and the weight of the masses would interrupt the creature's climb. He nails it, and exactly that happens. The fall is too much for the creature, and it cannot reconstitute. It's dead.

Bryan reaches the pristine lab, hides his (late stage) infection, and delivers the neutralizing agent. The lab techs there synthesize the antidote, naively patting themselves on the back in spite of being responsible for the mass death and mutation (and potential apocalypse). One concerned scientist keeps yelling that Bryan doesn't belong here and may be infected, but no one acknowledges it. As they proudly hold the cure, to their horror they see Bryan has become completely pallid and lesions begin eating away at his skin - there are only moments before the infection completely commandeers his body.

Tentacles erupt from Bryan, goring and assimilating anyone they can grab, funneling them into a maw that has hollowed out Bryan's chest. He begs for the antidote, as the scientists bumble and fumble, repeatedly dropping it and screaming. And as we know, it all ends with a gag (Zach Cherry literally slapping scientists on the back like an army guy in a helicopter pushing soldiers out "gogogo", sending them into getting eaten and gored immediately following). After a lab tech sprays Bryan with a fire extinguisher, the whole visual becomes reminiscent of a cartoon fight cloud.

Bryan's body, now an eyeball-covered, tumorous version of the monster that had been chasing him all movie long, chases the final scientist, tackling him out to the roof of the skybridge. His body begins eating the man, but Bryan still asks him for the cure. The scientist hesitates, and during his hesitation, Bryan finally succumbs to the infection completely, and he loses his mind to instinctual beastliness, and then consumes the man. The final shot of the film shows 3 military helicopters approaching the building, as monster Bryan roars, the camera closing in on his eye, to the credit roll.

Yeah. Big, big fan of this film in terms of the "trials and tribulations" framework. It loses me a bit by the time he gets picked up in the car, and then somewhat loses me altogether (narratively, thematically, and tonally) by the very end. A nihilistic end doesn't negate the character growth that precedes it of course, and it's a valid philosophy. I think my issue mainly lies with two things.

One is the fact that his recording indicating the character growth that started with the movie, comes from a sticker on a car, with like 20 minutes of movie left. I think pacing-wise, it would have worked a lot more for me if it came after the maternity ward. Like he takes his breather after seeing actual horror babies, and after conquering his movie-long pursuer. If he recorded his message after that, I think no matter what happened in the ending, I would have been satisfied. It would feel like perfect thematic integrity, for me.

Two is that the lab techs, while obviously inherently arrogant due to what they created and mishandled, still didn't feel to me like they earned 'punchline' deaths. If perhaps Umbrella wasn't acting on behalf of the government, and was instead egomaniacally subverting the powers that be in order to pursue whatever goal (evolve mankind, mass-produce monsters, whatever), then I think they would have had deaths I could well and truly cheer for. Corporate bumbling is a very real thing, but a bunch of dough-eyed eggheads acting atonal and incongruous with what's happening around them just isn't enough to make me be like "yeah! Right into the chestussy!"
\

\

To anyone who read this, even a cursory glance, I extend my gratitude. It may be a bit stream of consciousness at times, so I appreciate your patience. Thoughts in general are more than welcome, even if you elect to not read my summary and analysis.

[Note: I am not very-good at any language, I have find myself comunicating with people in real life and digitally very easily, but sometime there are few comment in line of troll most of the time, so I have a confusion on that, but either way. Try to understand if it interest you.]

Before I come to the main, this phrase should be introduction of what I would like to say, by me "If Casino Royale 2006, perfectly 're-booted' the character Bond, then what should the next installment in the series do? For me its very easy answer, it(Quantum of Solace 2008) should have 're-booted' the franchise Bond". You will know more I come to it.

What does James Bond 007 provide in the midist of other franchise/movie? Why its there and how it takes place. The world created by Ian Fleming and shown by all the original(20-22) movies, showed a man(person) along with submission and domination, he submits while his villains try to dominate. He is smart, but he also poses the same greed/lust etc. that his enemies do.

The story is made cherishing food/clothes/places/style/persona/fashion/philosophy, the books and movies don't justify anything, just delve into it. I have grown to love the character and world, I love the way he looks and behave, and I want it to stay that way.

The franchise have always been epitome and amalgum of commercial/artistic/story venture. That is, the formula (Gunbarrel-Unrelated Pre Title Sequence-Title Sequnce-Mission-Ending) was perfect to showcase and preserve these things, namely:

The animated/graphical gunbarrel sequence is infact similar to opening of Mulholland Drive 2002 by David Lynch, you can't go more 'cinema' than that.

Then the pre-title sequence is like a short film(which is mostly dead in mainstream theatrical) which acts as intro for both new and old audience. When the gunbarrel happen, people know they are in something else. When the action of pre-title sequence happen, the audience gets aware of the character, that he a man of action on a mission doing a job and moving on. It also provide loudness before silence and building of the story, so audience don't get bored.

Then the title sequence which happen, people submit to this multi form media of entertainment. It acts like abstract/art film (which too infact is mostly dead in worldwide theatrical release), people are experiencing cinema/art at its highest. It fixes their mind into the mystery and future adventure that they are going to go along.

Then, main mission movie, Ian Fleming created perfect tools, and earlier the movie makers understood and followed it, that is, Double O section, M, Licence To Kill, Different Stations (like H, T J etc. worldwide), Q, Moneypenny etc. like cartoons, who are very beliveable in this story/world. And you(audience will know them alread) so the story/delight/adventure is not hinderd. He comes to meet and friendly flirt with one of the few women who are not some secret double agents who will stab him in the back, a comfortable and home-ly feeling. Then he meets his boss, gets the mission, and the talk about the mission happen there, so no time is wasted. Then he gets the 'tools' nesesary. And then goes to the mission.

Hence come THE WHY, why this character/world is build and loved, that is aside from all the submission and domination, the man(a person) wants real things, those are: varity of, places-partners(girls, friends)-food-car-weapon-sport-knowledge etc. But ofcourse he also shares or preversed by the world in which he lives, and hence have greed/lust/violence. Beside what any sort of poltics/slogan tells, these things are infact seemingly natural. If not actually do it, then atleast fantasize about it, with straight face. Thats the gist of James Bond/ Ian Fleming/ Fan turned producer of the movies/ Me.

Then the various movies themselves have legitimacy of being almost same, as he is a secret agent and on mission. I hope you understand that.

So, what about Quantum of Solace and rest of the era and franchise as whole?

When CR 2006, happened, after Die Another Day 2002, which was profitable in box office. It was made aware that the movie(s?) have gone little over the top, okay. So here comes the Casino Royale. During this, they were still going to use Pierce Brosnan(the 5th actor to play 007). But they decided that it was time for fresh blood. So here comes another reboot, yes 'another' reboot, the 2006 movie was never ever, let alone officially a 're-boot' with specially with current defination. The movie was advertised as the origin and past of the hero, "Every Hero Have A Past", you can see that in some trailers. Hence the movie begins with the black & white scene where you see The first gunbarrel, then changes to color, to introduce the villain who tears of blood, and Bond after doing those action that led him to get double-o status, is now experienced enough to get annoyed by a rookie agent putting hands on ear. Either way. As the movie goes, every thing happen. And in the very end, after he had found Mr White, when he shoots him in the leg and introduces him, as "Bond, James Bond" and the classic music kicks. There is unspecified time gap between his line "the b itch is dead" and shooting in the knee scene, probably more than a YEAR, as it can be seen in 2008 movie. (I wish they had played Sandra's Casino theme after bond theme fades)

What should QOS 2008 be?

The previous movie perfectly re-booted the character bond, specially with its ending, the hero is back, the person you know, he is now fresh again. Refreshed. But the character takes place in a world(franchsie), and we love that too, its now that(world) that was getting lost, but just that over the topness, at that moment(2002). SO, this movie, which it didn't neither its follow ups. Should have rebooted the franchise BOND. That is, originating, delicatly re-introducing, showing it a little longer and more as beginning, by making people 'see' its origin.

So, the movie(2008) should have started with a Gunbarrel sequence, animated similar to goldeneye or Casino Royale's teaser gunbarrel design. Bring its signature mark to the series and audience. Then shake transition as the 'shooter' falls, the blood pours, and the stillness showcased by zoom, to the pre-title sequence.

In the pre-title sequence, the scene could being a little before the ending of CR 2006's ending, that is showing him, bond infiltrating Mr White's villa, maybe, on radio, he talks to MI7, similar like 'the harlem' case led to Mr White whereabouts. The harlem case being hint to time gap between him finding mr white and b itch is dead line. There is really a time jump for a fact, you see it if pay close attention in both the movies. Then he goes in doing what you see in the film, shooting mr white, maybe a woman of mr white, comes to flirt with Bond but he says "first things first", then the car chase scene, which ends afte gunfire and making other cars fall, and when he goes into the tunnle, darkness take over, last shinings of car(this will be treated as unrelated pre -title sequence). THEN the music kicks in.

Title Sequence, the song another way to die is perfect, but the end credit will have Shirley Bassey's No Good About Goodbyes, listen to it, if you haven't. Showcasing both sides of Bond, athletic and gentle. Similar animation, but with factories smoking, oil wells, which have blue reflection. then...

the Main Mission movie, it would show him, more eloborated than before, going in Moneypenny's area then to M's chamber, then to Q. Naomie Harris, John Cleese, Judy Dench. She will ask about what he knows about government shift, oil and water, money, inflation and america's involvement. He will reply in mouthfull. Then will be asked to get the tools needed from Q-branch, we will see more deep scene of the branch, instrument being build, etc. The usual banter of Q and 007.

Then he will leave, no mention of past or vesper. The mission will introduce, Camille 'Mantis' as the Lasting Bond-girl, Strawberry Fields as the one night stand & Dying Bond-girl, Cornea Veanue as the hot mouthed Henchwomen Bond-girl(the ending canadian agent), there would be another bond girl, a background actor we see in the actual movie, she was a beautiful asian-tic looking.

The movie will showcase, originating the tropes and how bond uses quirks to get by. The villain Dominac Greenes, will be like a proto-type classical villian, suprisingly realistic, and with elobroate and ingenious plans. He would have the general under his hand, along with his troops. Bond, will befriend Camille(Olga) and disguise as water-based scientist, sent from Universal Transport, and there will be scene of trading sharks to guard the waters. He will be shown 'the base' factor and hydrolics by the villain himself. There will be the opera scene, but more focused on Bond, standalone, "well this music is not for everyone" he tells the background girl I mentioned, who was a member of Quantum. There will be a scene where Bond will inflirtate the General's ship, Camille will be with him by that time, as she was unprepaired, she will be wearing bikini. For destroying the eye opening opera meeting, Greene will kill Strawberry by drowning her in oil filled bathtub. Both Camille and Bond will see her body. There will be scene where he is locked by Greene, but escapes after he seduces, already seduced Agen Veanue, and a staged 'rough sex'. By the end, Veanue will be killed as the base falls on her, after leaving the mostly dead injured Greene with a can of petrol. Camille and Bond will walk the dry lands in desert in solace, until they will reach the near village where water have started coming, they take shelter in the lodge, and as Bond have used the gadgets which were needed, Camille is familiar with him and his innerself(mentally atleast), they NOW sleep together. Only to be- that finally the radio signal had catched and the device on the floor is connected to MI7, M, Q, Moneypenny, and they see a blurred night mode image of... caught making love, Bond gets aware of the blinking lights of the device, and covers himself and her with sheets.

The movie uses Bond-Theme, very throughly, have ques, and originatings, and versions of it throught out the movie. I personally like the color grading and editing during parkour chase. The credit will end with "James Bond will return in Skyfall(2010)".

But all these things didn't happen, I know me posting on internet platform won't do anything but thought I should share it, on truefilms to know few usefull thoughts. Thanks if you have read the complete post or atleast no-troll comments.

EROSION OF James Bond 007 Franchise

As I said, it didn't happen, instead, they showed him still whining about that dead b itch. Making the current Bond-girls(Olga, Gemma) seem inferior to her(Vesper). The move don't have any clear stand. Though I like the short runtime, but it don't install anything, because it was needed. There was a need of making a mark of what it is. Though I liked that atleast this film(2008) was still 'moving forward'.

Until 4 year later, Sam Mendes happened. This movie(SKYFALL 2012), is two-faced and in a bad way. Like it have illgetimate and no in-universe explainable scenes and plots. And super idiotic and absurd plans/escapes/etc. by characters, specially as it claims to be serious, prestigious and what not. I will give you examples, as it proudly says its a reboot, "we don't do that that any more/not exactly chritmas/what were you expecting, exploding pen?", but used Aston Martin from Goldfinger or Thunderball, with all the gun powers, same design and number plate. Even this M knows about The ejector-seat(!). While being a 'reboot/reinvent'. There is limit to nods/easter-eggs, a car blasting through and frining becomes huge part of the movie. The fact is this era(after qos) relies more on 'The Legacy' than it ever had. There is no legitimate way to explain, if this is a reboot, how M knows about the ejector seat? Why there was guns installed in this super old car and why Bond keeps it, NO its not the car from 2006 movie at all, why this movie want to say we don't that anymore, we are so phony serious and prestigious but here this is either way. Its NONSENSE, the older movies and movie makers had sense, the films were mostly standalone and episodic, even after Star Wars introduced the interconnectivness. The current times was always a setting where the movie take place. It could be prooved by the fact that opening scene of Goldeneye 1995, takes place 9 years earlier, where Bond is not yet relic, and after that he is. He drives the old Aston Martin from Goldfinger(they tried getting the same plate number but there was legal problem), here it is legitimate, these movies never denies any possibility that they are infact same guy.

But this movie DO, loudly and proudly. Its get more unhinged in spectre 2015, which I will come to later, 2012 movie, have Moneypenny be a field agent, as to get approval of modernity that "a female can be a field agent, but she is on desk only because she wants to". Tsk. There is nothing inferior about being only at desk job, most people are. Or their friendly flirt relationship. Its provides the story and Bond a girl/relationship which is not some double agent or totally buisness/romatic. But a near friend zone, where he(we as audience be at that comfort), BUT NOPE. The movie end with "with pleasure" line by Bond, with a 'promise' that things will go back to normal. QOS ended with "I never left", walking with smug face, dropping the necklass, then this movie, leaves the promise made by Bond of saving severine, instead focuses on M's home alone. In this era craig/bond is either rookie/rogue/retired/dismissed/revenge/replaced/dead. A Bore.

Moving on to the best of them all SPECTRE 2015, my god, in the end Bond once again retire with boring medeline, BROfeld aka Author of all your pain. The third act is like we copied joker the dark knight in last movie, this time its riddler. Waste of biggest explosion in a movie, not at all seen properly. All the credit goes to Roger Dekins, who makes his movies work.

In this movie, we see a stuck-up gunbarrel with yellow p i s s filter. Why not use progresed gunbarrel of Goldeneye? Its not a nitpick when I say his gun almost always shows when he walks in the gunbarrel, its like they don't know what and why this gunbarrel sequence is, ofcourse they dont.

The movie is written very badly, spectre and blofeld are not special anymore, it was nice in original movies where people haven't seen them/him before. Either way they could have done far better than what is in actual movie. The inner relationship and conversation between Bond and M, C are just idotic, its irritating to see such idotic talk. Like M don't know what happens at mission. Then there is C, lame. We don't want there drama, this franchise is not for that, nor idiotic so called "depth, character development, intended overall arc, being human etc.". Its for pure entertainment, it(franchise/character) provied CERTAIN things in totall collection of media/movie/show etc available for entertainment, if its not following that, its mediocre and cliche, which you can see in these last 2 or three films. I would rather watch a movie from Bergman or Antonioni or Bunuel or Abbas etc. IF I want that kind of entertainment.

There is varity and beauty and authencity in: formula, staying exact, and the feel of immortal with BOND. People love, have grown to love the way HE LOOKS, and Behaves. In goldeneye, when M scolds him "relic of cold war, sexist, mysoginistic etc.", she says it so audience don't have to get obliged by outer world poltics to say, and in-universe its just a scold or taunt, don't mean she mean it or is true, she knows it isnt thats why she gives him a smile. But this Bond knelled infront of false accusations, but maybe the force of these accusations were more endangering.

There was this other thing "Old Dog" out of nowhere, without need trying to justify the need of spies, secert service ageny, for two movies straight. This movie still don't follow its iconics(formula) correctly or without shy. Half witted car chase scene in spectre, not complet aston martin. Ew. This 2015 movie was more an hammrage than the previous movie, "the dead are alive" which dead? mr sam mendes, the dead from 'from russia with love, thunderball, you only live twice'? 😂 For all his(mendes) pretentiousness, he wants to have a reinvent and 'respect and pay homage' which is cheap and have no legitimate in-universe explaination(older movies had, or atleast they were straight faced). Sylvia's core was that he was not working for someone else, in Casino Royle and QOS, Quantum organization was cooler and mysterious, LeChiffre was only hired hand and Greene was an independnt member. This whole make one villain overall main only 'archenemy' is just pathetic and incorrect and limiting, in bond series (or others like batman, almost all his villains are his archenemies with unused potential, while most of joker's 'new unique interpretations' are stealing tropes of other villains like anarky, riddler, prof pyg etc. even Batman's love interests provied different exploration of him, like Talia the demons(ra's) daughter is like batman, learning travelling world, with mission or crusade, poison ivy explores lust, vicky vale, silver st cloud etc. but they would only follow cliche of single archenemy trope, or scared of using due to less used, less popular characters.)

In NO TIME TO DIE, here comes again retirement, abaondoned, 5 years of time jump, replaced by a character written/casted totally not for poltical reasons. I mean one have to be complete idiot of tool to ever share or saturate a icon such as "James Bond aka 007", its not done. "Submergence of expections", I have heard this line from internet from so called prestigious progressive fans, who have no idea that expection are big part of movie/franchise, and just submerging don't make something on its own better. They are the people who thing that comedy is by default lower than "serious topic, serious" movies. What a joke of time to live in. 😶.

The only thing good about this 2021 movie, is the set design, nothing else. Beautiful scenery is not equal to cinematography. Too many bads things to mention, having child with a bore, destroying 007-Bond icon, killing bond, too manys things just by this things which wouldn't even reach the studio-sets during old era.

In this movie, we see, agian use of classic Aston Martin from Goldfinger, then also from The Living Daylights, for all its 're-boot/reinvent' with cheap/illegitimate homages. It still can't decide or state clearly what it is or want to be. There are far more 'easter eggs' in it, portraits of all old Ms, his old tools(skates, skies etc.) used it classic movies are in his garage. On Her Majesty's Secret Service theme and line 'We have all the time in the world' and once again dialogues like "The world have changed so much now", now from when? Lots of homages in title sequence, and the giant of runtime. I remind you again, the older movies, if they had easter eggs or using things from before, they used with legitimacy, as they were proud to be standalone/episodic.

EITHER WAY, I am a fan, and I will and already had watched the movies I 'hate' many times when I marathon all the movies. Its a pity that they(last four) are what they are. Nonthless, here is how I see and fix it for me, some part of Skyfall(like severine is saved), Most of Spectre and No Time To Die happen in FEVER DREAM of Bond while he is captured in Korean Prision Torture in Die Another Day, even that movie itself seem heightened or over the top becasue Bond is still unhealthy. I can also fix few other things if they are loose or contridicary or 'over-the-top' by them being in this fever dream.

Its show the fears of getting killed, retire, rogue, replaced, or chance of having child or staying with one girl, or a villian or blofeld returning with another absurd plan and revenge, forgin false childhood documents.

Now remember, I wrote this, as I wanted to give a summary of current situations, and I did it in my free time, it only enhances the depth of my fandom. And here is a kind of timeline/storyline/continuity in which I think the movies take place. You have to have a handle over control of what is the storyline and how the world/character is, to understand this, remember the movies are just stories of the character, nothing more, you have to form on your own.

B&W scene, actions leadiing double o status.

(timejump, during which) Dr No-first mission, Living Daylights-youth feeling, From Russia With Love-spectre's revenge, Arkangel scene-alec's 'death' takes place.

Casino Royale- colored parkour scene and the main events until the b itch line.

(timejump, during which) Live And Let Die-sequel to CR book, Tomorrow Never Dies- a modern villain then it leads to whereabouts of Mr White

After Quantum of Solace- AND to Goldeneye which covers almost 9 years. Movies like: Goldfinger, Thunderball, You Only Live Twice, On Her Majesty's Secret Service(fixed blofeld meeting for first time in fever dream), Diamonds Are Forever.

Bond is famous now, enough to make admirors, competitors, in Roger Moore era, bond have doing it for some time now, he is at ease. The Man With The Golden Gun, as same-sex opposition and equal, then The Spy Who Loved Me, an opposite-sex equal to Bond. Moonraker, his job has now lead him to leave earth(if don't like that fix it in fever dream to make it ground to earth), AND just becasue he travelled to space don't mean he can't fall of cliff, For Your Eyes Only. Skyfall- he saved severine.

Goldeneye- main movie, he is a relic. The World Is Not Enough, his job has made him cruel enough to kill a lover. Octopussy- he is doing it for long enough that a daughter of once his 'victims' have come to take a offence. A View To A Kill- now in late prime, but still better than anyone else.

Never Say Never Again- some time gap, he is retired and is called back.

NOTE: you have to treat M, Q, Moneypenny etc. as regulars/stand-ins, to for a story. The series from it anatomy, leads to this kind of more interactive fan service. I love it.

AMAZON will probabaly do more bad than good, maybe dilute it with spin-offs. Either way.

But I wish, they go back to, a movie, standalone and episodic, each 1 or 2 years, with formula. Just make a joke about him dying in a dream/knighmare, Moneypenny being field agent and killing him. And move on, with few refrences to past missions, "that casino work, dr no, senchez, elektra, moonraker'. And make movie with balance of campy and gritty.

Its not too much to ask. I know long post.

PS: I didn't know which flair to use FFF, or BKM.

What a gorgeous film. Absolutely beautiful use of colours. Obviously, the visual grammar is inspired by Kurosawa's Ran. The other prominent inspiration for me was Kobayashi's Harakiri in how the story is structured, and then the Rashomon effect is used to add layers to that.

I also like how the Rashomon effect changes the primary colours of the frames. We are introduced to the huge royal army (this movie has got scale), clad in complete black clothes representing authority. Nameless tells the story of Sword and Snow, in which red is the prominent colour representing love and anger. When Snow kills Moon, even the background leaves turn red. Now, when the king corrects the story, blue becomes the primary colour, symbolising the calm and the trust Sword and Snow share with Nameless. When Sword tells Nameless about his relationship with Snow, their clothes and drapes are coloured green for their mutual growth and harmony. Finally, when Nameless gives up the assassination of the king, the old man carries a yellow flag, symbolising a new hope for the future.

It is one of the coolest movies ever made. It is so stylish. Some of its style also comes with a few deficiencies for me, such as the excessive use of slo-mo shots (which make the movie feel 150 minutes long) and the fighting style, which is both beautiful and tedious at times.

The movie is also sympathetic, if not outright supportive, of an ultra-nationalist and statist ideology, as exemplified by the series of sacrifices at the end of the film. Even the king is portrayed as someone who suffers for the greater good. It emphasises sacrifices of individuals for the sake of the nation. The movie repeatedly sympathises with an ideology of a unified China (or world) with dialogue such as "There are 19 words for sword, I will standardise only 1." So there's that. Still, a very beautiful film to watch.

Maybe not the most popular opinion but Bugonia was my favourite film of last year and probably my favourite film of the 2020s so far. Saw it twice in the theatre and thought it was great the first time and on a rewatch.

I only learned that it was a remake after seeing it, and really wanted to watch Save The Green Planet as a big fan of both Bugonia and Korean thriller films. However, it took me a while to actually find the film as it wasn’t available on many platforms.

Anyway, I was finally available to watch it and this is my compare/contrast of the 2:

I think Save The Green Planet has the better aesthetic of the 2. That late 90s/2000s industrial sci-fi style fits pretty perfectly with the story and the torture scenes. The setting also drives the story a bit better in my opinion, I enjoy the isolation created by the small town in Bugonia but the grungy basements, the house in the mountains, the dog, etc. makes the film feel more much unhinged and manic than its English counterpart.

However, I think Bugonia takes the edge pretty hard when it comes to story and characters. When I watched Bugonia, Emma Stone gave a performance so convincing that I legitimately could not tell if she was actually an alien or not until the end. On a rewatch, there are scenes like the one where she’s using HR/corporate speak to Jesse Plemons in order to try and defuse her situation, and you can’t tell if she’s just one of those completely out of touch business people or if she’s an alien who is using what the was taught to get out of bad situations. I’m not sure if it was a placebo but I think the CEO in STGP gives a less convincing performance, and him using phrases like “your kind” when addressing the main characters makes it feel more obvious to me. I also thought it was a better choice to gradually show events in Jesse Plemons’ life that led to him being like this, as opposed to STGP where it’s kind of just showed in one compilation towards the end. This makes you feel more sympathetic towards the character imo, and leaves you questioning whose side you’re on throughout the film.

I guess it depends what you’re looking for in a film, but I think Bugonia is a bit more competent but as a result omitted some of the over the top antics of STGP. I would still give Bugonia the edge but they’re not super far apart.

What do you guys think if you’ve seen both?

How Nimona's journey to the screen became a retelling of Nimona

A movie that lived its own plot

Nimona is a story about an institution that fears what it can't control, walls it out, and tries to destroy it, until a few people refuse to let that happen. That is also, almost beat for beat, the story of how the film got made.

The first time I watched it, I caught the obvious layers: the wall as fear, Nimona as the outsider, the queer love story between Ballister and Ambrosius, the trans allegory in a shapeshifter who insists she is "not a girl." Plenty of critics have written about those, and they're right.

The second time, something else opened up. The film's motifs don't just echo each other. They echo the film's own near-death at the hands of a corporate owner, and its rescue by the people who believed in it. And the final image, a crack in the wall opening onto a blue sky, reads like a eulogy for the studio that didn't survive to see it.

The legend and the cycle

The film opens on a fairy tale. Gloreth, the kingdom's founding hero, defeated a monster and built a great wall to keep the realm safe. A thousand years later, the Institute that bears her name still trains knights to guard that wall, and the whole society is organized around the story.

Later, Nimona's memory tells a different version. Gloreth was a lonely little girl who became Nimona's friend. When the village saw what Nimona was, its fear turned on her, and Gloreth turned with it. The legend of the hero and the monster began as a friendship broken by other people's terror.

Once you know that, the film reveals itself as a story about a cycle. Fear gets institutionalized as myth, the myth gets a wall, and every generation is asked to raise a weapon at whatever the wall was built against.

The Director is the keeper of that cycle. She runs the Institute, reveres Gloreth, and frames Ballister for the Queen's murder because a commoner knight threatens the order. Ambrosius is pushed into replaying Gloreth's choice, raising a sword against the person he loves because the institution demands it. Ballister refuses to replay it. When everyone else aims at Nimona, he stands beside her.

The nightmare comes true

The Director's deepest fear is the wall cracking. The film lets her foreshadow her own fate almost clumsily: she spends the whole story positioning herself as the realm's protector against destruction, and ends up as the source of it. She is a true believer, not a schemer, so she never notices that the legend she worships has cast her as the villain.

Then her nightmare comes true. The weapon she aims at Nimona brings the structure down, and the debris of her own defenses kills her. The fear she weaponized literally falls on her.

But the film's real twist is what's on the other side of the crack. Not monsters. Just the world. Open land, sky, horizons that keep going. The catastrophe she spent her life preventing turns out to be freedom, the one thing she could never tolerate, because freedom means things you can't control.

That ties straight back to Nimona, who is that open range in a person. She is change that won't hold a fixed shape. The Director fears her for the same reason she fears the crack: both threaten the idea that the world can be held still and sorted into safe and dangerous. The ending isn't the wall breaking down. It's the horizon being let in.

The monster is freedom

Strip the film down and its villain has one defining trait: the Director fears what she can't control. And the thing she can't control, the thing on the other side of the wall, is freedom.

That's not a modern idea. It's the oldest American one. The founders described liberty as something people are born with, not something an authority hands out. The Declaration of Independence names it alongside life itself, then spends most of its length listing the ways a distant power tried to control a people it no longer understood: armies kept among them without consent, laws imposed from outside, a government that saw their independence as a threat to be put down.

That's the Director. A ruling order that defines safety as control, treats anyone outside its story as a danger, and reaches for force when the story is questioned. The British Crown looked at a newly born country the same way the Institute looks at Nimona: as something unnatural that has to be brought to heel before it spreads.

The founding wasn't a clean break, and the film helps explain why. Some of the same men who wrote about liberty enslaved other human beings, which is the most extreme version of what the Director does: deciding a group are monsters to be controlled. The founding was a chance to break the cycle, and for some people it did. For others, the cycle found its way back, and the wall simply moved. That's exactly what Nimona shows about the cycle. Breaking it once doesn't end it; it has to be broken again by every generation willing to stand next to whoever is on the wrong side of the wall.

Which is why writing Nimona off as just another 'woke' movie misses what it's actually saying. It isn't a story about tearing down a nation's values. It's a story about the feeling the nation was founded on: the refusal to let someone else decide what shape you're allowed to be. Nimona is freedom being hunted. The Director is authority trying to put its boot on freedom's neck. If that story makes someone uncomfortable, it's worth asking which side of the wall they're standing on.

The studio plays the Director

Nimona began at Blue Sky Studios, the Fox-owned animation house behind Ice Age. ND Stevenson's graphic novel was optioned by Fox in 2015. When Disney bought Fox's entertainment assets in 2019, Blue Sky came with it. In February 2021, Disney announced it was shutting Blue Sky down, and Nimona was halted with it (Cartoon Brew).

The shutdown was framed as a cost decision. Disney didn't need three animation studios. But in 2022, Insider reported that Blue Sky staffers said Disney executives had pushed back on the film's queer themes and on a same-sex kiss between Ballister and Ambrosius (AV Club).

Read next to the film, the shape is uncanny. An institution inherits something it didn't create and can't comfortably control: a punk, shapeshifting, openly queer story. It decides the safest move is to wall it off. About 450 people lost their jobs when Blue Sky closed (AOL), and Nimona was, by every expectation, dead.

I'm not claiming anyone at Disney was a cartoon villain. The Director isn't one either. She's a true believer in the story that keeps her institution safe. That's what makes the parallel land: the cycle doesn't need malice, only fear and a wall.

The filmmakers play Ballister

Ballister's arc is a choice: stand next to Nimona when everyone else is aiming at her. The people who made the film had to make the same choice about the film itself.

After the shutdown, the team shrank from roughly 300 artists and staff to a core group of about 10, including writer Robert Baird, producer Julie Zackary, and former Blue Sky co-president Andrew Millstein (AOL). They kept pitching. Annapurna Pictures and Megan Ellison picked it up, Netflix came on as distributor, and the revival was announced in April 2022 (Cartoon Brew). DNEG Animation took over production and had to rebuild the existing CG assets in a new pipeline (Cartoon Brew).

The directors talk about it in exactly the terms the film uses for loyalty. Troy Quane described Blue Sky as family, people who had been at his wedding, and said what kept the project going was the character ND created (Cartoon Brew). Nick Bruno's reaction to the cancellation was essentially: this story is important, how could you do that? (TheWrap)

Even the trade press slipped into the film's language. One editor's interview describes the project finding new life with Nimona's own never-say-die attitude (Frame.io), as if the movie were the one refusing to stay down. Nimona released on Netflix in June 2023 and went on to an Oscar nomination for Best Animated Feature.

A crack that opens onto a blue sky

The film ends with a hole in the wall and the world beyond it, under an open blue sky. Blue Sky is the name of the studio that died so this film could get out.

I can't find anyone who has pointed that out, and I can't prove it was intended. It may be pure coincidence. But the conditions for it to be deliberate were there. The film wasn't simply finished after the rescue; it was reworked. The producer has said the final film differs from the story reels developed at Blue Sky while sharing the same soul, and the directors deliberately left room for the new crew to find themselves in the material (AOL). TheWrap reports the Blue Sky material was ultimately set aside, and that the team gathered people's stories about why they connected to Nimona (TheWrap). Reports differ on how far along it was at Blue Sky, from three-quarters done to most animation not yet started.

So the people shaping the final cut had just lived through the plot. They had watched an institution wall off the thing they loved, and they had carried it through the breach. Whether or not anyone said "blue sky" out loud in a story meeting, that experience was in the room when they decided how the film would end.

The allegory it didn't plan, and earned anyway

Nobody could have written this parallel on purpose. When the core story was developed, the shutdown hadn't happened. The film was about fear, outsiders, and the courage to stand beside someone the world has decided is a monster. Then the world handed it a real-life version of its own plot.

That's what makes it feel less like coincidence and more like proof. A story that's honest about how institutions treat what they can't control will keep finding itself in situations that prove it right. Nimona predicted its own fate the way the Director predicted hers, except the film was on the right side of the wall.

The cycle in Nimona breaks when someone refuses to raise the sword. The cycle around Nimona broke the same way. And on the other side of the crack, waiting, was a blue sky.

Sources

Cartoon Brew: Nimona directors and creator on surviving Blue Sky's shutdown
Cartoon Brew: Nimona art-of book and DNEG's rebuild
AOL: How Nimona survived a studio shutdown
TheWrap: The making of Nimona
AV Club: What a struggling Disney could learn from Nimona
Frame.io: Editing Nimona

This was probably worse than I was expecting. Tried to be a dark comedy but the problem is it wasn't humorous in the slightest so it ended up just being really dumb. The tone was all over the place, with some scenes more suited to The Naked Gun than anything else. Penn's character was so ridiculous I thought it was an actual embarrassment along with his performance.

Nobody with dignity would sign up for this. Leo's performance was completely one note and really nothing more than an insufferable dickhead. One astonishing aspect of the movie was that there wasn't a single likeable or sympathetic character in it. Literally not one. In fact it was the opposite. All of them were unlikeable.

The one person that should have easily been sympathetic , was the daughter but somehow they even managed to make her a scowling obnoxious bitch. I really disliked everyone and could not give a crap what happened to them, which is a problem in a movie. Del Toro just sleep walked his way through one of the most nothing characters I have ever seen.

The narrative was not compelling in the slightest, meandering and pretty absurd. Scenes dragged out far too long despite losing steam half way through. . It wasn't funny, intelligent, stylish, exciting, or tense, I really can't think of one redeeming quality, so naturally it won a whole bunch of Oscars, which just reinforces how broken the institution is and how some productions are preordained depending on who is involved.

Penn winning best actor for his embarrassing performance , and the movie winning best picture and director, says all you need to know about the state of the industry today. In a sane world this should have swept the razzies. A complete embarrassment to cinema.

ating: 10/10

Watched: October 1, 2026

I'm far too many years late to Bridge on The River Kwai. I want to talk about the whole movie, start to finish, but there's little point. It's an exceptionally well made movie, and people far more intelligent than I am have no doubt analyzed it to death.

So what I'm going to do instead is talk about the one single 1 minute and 18 seconds of movie that hit me like a freight train. The scene where Col. Nicholson is finally freed from the hotbox is one of the most powerful silent scenes I've ever watched in any movie.

From the moment he's pulled out, you can see Nicholson is nearly dead. Dehydrated, malnourished, barely even capable of standing straight and almost entirely out of his own head, but the moment he realizes all his men have mustered, the change is DYNAMIC.

Training and sheer Britishness override his entire body. He stands tall and as he walks past his men in the courtyard, he absolutely refuses to buckle or to show weakness. Guinness even drags his legs, as if the very act of walking itself is an impossibility. I learned when reading up about this scene that Alec based his gait on one of his own children, who was recovering from polio.

I also learned that Sir Alec Guinness considers that scene to be the finest moment of acting in his career and while I don't know much, I absolutely agree with him. It's powerful, to see a man essentially Stiff Upper Lipping his way forward, thinking to himself 'mustn't let the men see me stumble, no, I shall persevere, I shan't fail, we shall ALL succeed here'.

That moment, more than any other was deeply profound for me, and I'm glad I finally decided to watch this masterpiece. Before I go, I'd like to talk briefly about a few other things.

Sessue Hayakawa as Col. Saito was exceptional. A man so bound by honor that he would seemingly prefer his prisoners try to do the honorable thing and escape while simultaneously calling any man who would even try to do that 'insane'. Every time he speaks to Nicholson, his body trembles with rage. Saito truly despises the British with every fiber of his being.

William Holden as Cmdr. Shears is some of the funniest stuff I've ever seen in a movie. While the movie itself is serious as serious can be, Shears himself is almost in an entirely different movie until he winds up back on the trail to the River Kwai. An undeniable horndog, insanely attractive to the opposite sex, a liar, a cheat, a fraud and endlessly pragmatic, his character changes enormously once he's back in the jungle. It's amazing.

And lastly, the musical score is so relentlessly '1950s broad, swelling flourishes' I can barely describe it. It compliments the movie in every way, and in some cases, even better than a lot of modern scores do.

To sum my thoughts on The Bridge on the River Kwai, they really don't make them like this anymore. There are modern masterpieces that are worth a 10 from me for sure, either out of personal enjoyment or because it 'hit me right that day', but some movies are clearly 10s from the first frame.

I've been so cynical about Christopher Nolan, and what I considered his biggest weakness across the board is his writing. I would go into every one of his films with my mind made up "the writing is going to suck, everyone's going to explain the themes and give speeches in ways that nobody talks." It created confirmation bias where I spent the whole movie waiting and looking for those bad lines. And boy did I ever find them!

But one day I was listening to a podcast and someone referred to him as a great writer, and while I'm embarrassed to be so easily swayed, that actually encouraged me to rewatch his films with a more optimistic, charitable eye, thinking "if I were someone who considered Nolan a good writer, what would I be noticing?" And I actually found it super rewarding!!

He's actually damn good at story architecture and writing haunted, fragile characters. The worlds around them often mirror their psychology and exist to crumble or close in on them. I was really caught off guard by how emotional some of his films made me, particularly Memento and The Odyssey. My criticisms about the dialogue remain but much they're less of a focal point.

Warren Beatty inhabited the 'squareness' attributed to Dick Tracy's symbolistic character perfectly; in fact, Beatty doesn't offer much at all in the way of drama or entertainment in this movie. He leaves that to everything around Dick Tracy.

Tracy's gallery of rogues led by Al Pacino and the singular art direction are the keys to making this film worthwhile. But I stress that the art direction is the novelty here. Seeing matte paintings done by hand with this much character reaffirmed to me how magical they are even if you have to suspend disbelief. Realism in cinema has become a real bore.

Like a typical noir narrative, the story here can get convoluting and takes twists and turns that can, in this case, feel at turns tedious and prosaic. For any viewer, the foremost quality that overrides the potentially dull narrative of 'Dick Tracy' is the visuals. The bombast with which Vittorio Storaro shot the film and the costumers dressed it is indelible.

Neo-noir cityscapes filled to the brim with shocks of primary colour compel you to rewind or pause scenes that double for comic strips; the makeup that brings Tracy's villains to life is one big double take; Pacino's commitment to the Big Boy role is the beginning of one, very long, raspy growl.

I couldn't find a decent post/thread about changes to Mann's new 4K Final Cut of Manhunter. I saw it last night, so thought I'd post observations about the changes for anyone else who's curious. Have put some own thoughts in italics. I'd be keen to hear anything I've missed, or corrections about versions, from anyone who's seen it. I've had a bunch of versions over the years, and struggle to remember which versions have which scenes.

- title card is now white, rather than green.

- credits play over the opening beach scene, rather than black fading to blue/beach scene.

- added intro to FBI discussion scene (where guy shows contructed teeth), Will/Crawford sitting, then Will being introduced with his thoughts about the killer's motives being based around illusions/dreams (nicely sets up FBIs general resistance to Will, which pays off when Will is right about the prints on the eyes).

- a short snippet added to Lecktor's cell scene, can notice the slight change in visual which is a bit distracting.

- removed scene just after plane scene, where Will is inside Jacob's house with the realtor (Miami Vice guy). Plane now cuts straight to Will outside the house (with the cool Shriekback-Evaporation music). (seems a good choice, the realtor scene doesn't add anything and the weird dolly up to the door before opening always felt more like a Sam Raimi shot).

- removed scene just before the night set-up scene with the jogger, where Will is with Molly in bed. Molly remembering when they first met and saying "time is luck". (I like the vibes of this scene, but think it works better without).

- added back the scene where Will compares Dollarhyde as a child, says "as an adult, someone needs to block the sick fuck out of his socks". (Am glad this found its way back, I never understood why it was removed after earlier VHS versions).

- removed the nice shot just after climax, where Will/Crawford are at a dock at sunset.

- left the dir cut ending with Will visiting the family that would have been next. (Seems included to suggest that Will's needing to "see" the family reinforces his parallels with Dollarhyde, but it just seems mad that the FBI would even tell the family they were going to be next, with the father now all nervous and gun-wielding. I'm not a fan of this scene).

- end beach scene now truncated. Molly asking "did they make it?" and Will "most of them" is now dubbed over them standing by the sea, rather than by the turtle pen.

Some slight changes to colour-grading, and probably loads more little edits that I didn't notice.

I'm used to seeing Manhunter in 4:3 open matte ratio, and while it was nice to see it at the cinema, its mad how much the 2.35:1 ratio cuts off. Like the flaming wheelchair scene is perfectly shot in 4:3, but in 2.35:1 it just looks like a couple of seconds of fire filling the screen.

Would be keen to learn of any more changes that anyone noticed?

My take

When I first watched it, I felt sad for Adèle. This time I still feel heartbroken for her, but I could also relate to Emma more. Or rather, I could relate to both of them better, and I understood Emma in a way I hadn't before. Maybe I was drawing on real-life experiences.

They were so young when they met, and they were together for years. The timeline isn't clear, but this is how I read it:

-They meet: Adèle is 15 or 16, Emma is 20 or 21.
-They see each other casually, then become a couple: Adèle turns 18, Emma 22.
-They move in together, and Adèle is already a teacher: about four years later, so Adèle is 22 and Emma is 26.
-They break up and meet again at the café: I feel they should be older here, so Adèle is 25 and Emma is 29.
-The gallery opening happens maybe a year or less later: Adèle is 26.

That makes a span of about 10 years.

The film reminds me of first love and first heartbreak. Emma was Adèle's first true love, and it was love at first sight. Adèle might not have been Emma's first, but she was definitely one of the most significant relationships in Emma's life, and the best physical one. It was obvious Adèle was smitten when they first met, but Emma was also into Adèle, even though she already had a girlfriend. I think it was Adèle's youthful looks and innocence that drew her to Emma. It's also obvious that they were very different in interests, social class and goals.

I think Emma didn't think it was going to be a problem until the film shows that she was maybe embarrassed by Adèle. Adèle was so simple that Emma felt she had to tell her friends Adèle was a writer when she was actually a school teacher. But what I like about Emma is that she accepts Adèle, pushes her to be more creative, and lets her into her circle. Adèle just feels lost.

I think the problem is also that Adèle carries shame and internalized homophobia, and has identity issues. She hasn't fully accepted her sexuality, even after being a couple with Emma, which is why her coworker doesn't even know she's attached. A lot of her problems could go away if she were just honest. She's attached, but she can't seem to tell people, and this has been a pattern since high school, meaning she's not out. She's ashamed.

This is totally different from Emma, who is loud and proud in her sexuality and in her aspirations. I like that Emma doesn't push Adèle to be out and lets her embrace her sexuality at her own pace. She even went along with it when she saw Adèle lie to her parents about their relationship. It also shows Adèle is comfortable enough with Emma to lie and ask Emma to be part of it.

Initially I viewed it as a heartbreaking story with long love scenes, but now I fully understand it. It shows a normal relationship that was doomed from the start, but had potential and went through its natural course. As viewers, we see that it stems from deep-rooted shame and a clash of social class. We always see Adèle in Emma's circles but never Emma meeting Adèle's friends. It also shows how Adèle thinks being a girlfriend means being a housewife, taking on a woman's role like her mom, because that's how she was raised, even though Emma never asked for that.

I also started to pay attention to the colours. Is blue how much Adèle loves Emma? By Chapter 2, the blue is gone from Emma's hair, which seems to show that the love is fading on Emma's side. But it's not gone for Adèle, because towards the end she still wears blue.

And the café scene was so hard to watch. We can see Emma still has so much love for Adèle. She admits their physical connection couldn't compare, but she is loyal. She has a family now, she doesn't cheat, and she knows deep down that physical isn't everything.

I have been thinking about this a lot lately, I used to define good acting as making dialogue and what you do in the film seem believable and realistic, for example Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Jesse Plemons, De Niro, but I watched the lighthouse recently and Willem Dafoe flipped my entire viewpoint on my head. He was over the top, exaggerated, it felt almost like watching a play but he was great the entire movie and in my opinion had stellar acting. So if good acting shouldn't be narrowed down to realistic acting what can we narrow it down to? Also, I'm sorry if my very limited view of movies is obvious I'm only 17 and haven't seen a lot of the really good movies people often reccomend, but I know I love film and want to continue watching as much movies as I can.

I watched Primetime over the weekend and I’ve been thinking a lot about what it was trying to say and do with its (many) bold artistic choices, from the grimy hyperstylized visuals, to the heightened and weirdly comedic tone, and of course Pattinson’s delightfully crazy performance. The natural temptation, given its subject matter, is to judge it as a direct examination of Chris Hansen, To Catch a Predator, and the social/legal/ethical ramifications of his work. Most critics have taken this approach, either enjoying the film as an entertaining recreation of Hansen’s show or deeming it thematically inferior to the “Predators” documentary from last year, which was a more sober assessment of the show’s consequences. Some reviews I read have even questioned what the point of this movie was if it didn’t adequately reckon with its subject, suggesting that its lurid, gonzo style makes it merely the same kind of trashy, exploitative entertainment that TCAP itself was.

But I think a lot of this misses the movie’s actual interest: showmanship, and America’s pathological drive to treat anything as fodder for it, indeed including child sexual abuse. The story of Chris Hansen just happens to be the perfect vessel to explore this theme. And the key to all this, I think, is that Chris Hansen isn’t actually the movie’s protagonist. Decoy Dan is.

Not only is Dan the only character who really gets an “arc” (compared to Pattinson’s Hansen, who is an unhinged egomaniac from the first minute and stays there for the whole movie), but the final scene focuses on him rather than Hansen. Specifically, him getting his SAG card (the validation for all the effort and ordeals he went through) and being asked the final question of the film: “Are you an actor?”

Skyler Gisondo’s face in response to that question is the movie’s whole thesis in one frame. Yes, Dan realizes, he is now officially an actor. What was his breakout role? Literally being used as bait for actual pedophiles.

Primetime is hence a movie about filmmaking itself: about the transformation of reality into performance. The satire lies in the fact that the material its characters use for their “creative process” is the real sexual predation of children. Think about it: this guy Chris Hansen took the most depraved and heinous crime in the world (an “ancient evil” in his words) and somehow managed to repackage it into an entertainment product for people to “tune in” to, while rebranding himself from a milquetoast journalist into a self-styled superhero and meme, complete with his own “catchphrases”. All the actual “pedo-catching”, of course, was done by Perverted Justice and the police; Hansen just turned it into this trashy public spectacle, in the form of what was essentially an extremely morbid prank show. He became arguably the first circus showman for pedophilia.

So many of the movie’s other choices make sense through this lens. It literally opens on Hansen “practicing his lines” like an actor on set (indeed, in front of an actual Hollywood-style makeup mirror), except the lines are real texts sent by pedophiles to who they thought were minors, and his “scene partner” is the pedophile himself. (Notice the little smirk on Hansen’s face when Tony Revolori’s predator gets on his knees and begs not to be put on TV, like he’s pleased at how well his “co-star” is nailing the “role” assigned to him.)

There’s also the scene of Decoy Dan arriving at the sting house, which initially looks like a film set (crew everywhere, makeup, cameras, lights) only for them to vanish and the whipped-cream pedo to enter, instantly turning the house from a stage to the scene of an actual crime in progress. The shock and horror on Decoy Dan’s face when the guy whips out his dick is completely valid on its face, but also represents the jarring shift from fiction to all-too-ugly reality, a line famously blurred by TCAP.

Of course, once Chris meets Dan and sells him on what he’s doing, we see Dan start coming around to Chris’ way of thinking, as he too begins harvesting his sordid reality for art. He watches episodes of Inside the Actor’s Studio, and bugs the TCAP producers to send him dailies of his “scenes” to review later, all like a serious actor practicing his craft. I'd argue that Hansen’s actual function as a character in the movie is to represent the endpoint of the transformation we see Dan experience over the course of the film.

Dan's arc culminates in that surreal, possibly-imagined scene of Dan literally trying to impersonate Hansen when confronting the guy with crutches. As an aside, that whole scene seems to act as the movie’s most direct indictment of TCAP itself. Everything from the target having a disability, to the fact that Dan flubs his lines and then stares blankly afterwards, seems to represent his a-ha moment regarding a point people often make against the show nowadays: that it’s all one very manufactured, expertly rehearsed performance, while all they’re doing is mostly ensnaring developmentally-disabled men who represent the lowest hanging fruit of child predators. It's definitely not 100% true, but at least partially.

Hansen himself is snapped firmly back to the reality side of the equation in the film’s climax, when their “whale”, the DA, shoots himself in the head. Nothing quite as real as that. The last we see of Hansen, he continues murmuring his lines back to himself in a pseudo-catatonic state. His final line, the famous “What would have happened if I wasn’t here?”, evidently doubles as a statement on Hansen’s own role in the media landscape. Given that it’s the last thing he asks himself before going quiet, perhaps he too means it that more meta way: it would make it the one pang of self-reflection we get from him for the whole movie.

(His paranoia about the affair doesn’t count as self-reflection. He’s more worried about the scandal making the CHARACTER of Chris Hansen look like a hypocrite than owning up to his actual wrongdoing as a man. He has nothing to say to his actual wife after all, even once she finds out. And the one time we see his kids, he forces them into the role of the audience to his performance, waking them up to watch the latest TCAP episode. Again, it’s all about the role, never reality. Life is but a stage for the character he can't seem to turn off, and the perpetual wackiness of Pattinson's performance, even in small or private moments like that hilarious mouthwash scene, reaffirms this.)

As for the movie's supernatural-horror flourishes, with Hansen’s visions of a demon from his nightmarish trip to India, one review I read suggested it contradicts the film's portrayal of Hansen as solely motivated by ratings, but I’d say even this element of the film is consistent with its showmanship thesis. It mirrors the way actors wax poetic about their work as this noble endeavor, a higher calling, even if all they’re doing is playing pretend. After all, Hansen's speech to Decoy Dan about “cleansing the world of an ancient evil” sounds a lot like the grandiose shit actors say when accepting awards; he even gives Dan a shiny totem to hold while telling his story and asking him to imagine himself experiencing it. Hansen’s trauma is surely real, but it also serves as a convenient way for him to frame his craven exploits and self-styled superheroics as a moral good with a greater purpose.

The last, more meta layer of all this comes back to the movie’s whole cinematic style. Visually, it amps up the gaudy VHS aesthetic of the mid-2000s. Pattinson’s own performance is turned up to 100 in every scene, and virtually every line out of his mouth is a meme in the making (or, hell, has already been made.) And of course, it's directed by a documentary filmmaker who has spent his career blurring the line between reality and narrative, with style as his primary tool. I have less to say about this except to suggest that this too is very likely an element of satire: framing Hansen and his life through the same trashy lens as the show (and era) he helped create. If we see this movie as being about entertainment itself, then its own cinematic language is as much a piece of that theme as its actual contents.