4v291o

Another film i’ve heard so much about that I also never watched until now, Kingdom Of Heaven. Director Ridley Scott and writer William Monahan create a film centered around Balian de Ibelin (Orlando Bloom) and his journey to Jerusalem that culminates into this final stand between the kingdom of jerusalem (under European rule) and the Saladin’s (Ghassan Massoud) army that is attempting to retake Jerusalem from the Europeans in order to have peace amongst his people and avoid a coup. 

While the film is known for its grand scale battles and insane production quality, I think it’s quite amazing that someone in 2005, 4 years after 9/11 had the brains to make a film that portrayed Arabs and Islam in a positive light. I know the film is based off of real events and battles that happened but it’s not new for the U.S and Americans to revise history in a way they see fit. Back to what I was saying I got to give props to the director and writer for making such a grounded and neutral (sort of) film. The arabs are friends to the descendants of templars that came 100 years ago during the first crusades and the animosity depicted in this film comes not from followers of Islam or christians but rather by templars who still lived by an archaic and religious dogma. Even after the final stand after Saladin walks into the temple that was once used to crown the Europeans was now being used by the Islam nation but rather than tearing and destroying the christian cross the Saladin picks it up and sets it where it used to be. Representing that there was never a problem amongst their people and their faith, and I think this was unintentional since it doesn’t get explored in the film but it’s to show that for the arabs and the indigenous people of that land it was never about faith or religious fanaticism but it was about identity and a right to self determination. I bring this up because it always bothered me how Godfrey de Ibelin (Liam Neeson) makes a comment to his son, Balian, on how you can be a nobody in Europe but if you go to Jerusalem you’ll be a lord, and it just immediately reminded me of manifest destiny. Which is why I think some of those moments where they briefly touch up on land back it’s unintentional. 

I can go on and on about that, but let’s talk about what I did like:

First, the music… holy shit! Harry Gregson-Williams Bravo! I’ve had Wall Breached on repeat while writing this review because it’s just so fucking good. I mean the entire score for this film is insane but when I was watching the film and I got to the entr’acte and I heard this song start to play I actually lost my mind. 

I really enjoyed Balian’s storyline as it’s always interesting to see a religious devout and his faith waver but it’s more interesting to watch them navigate through the uncertainty and see what man comes out at the other end of that psychological and spiritual journey. While at times it was a bit annoying to see him constantly try and turn the other cheek which in turn resulted in countless dead bodies because he refused to kill a warmongering-religious fanatic all because of some holier-than-thou attitude he has. Had he just said yes to the King and Tiberias (Jeremy Irons) he could have saved the lives of countless men but no. Still, despite all those idiotic choices, he does have a very interesting story which in turn results in a very cathartic realization that the “Kingdom Of Heaven”, solace and forgiveness comes and resides within yourself therefore it is better to continue to move forward than to hold on to the fickleness of religious (institutional/fanaticism) ideals and dogma.  

Definitely a great film and i’d go as far as to say it’s timeless. It has everything we miss nowadays in the world of cinema. It’s what made me enjoy Napoleon when I first watched it in 2023, Ridley Scott just has a talent for making good epic period pieces.

This review may contain spoilers.

Watched May 26, 2025

Despite only ever having watched Amores Perros & Biutiful (Dir. Alejandro G. iñarritu) & Y Tu Mamá Tambien, Amsterdam, Burn After Reading, & The Cat In The Hat (D.O.P. Emmanuel Lubezki) would it be safe to say this is without a doubt one of the greatest films both of them have ever made? Both of their filmography is so insane but this film without a doubt will forever be a top 3. 

A beautiful yet somber score by Ryuichi Sakamoto & Alva Noto that feels just as cold as the frozen landscape of the film but still as captivating and moving as its people & mountains. 

I wanted to mention earlier how i’ve only seen 2 other films in which Iñarritu was director/writer because I want to highlight his tendency towards creating films centered around incredibly nuanced characters and themes. Hugh Glass (Leonardo DiCaprio) was a real person who did travel across those freezing mountains while he was already halfway dead but while it is badass to see him do everything he does in the film which was most likely added to add more depth and to be more awe-inspiring, Iñarritu wants to highlight the juxtaposition of a white settler who married a Pawnee woman, lived a life as a Pawnee & had a child who would be half white and half pawnee. The film is centered around his guilt and sometimes inadequacies of being a proper protector to his son and family. More so his guilt. Hugh Glass carries this immense guilt of not being able to protect his wife during an attack on their village by settlers which resulted in the death of his wife and in turn he is propelled to raise his son in a way that is simply not going to be good for his son. Hugh Glass is a white man with white skin and he can live amongst other settlers, hunt with other settlers and even be accepted by them and he attempts to raise his son in a way he only knows how but he doesn’t full know how to take into just how evil and prejudice settlers are towards the indigenous people. He has some idea as one point in the film he responds to his son

“They don’t hear you! They just see the color of your face.” 

But none of this was enough as later in the film his son’s naïveté ends up costing him his own life. I think this is when those abstract dream sequences start to come into play with Hugh Glass’ guilt, especially those images with the pile of Buffalo skulls which is meant to signify once again his guilt as a white man attempting to live on a land that is actively being destroyed and stolen from the indigenous people by white settlers. Earlier in the film, he and his son were participating in this exact thing: the hunting of animals for their pelts to make a profit. It’s his guilt and shame of trying to assimilate his son into a white mans world which in turn cost him his life. 

I want to watch this film again because it’s such a beautiful film and the indigenous representation is very clearly the central point of the film. His wife, his son, The Rees, The Pawnee stranger that nurses Hugh back to health, the dream sequence of the pile of buffalo skulls, the affirmations, and so much. It even circles back to something the Pawnee stranger/Hikuc (Arthur RedCloud) tells him during their first encounter:

“My heart bleeds. But revenge is in the creator's hands.”

I see now why Leonardo DiCaprio one an Oscar for this film. Such a great fucking performance and what a good fucking film.

I can see why this is such a beloved film for many people and I have no idea how I went the last 25 years of my life without ever seeing it. I love westerns and ever since I watched Michael Mann’s Heat last year i’ve really grown to liking Val Kilmer. Speaking of cast , this film has a really great cast and honestly everyone considers Clint Eastwood to be synonymous with westerns but what’s a good western film without Kurt Russell or Sam Elliott?

I couldn’t stop gushing over this film while watching it, it’s just so damn good. It’s definitely a quintessential western film. Yeah maybe the shootout choreography at the O.K. Corral isn’t that great, BUT that’s not what makes a good western film. It’s the story. I know this is based off of an anecdote from the real Wyatt Earp but I really enjoyed these characters, I love Sam Elliot’s Virgil Earp has he navigates through his initial guilt and attempts to fight against his impulses to bring some form of justice to a town him and his brothers are trying to make money off of. Doc Holiday (Val Kilmer) is also an amazing character: addicted to gambling and a very dangerous lifestyle he reminds me a lot of Arthur Morgan (Roger Clark) from Red Dead Redemption 2 who was a hardass gunslinger who also suffered from tuberculosis. I wouldn’t be surprised if the creators of that game drew inspiration for Arthur from Doc Holiday. 

Only issue with this film is something a lot of these older wester films suffer from and that is casting white men to play Mexican characters. I’m 100% sure there was plenty of good Mexican talent to cast for the part of Florentino but no, let’s instead cast a white American from Brooklyn, New York for the part of the Mexican and just have him do an accent. 

Set aside that sort of bullshit and you have a great western film that doesn’t suffer from aging like crap i.e Once Upon A Time In The West. 

This is probably a good time to bring up that I did a triple feature of Tombstone, Once Upon A Time In The West, and The Revenant. 

William A. Fraker also does an amazing job with the cinematography and god does he love using that split diopter shot (I love it when they use it as well). Nothing is ever going to beat making a film that is shot on location, great production (outfits and makeup) and good fucking lighting.

I have to rewatch the other Final Destination films because I get this feeling that this one is incredibly dumbed down and the characters are also far too stupid. 

I’m going to be honest the cinematography was honestly kind of uninspiring except for the dance sequence when they are dancing over the glass while Shouts plays; great dolly zooms and some sick dolly shots but outside of that there was nothing visually interesting. There was one scene where they used 12 mm lenses to accentuate Iris’ (Berc Bassinger) anxiety and it made me wish they would of used those lenses a lot more during that first act with Iris (yes Sergey Urusevskiy’s masterful work in I Am Cuba lives rent free in my mind). 

As for the storytelling, eh idk. Was it really that difficult to believe your grandmother after she vindicates you? Without you telling her much about the dream she tells you how everything played out for her and what happened which aligns with your nightmares, even when that wasn’t enough she leaves the house and tells you she’s about to die because she left the house. That’s one… second why didn’t the grandmother tell her or scream at her, hey if I leave this house I will die and when she doesn’t believe you walk out and show her instead of being ambiguous about it. I know I’m sounding incredibly sour and pretentious writing this but I did watch this film with the intention of having fun, I mean, nobody is going to films like this to be intellectually stimulated but I would be lying if I didn’t it to being annoyed at the characters stupidity.

Maybe I am being too critical and i’m sorry but I really wanted to enjoy the film a lot more. Did I have some fun? Yeah. Did I semi-enjoy the film? Yes! This is just me being honest.

Still as good as the first time I saw this film: beautiful cinematography, a magnificent score and some of the best performances you could ever have in a film. 
Thelma Schoonmaker and Scorsese are so fucking brilliant together.  The way they edited the mono photograph stills of The Osage before cutting to white people fucking them over for their money. Overlaying scenes with Molly (Lily Gladstone) speaking about how the murders were happening and not once was there an investigation, I cried during this scene the first time I saw the film and I cried again after this rewatch. 

Honestly this film is one of the most important films of the 21st century, an unadulterated film about the horrifying events that took place during the 1910s-1930s an event now known as “The Osage Indian Murders”. The film follows Ernest Burkhart (Leonardo DiCaprio) as he is convinced to partake in an evil scheme to forcefully take the wealth away from The Osage, through murder and manipulation. It should be noted that it doesn’t take much to convince Ernest to do what he does in the film and for those who thought or still think Scorsese was attempting to humanize him with this film i’d like to remind you that throughout the film Scorsese never tried to downplay his stupidity or greed. After their first “heist” he bets their money and all the jewelry they stole in an attempt to win big on a bet (which he loses) then later in the film, the final part of the film he is given one last chance by Molly to come clean by asking him just what exactly was he injecting into her, and instead of being honest with his wife, the one person he claimed to love more than money (this is how he measures the importance of someone, in monetary value) but instead of being honest he just lied straight to her face as if she didn’t already know the truth. Ernest has no redemption in this film and I don’t know how people thought Martin Scorsese was trying to humanize such a vile character. If the aforementioned scenes weren’t enough just there’s a sequence in which Ernest is finally going to reveal everything to the feds but as soon as he interacts with the lawyer and the idea of going free is placed into his head he immediately falls back into his duplicitous ways: lying, and going back on everything he had already said. Imagine that, there’s already proof of your sisters and mother being murdered by people who claimed to be your friends and husband but instead of your husband coming clean in court your husband decides to lie. Not just in front of you, but in front of the entire court as if the truth wasn’t already evident. 

Another thing that I find interesting is something I missed on first watch and that’s the individualist mindset of the white people in the film. A mindset that is now 90% of the American population has, including people of color: “I worked for my money, like god intended”. This was a line from two characters in the film but it was also exchanged during a bit of exposition between Ernest & Undertaker Turton (Barry Corbin). Ernest complains to him about the price he is being charged to which Turton replies claiming it’s his right to charge them outrageous prices because he works for his money and they don’t. This kind of mindset still exists in the 21st century, people use it to excuse their inactions and indifference towards the disenfranchised and poor. 

Such a great film and Jesus Christ I never realized how stacked the cast was. 2023 was such a good year man, I lowkey miss it.

Watched March 30, 2025
Written March 30, 2025

Magazine Dreams is a film about an aspiring bodybuilder named Killian Maddox (Jonathan Majors) who not only spends most of his time working out and is constantly dieting, he is also under strict instructions by the state to care for his grandfather or else he would have to go back to prison for threatening a nurse. 

Director & Writer Elijah Bynum puts at the forefront of the film emotional abuse, hypermasculinity, the incel mentality, environmental racism and self-loathing. As he attempts to deconstruct all this, he slightly manages to drag the film just a tiny bit which at times would disrupt the flow of the film. 

As far as career comebacks go, this is pretty good for Jonathan Majors as he gives a really amazing, subtle & nuanced performance. Portraying a man who is on the spectrum, suffering on the inside from psychological trauma & an ocean of self-loathing that is constantly boiling on the inside just waiting to explode. We get to see glimpses of Killian’s anger throughout the film but we also see him attempt to do better. Killian wants to do good as most of the trouble he gets in & interactions he was in weren’t even his fault: the white old lady in the meat section was afraid of him for no other reason but because of her own racist mindset, and the problem with the unfinished paint job at his grandfather’s house happened all because the pain job company tried fucking over an old man. 

Magazine Dreams is a tragedy, a story of a  black man attempting to make something of himself but the structure of the story is incredibly Nietzchean as Killian Maddox is put through hell throughout the film before he finally breaks away from the self-loathing. 

Elijah Bynum could’ve easily made this a story of the incel to mass shooter pipeline but he did something more interesting. Deconstructing the reasons for incels which is hypermasculinity & self-loathing then further breaking down the reasons & we discover a plethora of unearthed emotions: anger, hate, sorrow and a longing for love, paternal, platonic and romantic. This all comes full circle with the ending: before shooting Brad Vanderhorn (Michael O’Hearn) he has a dream sequence of his parents. Upon deciding to go back home instead, Killian walks into his house, sees his grandfather with a concern look on his face and as he walks towards Killian, Killian falls onto his arms and is embraced by his grandfather & finally let’s everything out and cries. Symbolizing the withering away of his hypermasculinity & opening a path towards finally healing.

Watched April 23, 2025
Written April 23, 2025 

So, on rewatch there isn’t anything particularly new I picked up on except for how much emphasis Coogler puts on the sun & sky: “look up at the sky, it’s a beautiful day to be free.” The opening shot of the film is medium-shot of the morning sun. The cinematography of this film is beautiful but it also plays an important role just like the score for the film. The sun and morning skies represent freedom and love: I say love because Coogler wants to contrast the day with the night in a way that fits the narrative, because if the sun is freedom & love/happiness then the moon & night is a prison (subjugation) filled with loneliness, suffering & pain. 

On a first watch I didn’t fully grasp why Remick (Jack O’Connell) was after Sammie (Miles Caton) except for what was said in the opening monologue about how those with a gift in music can pierce the veil between life and death, future and past, bring joy to those in living but above all else it also may attract evil. With that explanation you kind of assume Remmick had malevolent intentions but it was because he is lonely & wishes to connect to those who have ed away with those who continue to live in death like himself (Remmick). Using Sammie’s ability to pierce through time itself & connect past, present and future. Once connecting everything then Remmick & those like him will no longer be alone. The only issue with Remmick is he seems to want to do some form of good (in his way) as he empathizes with Sammie before going to bite him: “but the words do still bring me comfort” 
If the character is meant to be a victim of colonialism (which historically speaking he should be) then i’d assume he’d be less aggressive & weird about turning others into vampires, because we could have changed Remmick’s line “how you like to be licked” to something more emotionally impactful as the character he is talking to is Chinese & has suffered, at least experienced some form of oppression including colonization (the colonization of china by Great Britain). So why not make his lines something akin to that, after all, he had already said something similar to Smoke (Michael B. Jordan). Which brings me to my next point: Ryan Coogler had to have been incredibly horny while he wrote the script, because one sex scene… ok, it’s fine. A second one? Ok, it’s funny & helps show that Sammie is beginning to break away from the cycle & beginning to live as he wishes. Now… what reason could there possibly be to have Remmick sexually harass Grace Chow (Li Jun Li)? 

I want to talk a bit more about the way Coogler utilizes the sun & sky to represent freedom. He brings this entire notion full circle with the same character that uses the metaphor first: Stack (Michael B. Jordan) in the post-credit scene when he is asked by a much older Sammie (Buddy Guy) what he felt on that day Stack responds: “it’s the last time I saw the sun, the last time I was free.” Que in Last Time (I seen the sun) by Lola Kitrke, Peter Dreams, Brian Dunphy, Ludwig Göransson you get one of the most beautiful and emotionally impactful scenes in the film; you can’t help but feel moved by that scene.

Watched May 09, 2025
Written May 10, 2025

Oh wow… who would’ve thought the MCU had it in them to still be able to make an actual film. Not trying to be pretentious about this because I genuinely used to enjoy the MCU but before the Disney buyout Marvel films were actually pretty good, in fact, some of them were kind of ahead of their time in of narrative depth and storytelling: Hulk (2003) & Sam Raimi’s Spider-Man trilogy. I have a vague memory of a lot of the earlier MCU films like Captain America, Thor and Iron Man (2 & 3) but I don’t any of the films post Avengers 1 & Age of Ultron having any real emotional themes. I want to bring up this topic of “emotional themes” because that is what’s been missing from these films: the human connection and something someone can relate to; empathize with. 

Thunderbolts* (New Avengers) is the newest installment within the MCU which is truly a breath of fresh air within the franchise. Setting aside the Michael Bay philosophy of mindless jokes and big action for a much more grounded and emotional approach that explores the self-destructive nature and complexities of self-loathing, depression, the importance of mental health and how it can affect those around you. 

I hope this film helps show the out-of-touch executives that hiring good directors and writers and allowing them to do their jobs can help yield an actual decent film with substance rather than just relying on nostalgia and consumerism. 

My only issue with the film lies with some of the cracks in the writing like the abrupt ending and no explanation whatsoever for the traumatic impact the people of of New York suffered after Sentry (Lewis Pullman) sent everyone into the “void”. It’s kind of lazy to leave that sort of loose end in the film, and my only guess as to why this was done was because 90% of the audience would of probably not enjoyed a nigh-3-hour long film that doesn’t have big explosions or a big fight scene after the 35 minute or so long exploration of psychological trauma and its effects. But I would have preferred to get an actual ending to that part of Sentry’s character arc in this one film rather than hearing about in a Disney+ show or 3 MCU movies from this one.

Now I have to be honest, I should probably read some Red Guardian comics before saying this next part but i’m kind of tired of the anti-soviet bullshit in american films. Why does Red Guardian (David Harbour) need to be a joke? I hope he gets to be a much cool character in later films because that “dah, i’m russian, boo I dislike Stalin and the Soviet Union. Dah, i’m a goofy super soldier” is going to get lame and boring as fuck quick. 

Enough ranting.

Like I mentioned earlier this is a proper film and with some excellent and heartfelt performances from Florence Pugh, Lewis Pullman, Wyatt Russell, David Harbour, Hannah John-Kanem and Sebastian Stan. I think it’s also perfect they got Son Lux to do the score because Jesus Christ… they always manages to capture that sort of melancholy, and sorrow while still managing to make the music sound so grandiose and epic. Just listen to It’s Bucky or Not Alone and see for yourself just how amazing they are. The music in this film is so good and pair it alongside those emotional performances by the cast and you get an audience crying or getting goosebumps. But what else can you expect by the same group who composed In Another Life? I still listen to that song and cry to it, even more so now since it has such an emotional meaning to me.

P.S. SPOILER ALERT!!!!

am I missing something? Because does no one else find it kind of insane they have Task Master in the promotional posters and everything but she only has like 5 minutes of screen time then dies?

An introspective exploration through the indigenous genocide committed in Chile by a powerful landowner that was covered up and romanticized by the settler-colonialist state of Chile in celebration of its 100 year anniversary of the countries founding. 

This is a very disturbing and bleak film but it’s cinematography is without a doubt superb and beautiful which in contrast with it’s graphic material serves to push part of the film’s narrative: a beautiful country/continent plagued by settlers, rich landowners and their violence. 

Director Felipe Gálvez does a great job of not just criticizing settlers and settler colonialism but also the mestizo’s part in the destruction of the indigenous in south & Central America. Segundo (Camilo Arancinbia) could have killed both men with ease at one point in the film and didn’t. Later on he chokes an indigenous woman to death blindly thinking that was a better choice for her instead of living after being raped by both MacLennen (Mark Stanley) & Bill (Benjamin Westfall). A decision he made FOR her without even thinking about it or taking her opinion into consideration. In the final scene of the film a representative of the state of Chile comes to visit Segundo and Kiepja/Rosa (Mishell Guaña) at their home on the Island of Chiloé. The reason for his visit is disguised under the form of curiosity, respect and empathy but the truth is they come to forcefully assimilate both of them into the state of Chile. The assimilation is represented in the form of a video recording of dressing both Segundo & Kiepja in “nice clothing” and have them drink tea on command, presenting them nice and tidy for the government and it’s people to show the indigenous are now assimilated. It’s also symbolic of the historical development of latin American nations  and the assimilation of mestizo and indigenous but how mestizo’s were always more willing to give themselves up for the superstructure as they benefited from it. Which brings me to the best part of the scene, Kiepja’s rejection of the state of Chile: she is the only indigenous character in this scene and the only one fighting back against the assimilation in the form of denying the command of drinking the tea. The camera changes from the wide-medium to a close and medium shot with her face at the center frame. In her face expression you can see the anger and sadness of generations of indigenous people losing their right as peoples and this anger manifests itself as resistance and serves to represent once again the historical truth of subjugation and disenfranchising of the indigenous in latin America and their constant battle against settler-colonialism. 

Powerful film and it’s kind of insane to think this was released the same year as Killers Of The Flower Moon. Two incredibly powerful films.

“Pero como dice mi tía Lucha Elena: Las oportunidades en la vida son como los tiros que tiene una escopeta… y yo ya me gasté los míos.”

It’s your typical Sunday morning, you and your best friend are about to have the entire house for yourself’s the whole day. You have the essentials: a 2 liter coke, chips and snacks to last an entire week but most importantly the XBOX is booted up with Halo and it’s ready for both of you to waste your day playing it. Mom left money for pizza and two large cokes but you and your best mate are purposefully going to order from the pizza shop across the city because y’all enjoy testing them to see if they can deliver on time or else it’s free pizza for you guys. But the day takes a turn to the unusual when your 16-year old neighbor decided to knock on your door to ask to use your oven and later on the pizza delivery guy decides to not feed into your childish game. A typical sunday becomes an existential crisis and for some it ends in catarsis while others are left with doubt and longing. 

Temporada De Patos is a film I came across while watching an instgram reel about film students and their top mexican films to which one of them answered with this film. For the last few years i’ve been trying to watch more Mexican films because they are extremely underrated and even more severely under watched. As a Mexican myself I just feel the need to watch more films from my home country and thank god i’m doing so because this film is arguably one of the greatest and emotionally profound film i’ve seen in a while. 

On the surface it’s telling a story from the perspective of four different people in different parts of their life but it all adds up to a coming of age story between the four. But at it’s core it’s more emotional and existential as each character is suffering underneath: Moko (Diego  Cataño) is closeted and has no idea how to navigate the emotions he feels towards his best friend Flama (Daniel Miranda), Flama is stuck between a marital dispute between his parents who are planning on a divorce which raises questions from him whether or not he matters to them as they are constantly fighting over minuscule things like the expensive china and portraits of flying duck, Rita (Danny Perea) is a young 16-year old carefree girl who lacks an incredible amount of manners but through his exposition we discover she’s a child neglected by her mother and the only reason she came over to bake a cake in their oven was because it was her birthday and her mother forgot, and then we have Ulises (Enrique Arreola) the pizza delivery guy who through his amazing and personal monologue we are revealed his desires and how he hates his job but that the reason he took the job was out of necessity to help his aunt who is sick. 

Each character is in a situation they don’t wish to be in, in fact they have a strong desire to change their life but some are too young to do so and others are still searching. Which is why I think the duck is a perfect theme for this film and why the closing scene is simply brilliant. The flying duck is meant to represent a chance in scenery or rather a change of life to greener pastures/a more fulfilling life. Whatever that may be. It’s why Ulises was so captivated by the portrait as he was older and just a tiny bit more wiser to feel it’s significance and be inspired by it. 

Beautiful film and I love every second of it, especially the music. Panorama by Alejandro Rosso brings a tear to my eye every time.

Watched February 06, 2025 
Written February 06, 2025

Inland Empire is probably the pinnacle of how inaccessible & ambiguous David Lynch’s films can be; the 3-hour runtime is the cherry on top to test just how willing are you to go down this rabbit hole that leads into the unchained mind of a man who can perceive life through dreams, nightmares & reality. The material & inmaterial. 

“Without cheese there would be no Inland Empire” said a promotional poster which was next to David Lynch while he promoted the film in 2006 outside Hollywood blvd, and I agree. 

Just kidding but it’s always fun to try and decipher just what Lynch says or does. 

I wish I could demystify this film but honestly this is probably as esoteric as Lynch could get but off of the top of my head this film seems to be another instance in which David Lynch uses nightmares to tackle social issues like domestic abuse. Laura Dern’s character(s) Nikki Grace/Susan Blue are both women in relationships with men who are abusive & controlling. I know this is all kinda superficial but i’m sorry, it is kind of difficult to understand what David Lynch wanted to evoke with some of the scenes especially with the ending of everyone dancing. This is just one of those films i’m going to have to watch again to understand on my own. 

At first I really hated the way David Lynch shot this film because it is honestly very ugly to look at but it becomes clear to me during the scene of Laura Dern running at the camera in the dark. It became clear in that anxiety inducing moment that Lynch purposefully wanted objects, especially faces to be more difficult to see the farther they are from the lenses as the ambiguity of it all helps build tension & continue with the uneasiness the film wants you to feel. 
“A woman in trouble” and the film wants you to feel that sense of trouble and anxiety.

Watched February 05, 2025
Written February 05, 2025

Before watching David Lynch’s filmography I knew he was something special, he had to be by virtue of how loved & appreciated he was by everyone. Not just by fans but by world-renowned and critically acclaimed contemporary directors like Spielberg & Stanley Kubrick. Which brings me to the topic at hand, a film that Stanley Kubrick considered to be “one of his favorites” & an influence on The Shinning: Eraserhead written & directed by David Lynch. Released in 1977 Eraserhead follows a secluded young man named Henry Spencer (Jack Nance) and how he navigates fatherhood in the most nightmarish way possible. (It is now very evident to me the way David Lynch likes to tackle social themes in his work) 

It’s become quite clear that David Lynch really loved to create stories and structure them as if they were dreams or nightmares. What’s most fascinating is his ability to create the most ambiguous stories without ever alienating and completely mystifying his audience but even so you could never truly be mystified by David Lynch’s films as he has gone on record encouraging his quirky to make of his films whatever comes to their mind. With that being said: Eraserhead means to me or rather represents a man’s out of nowhere plunge into fatherhood & the physical manifestation of his anxieties and fears. I know very little of David Lynch’s life but one thing I did know was his difficult journey in financing and releasing this film; something that I believe is reflected on the film itself: Henry’s stagnation & inability to grow as a person into a fully functioning father/adult serves as an allegory for David Lynch’s fear of not being able to put out his first feature film. 

This is a really good fucking film & the fact this came out in 1977 makes me wish I was could witness the audience reaction to this film.

Watched February 10, 2025
Written February 10, 2025

I’ve come to realize that the Irish are really fucking good at portraying cynicism & tragedy. Writer & Director Chris Andrews brings forth a film about an animal husbandry dispute that serves as a character study for four men: Michael (Christopher Abbott), Jack (Barry Keoghan), Ray (Colm Meaney) & Gary (Paul Ready). 

Bring Them Down explores the tragedy of two men tormented by the failures of their fathers, loss of one’s mother, and the potential loss of another mother. Michael is tormented everyday by the memory of the car crash he caused that killed his mother; the car crash happened in due part because his mother was going to run away from Michael’s father Ray but she was going to leave him behind until she was ready to bring Michael with her which lead to Michael getting upset and causing a car crash. Throughout the film we are shown the kind of man Ray is: cynical, bitter, & it seems to be implied through sub-text that he used to hit Michael’s mother. Michael tries to redeem himself by living the rest of his life shepherding rams. Throughout the film Michael refuses to stand-up for himself despite being in the right on most occasions, he has one of his rams stolen by Jack & Gary but instead of insisting & forcing them to give back the animal he just allows them to walk-over him which angers his father to the point he screams out to Michael in a fit of rage to bring him the heads of those responsible. 

I don’t think Michael is inherently a violent person but rather is troubled by it & it doesn’t help that he suffers from a deep resentment towards his father which only further fuels his anger. He tries to be better but he is surrounded by hate. On the other hand you have Jack, a young adult who is meant to be juxtapose with Michael. Essentially mirroring Michael’s life: Jack’s parents are going through a divorce & Jack’s mother clearly hates Gary. Jack’s desperation to keep his parents together makes him conjure up a plan to steal one of Ray’s rams because this to him means they can sell the ram and solve his parents marriage because to Jack the marriage was in trouble because of monetary reasons but unfortunately it was less monetary & more emotional.

Watched February 06, 2025
Written February 06, 2025

In 1970 under a Brazilian military dictatorship, a mother is forced to reshape herself for the sake of her children & herself in order to survive after her husband is kidnapped & murdered by the military. A mother’s resilience & strength never falters nor does her love for her husband whose memory isn’t lost against the cruel one-sided battle of alzheihmer’s. 

I think the only person capable of giving us a Vladimir Lenin film is Walter Salles. Only director that consistently makes leftist films that are always amazing & why? Because he knows how to evoke empathy amongst his viewers. He understands that the power that is needed for a chance at revolution is born from an emotional and spiritual place. Ever since I watched “The Motorcycle Diaries”, Walter Salles & that film have become one of my favorites (Director & film). With I’m Still Here I can see that Salles juxtaposes “shared moments” like dinner & dancing to emphasize change. In “The Motorcycle Diaries” dancing was utilized to show the gradual change from the bourgeoisie to the poor, working class, & disenfranchised but also to contrast Ernesto’s radicalization while on that trip. In I’m Still Here photography, filming & dancing are utilized in the same manner but the process is much more disheartening as each photo & memory holds a reminder of their open-air imprisonment & corruption of their innocence. While Eunice Paivra (Fernanda Torres was radicalized by the injustice she faced it came with the price of their children’s innocence & her husband’s life. 

I don’t think I even need to say this but part of the reason as to why the Brazilian military junta took control in 1964 was because of the U.S & it’s fear of socialist influence in the global south. 

Great film & 100% a top 5 film for this year (2024).

Let me start off with saying that i’ve never seen the most famous iteration of Cinderella (the 1950’s Disney animation film) but I have a pretty good grasp on what the story is: a young woman who is treated like trash by her family and is given a chance to escape her family with help from a magical entity. Upon being given the means to sway the prince she has only until midnight to do so or else her magical carriage is turned into a pumpkin. 

As far as I know… I don’t think there has ever been a film done in which the focus is on The Ugly Stepsister and her megalomaniac mother. Went into this film blind and it was better than I could ever have expected as films that attempt to make a “darker” version of lighthearted stories usually fail but god did this film go so incredibly hard. Beautiful cinematography and an amazing score to pair alongside it. Director of photography Marcel Zyskind & Director Emilie Blichfeldt did such an amazing job with that “fairy god mother” sequence, I mean jesus christ it went from being this grotesque scene of a poor girl crying beside the maggot infested corpse of her father to this magnificent scene of maggots stitching her dress together. Disgusting as it sounds it truly is mise-en-scéne!

Doing a double-feature between this and The Shroud was also really cool but in of body-horror… The Ugly Stepsister was definitely better.

Really great film, great story and great social commentary on misogyny and an amazing way to deconstruct  the romanticism behind aristocratic-romance. 

OH! And that dolly zoom shot was just… MUAH! Amazing!

The Shrouds written and directed by David Cronenberg is a film that follows the grief of techno tycoon Karsh (Vincent Cassel) and a conspiracy that emerges after someone vandalized the 9 techno-graves in the cemetery he owns. One of those graves was of his wife Terry (Diane Kruger). 

It’s through the conspiracy that we are given a deeper look into not just Karsh’s grief but also his insecurities concerning his relationship with his late wife. Though on paper it is quite an interesting way to psychologically analyze a character and create a character study by utilizing the conspiracy as the impetus for the narrative and Karsh’s grief.

I wish I had more interesting things to say but frankly I didn’t find the film that great, and I genuinely wanted to love it. The only Cronenberg film I have seen so far is Videodrome and I loved that film; it’s incredible both in narrative and structure but The Shroud’s made me feel as if I was a dog and someone was just tangling a piece of meat in front of me. No, I wasn’t expecting some huge explosion of blood and organs to happen at the end but I would be lying if I said I didn’t find the third act to be underwhelming. Just to clarify I don’t have an issue with films filled with exposition, I mean I just saw The Room Next Door a few months ago and I thought it was decent but I think this was just one of those occasions where big expectations for something backfired on me. I do suggest people still go out and watch this, please do as Cronenberg is still considered one of the best body-horror directors for a reason and the body horror in this film DOES not disappoint.

Ryan Coogler delivers one of the most interesting iterations of the “vampire”; rather than being a blood sucking creature of the night or an “impossible lover” (twilight) it is instead a representation of an idea: freedom locked behind an eternal night. 

It isn’t explicitly stated just how Remmick (Jack O’Connell) became a vampire but we at least do know he’s lived for a VERY long time but the better question would be what made him into a vampire? I guess I’ll figure that out once I get around to the rewatch. What is very interesting about Remmick is like I mentioned earlier, it’s what he represents. Coogler created this character deliberately to contrast the black American’s struggle and the poor working class American struggle (in some minor characters) but the main focus is precisely to juxtapose the formerly colonized Gaelic vampire to the disenfranchised people of color within rural and embryonic urban america. His only wish is to “liberate” those he believes need “saving” but it comes from a place by which has been distorted by living millennia and a hate that has nowhere to go.

I wish I could go deeper into this film on my first review of it because I had a lot to say for a first watch but since I took forever to write the review I ended up having to write RIGHT BEFORE my second viewing. No joke, i’m sitting in my seat waiting for the film to start. As I wait I decided to write my FIRST review before the movie starts because I wanted to get off any initial thoughts before the rewatch.

I love the way Lynch shoots his films: they are so slick & such eye-candy. I don’t think any other director to my knowledge comes close to being as intuitive as David Lynch when it comes to lighting & playing with shadows. It’s simply some of the most beautiful imagery & cinematography ever put on a screen. It’s one of the many things I loved about Lost Highway & Blue Velvet. 

A story about a saxophone player who has a deep mistrust for his wife begins to receive an ominous package everyday that consists of recordings of the front of his house that progressively get more sinister as he receives each subsequent package. 

Definitely much more ambiguous than Blue Velvet but I didn’t feel lost & that’s because it’s part of the magic of David Lynch’s films. The film can be enigmatic; the narrative & imagery are very fun & captivating. But here is my interpretation:
Fred Madison’s (Bill Pullman) deep mistrust for his wife, Renee Madison (Patricia Arquette) stems from what seems to be some sense of inadequacy & insecurity he has for himself. Lynch maneuvers these themes by not being literal or “upfront” about it but by rather having Fred turn into the man he “wishes” or “wants” to be, and that’s when Pete Dayton (Balthazar Getty) enters. This leather-wearing stud personifies what most men typically strive for: sleek, smooth & a womanizer. Confidence & power over the women they lust for. 
Another instance in which Lynch utilizes the power and absurdity of “dreams” to tell a story but this time tackling themes like hypermasculinity & draconic power dynamics between man and woman. 

David Lynch really was a master to behold and god, how I wish I could have watched his films much sooner.

Easily the most accessible David Lynch film: a perfect amount of ambiguity & surrealism without completely mystifying the viewer. Beautiful music & some of the best cinematography i’ve ever seen. David Lynch weaves together an odyssey & mystery out of one single amputated ear. Brilliant!

Jefferey Beaumont (Kyle MacLachlan) stumbles across an ear lying on the grass while on his way to check-on his dad at the hospital. His curiosity causes him to take the ear to his neighbor who happens to work as a police detective. His neighbor, Detective Williams (George Dickerson) tells Jefferey that he is going to further investigate about this at his office. After leaving the detective’s home Jefferey hears a random voice coming from the shadows who is then subtly revealed to be the detective’s daughter, Sandy Williams (Laura Dern). She asks Jefferey about the ear & with this single question both the innocent and curious begin their descent into the unseen horrors that linger in the shadows of American suburbia.

This mystery-surrealist-love story was such a spectacle to watch. The color blue has never looked more warmer than it did in this film.

There’s a slight possibility that the events of the film are all dreams conjured up by Jefferey out of boredom from the life he has in a picket fence home in the South Atlantic. Jefferey is put through experiences that cause him to question his own sanity & ask what causes men to be so evil and cruel? Love? Abandonment? Drugs? It could be many things but what helps keeps one sane? For Jefferey it’s the care and love from his mother. 

Another thing, I think the idiom “curiosity killed the cat” can be perfectly applied to this film if we consider the mystery of the ear to be the “curiosity” and Jefferey’s innocence to be the “cat”.

Sometimes you have to put down the intellectual analysis glasses down and just appreciate a good action-comedy. There isn’t anything extraordinary about this film except for the way Ke Huy Quan moves better than most people my age and he’s over 50-years old. 

Love Hurts is definitely not your typical valentines day film and it’s probably one you won’t be going back to watch in celebration of the season but it’s decent and fun. The action and choreography is amazing, yes the story is bit mundane but sometimes it’s better to be honest and it that I personally only went to see this film because of Ke Huy Quan and because it was promoted as a badass action film.

Writer & Director Drew Hancock brings to life the most unique break-up story the world of cinema has ever seen. During a friends-trip at a lake house Iris (Sophie Thatcher) sets-off a chain of events that are both revelatory & liberating for some but a wake-up call for one. 

This might be one of the few instances when I regret seeing the trailer (albeit a random pop-up ad) because the film works better when you go in blind. It’s still a very good film but the twists are better without knowing about them beforehand. 

It’s quite ingenious to create a film where the antagonist is the incel personality and human hubris, but what glues everything together is the character study & morality of A.I. 

Accidentally did a double-feature with this film & “Love Me” and it was actually so cool to juxtaposition these two films that are in different genres but share certain themes: Love and artificial intelligence. 

Sophie Thatcher was pretty good in Heretic but the screenplay for that film didn’t do her justice. In Companion she is so amazing & gives an incredibly nuanced performance as her character is meant to tackle a spectrum of emotions in a way that leaves her constantly jumping back & forth between love and hate.

This review may contain spoilers.

Director & Writer Mohammed Rasoulof tackles political and social issues by contrasting the hijabi protest with the nuclear family. 

There’s a good reason this was nominated for best international film: great cinematography, good storytelling, great performances, and it brings awareness to the oppression of women in Iran. 
One of my favorite parts in the film is when Iman (Missagh Zareh) is chasing his family around the ruins of what used to be a home because this entire sequence does a good job juxtaposing the destruction of men’s misogyny & how fickle it all is as he eventually falls to his death because he looses footing after his daughter accidentally shoots at the roof he was standing on. 

The only nitpick I had was the awful gun-safety control in the film but after a bit of analyzing I think this was deliberate. When Iman brings a gun to his house, a he was given for protection by his job after he was promoted, he goes and shows it to his wife. He unintentionally points it at her with his finger still on the trigger but now I think this was now a bit of foreshadowing on how his carelessness and devotion to an archaic dogma within the government he worked in would bring about the destruction of his own family, undone by his own hands.

This review may contain spoilers.

Hearing Puma Blues music caught me so off guard. Definitely is going to give “dream of you” a much more disturbing feel to it now.

This emotional ghost story that is shot entirely from the perspective of the “ghost” or “Presence” is less about horror and “haunting” a family but more about redemption, regret, sexual assault and the social ostracism of young girls, especially young girls who do drugs. Although the buildup and conclusion of the film does come back to themes of regret and redemption as *spoiler alert* it is revealed that the presence was in fact a family member who es away in the future of the story as this is foreshadowed by the psychic medium earlier in the film. Showing that a family love and care can transcend space and time.

Great score and a great way to utilize 16 mm lens. Steven Soderbergh honestly is insane for the way he shot this film, a lot pf people might not like it but having it be in the POV of the “ghost” really does help drive home the films emotional narrative.

This probably doesn’t mean much coming from someone who hasn’t seen that many “ghost films” but this is probably the most emotional ghost film ever.

The people yearn for a return to communalist societies.

A comedy-odyssey about Dreux’s (Keke Palmer) & Alyssa’s (SZA) attempt to earn $1,500 within 9-hours or else they will get evicted. They come across the most random characters: a stripper volunteering as a nurse, a homeless Katt Williams attempting to save people from eternal debt, a random person who somehow always manages to steal honey butter biscuits from church’s chicken. 

This was definitely a great way to start the year as usually January is filled with mundane or just bad film releases but One Of Them Days is genuinely a great film and probably one I will buy on physical media. It’s a great film that definitely has some pro-communalist undertones and even more anti-landlord sentiment. My only issue with the film probably lies with its somewhat borderline negative portrayal of underclass and proletariat black america.

Was heavily anticipating this film before awards season as I heard very good things about Marianne Jean-Baptiste performance. Unfortunately as we now know the Oscars didn’t even nominate her. 

Hard Truths is a tragic-comedy about a wife and mother named Pansy (Marianne Jean-Baptiste) who struggles with what seems to be OCD & some other undiagnosed mental disorder as she is seen constantly lashing out at people. Sometimes justified and sometimes the things she does and says are out of order and unnecessary. In other words this is the tragic tale of a woman in constant suffering who has not only alienated herself from the world but from her family and what we get to see is just how strained each relationship becomes. 

I think it should be noted that while some stuff Pansy does are out of line but i’d argue that her relationship with her husband was partly because of Curtley’s (David Webber) own apathy towards his wife. This goes even beyond their marriage but also their son Moses (Tuwaine Barrett) who might also be on the spectrum. It’s insinuated by Pansy that Curtley neglected their son and used to belittle him which are the reasons as to why Moses suffers from what seems to be severe anxiety. 

Writer & Director Mike Leigh highlights the tragedy that is Pansy. Her character’s inner turmoil causes her to constantly lash out at anything and anyone which in turn results in her constantly alienating herself. She doesn’t take joy in anything she does but it seems she wasn’t always this way; it could be that her anger hit the surface sometime around the ing of her mother. As with her mother ing on early in Pansy’s life she was left with the responsibility of her younger sister. 
 Upon visiting their mother’s grave on mother’s day, Pansy gives a monologue where it is revealed that Pansy thinks everyone including her husband and only child hates her. I don’t think Moses hates her but Curtley is not happy with her. When Chanelle & Pansy return home, Chanelle’s daughters serve both men food, while they both eat Chanelle asks her brother-in-law how his mother is to which Curtley doesn’t even reply to. Worst part is he doesn’t even look at her while she asks him the question. I don’t think they could have showcased Curtley’s indifference any better. Earlier in the film after Pansy’s manic episode Curtley arrives home and sees there’s a mess around the house & immediately runs upstairs to “check-up” on his wife. When he sees her lying in bed he simply asks: “are you okay? There’s a mess downstairs”. This angers Pansy & causes her to lash out at him. After Pansy finishes venting about her day & her emotions Curtley responds not with empathy but a simple: “are you cooking dinner?” With hindsight this scene isn’t humorous at all & you realize Curtley played a part in Pansy’s misery. 

Moses is a bit more complex because I think it is clear he is on the spectrum but he has no idea how to navigate any of his emotions & it doesn’t help that both of his parents have unresolved marital and mental issues. 

That ending made some people in my theater say: “what?! That’s it? I don’t get it?” The film is a tragic story and the ending is tragic. My interpretation is Pansy finally got sick and tired of Curtley & was 100% going to leave him. Curtley probably realized this at the end which is why he began to cry.

So i’ve been kind of inactive on here for a while and it’s because I feel like I don’t have time to post all the reviews i’ve wrote in my journal for the last three months but now that I got sick and i’m out for two days I think there’s no better time than now to finally post all my reviews. 

So i’m going to apologize in advance for the spam.

Based on the novel “Nickel Boys” by Colson Whitehead that chronicles the story of Elwood (Ethan Herrise), Turner (Brandon Wilson) and their time at a school reform in Florida in the 1960s. 

Director RaMell Ross and with the help of screenplay writer Joslyn Barnes help bring to life Colson Whitehead’s novel in a manner in which at times could be tender, especially during the scenes with Hattie (Aunjanue Ellis-Taylor). To me this film evoked an incredible sadness and at times the presentation, especially during some of the “dream” sequences were very haunting, and that’s thanks to not just the director but to the amazing music that was composed for this film by Alex Somers. Bees Buzzing is truly haunting, especially when paired alongside the very real and disturbing history that this film is based on: the systematic destruction of the life and innocence of hundreds, no, THOUSANDS of innocent black children & children of color. This film only brings light onto the DOCUMENTED cases just imagine how many more of these unsolved cases exist. 

Just when you think you know about very horrendous and vile act the U.S. has done, something new ALWAYS pops up.

“The greatest film of 2024 that no one else has seen yet” is something someone said about Brady Corbet’s “The Brutalist” but if you ask me, I think that sentiment is better fit for a film like “Sing Sing”. 
 
This film, it was good but it wasn’t better than other films that were released in 2024. Honestly? It’s overhyped and overrated, it also doesn’t help that we know they utilized A.I. to help Adrien Brody’s Hungarian accent. As for the runtime, that isn’t an issue and for any cinephile, especially those who make a living out of critiques & the academy, shouldn’t ever complain about a films runtime. 

I think the 214 minutes of runtime are necessary to properly tell the story of Hungarian immigrant, Làszlo Toth (Adrien Brody) & his unforgiving odyssey. My issue with this film is that it is a bit pro-zionist. During the third act the speech of the British mandate is overlayed in one scene then in another scene you have Zsófia (Raffey Cassidy) alongside her husband saying how they are both planning to leave the U.S. & “return” to their “homeland” to which Lászlo & his wife Erzsébet Tóth (Felicity Jones) take offense to but that doesn’t really matter because both Lászlo & Erzsébet eventually leave to live in [the illegal state of] Israel. 

I can see that Brady Corbet was criticizing capitalist america but it’s ultimately superficial & merely an adornment in this film & story. While on this topic I want to highlight Guy Pearce’s performance as Harrison Lee Van Buren Sr.; if it wasn’t for Clarence Maclin’s performance in Sing Sing i’d argue Guy Pearce has the greatest performance for a ing actor this year. 

I interpret Harrison as the physical embodiment of capitalism but in the context of this story he is the personification of American capitalism. He is a racist, sees the working class & immigrants as numbers and expandable. During the train wreck that happens in the second act he doesn’t care about the men that died, he is only worried about the money that is lost and going to be wasted on cleaning up “the mess”.

One thing I really loved about this film was the score, Daniel Blumberg composes a very beautiful and moving score. “Overture (Lászlo)” is so good, it really does help put into perspective through the music his state of mind in the film. 

Cinematography was also insane, Lol Crawley really does a spectacular job in this film. The way he shot that club sequence with Lászlo & Gordon (Isaach De Bankolé) was very reminiscent of the club scene in “I Am Cuba”, that sort of 16mm look. 

All-in-all this is a good film but it is incredibly disheartening to see him suffer throughout the whole film, it’s definitely a tough watch.

Armand is a film about a 6-year old boy who is accused of a very serious crime which results in the primary school calling the boys mother, Elisabeth (Renate Reinsve). The teachers hold a meeting with Elisabeth and the victims parents, Sarah (Ellen Dorrit Petersen) & Anders (Endre Hellestveit). The discussions become hostile and in-turn result in this abstract character study of a single-mother and the way psychological abuse can shape both children and adults. 

For what it’s worth, I think the films themes and central conflict are really interesting but the way they are tackled leaves a bit to be desired. Pacing was a bit too slow at times but I don’t think this is a bad film. Performances are really great and the music is amazing, has this underlying sinister tone to it which makes the films ambiguous nature that much more prevalent.

David Lynch might’ve been one of the only directors & writer to probably ever be allowed to create these sort of films. Mind-fuck & fever-dreams, the most abstract and mystifying works of art. How else could you define Mulholland Dr? Opening with an upbeat jazz number, a pink background & a group of people dancing from all directions to also having one of the most ambiguous endings: “Silencio.”

As Lynch blurs the line between dreams & reality, he also seemingly manages to do the same between love & revenge, but I am getting ahead of myself. On a surface level it could be said this film is [to me] initially a critique on the predatory practices of Hollywood execs, at least through the first & second act. Honestly, there is a lot in this film: conspiracy, mystery, surrealism, love, and revenge but it all works together so well without it feeling completely convoluted.

I’m not even going to attempt to figure out the exact meaning of the film after a first watch because now I fully understand how enigmatic Lynch’s films can be because while everything else can be sort of deciphered, I have a hard time trying to peace together the meaning behind Mark Pellgrino’s (Joe) scenes and the “black book”. Is it just a plot-device to piece together the revenge sub-plot later in the film or something more? 

Great film and I regret not watching this sooner despite having the film in my collection for like the last 6-months.

What’s a Pedro Almodóvar film without his saturated reds, yellows, and blues?

Pedro Almodóvar’s first full english-speaking feature film starring Tilda Swinton (Martha/Michelle) & Julianne Moore (Ingrid). Two close friends who reunite after Ingrid hears about some very worrying news about Martha’s health.

I think I did myself a disservice by going into this film with the expectation of some sort of Hitchcockian psycho-thriller because it only hindered me from fully appreciating the film for what it was: a psychological drama & slight social commentary on climate change and neoliberalism. 

I do have some initial thoughts but I think i’ll save them for another day when I go for a rewatch (unfortunately my theatre would not show this film again so therefore I didn’t get to rewatch it) because I want to properly intake this film. 

My only takeaway from this film is Almodóvar wants people to be happy, that yes the world may be slowly burning & world governments refuse to do anything but you shouldn’t sacrifice a vital part of what makes you human because of it. This isn’t to say Almodóvar wants you to ignore the bad, he’s just saying: “hey don’t fall into defeatism.” More or less. That “snow” exposition from “The Dead” is very important as it kind of serves as a crux in the film: to emphasize there is beauty in the world or a representation of something else.

Pamela Anderson I wish I could give you a billion hugs but you’ll have to settle for the tears I shed in that auditorium today & this virtual standing ovation, this also is directed to Dave Bautista. 

This magnificent picaresque film about a 50-year old dancer who’s been dancing on the vegas strip for 30-years is now forced to plan for a future she never really thought about. 

At times this was a bit of a hard-watch to get through mainly because I don’t think Kate Gersten who wrote the screenplay & Gia Coppola, the Director understands anything about the working class. That isn’t a dig at them but more-so an observation because towards the final act you can tell the writing was much better. The ing cast outside of Bautista & Curtis are severely underutilized. Also what was up in the first 20-30 minutes of the film? Autumn Durald Arkapaw? Was the constant blur intentional or am I missing something? 

Enough negatives, let’s get to the positives:
  First things first, Pamela Anderson was sensational in this, sometimes you wanted to hug her and tell her “everything is fine” & sometimes you wanted to remind her life isn’t a game. 

My god… THE MUSIC! Andrew Wyatt’s score for this film & Pamela Anderson really are the glue to this film. I’ve had a “A No Better Place To Go Pt. 1” & Pt. 2 on replay all day. Those two songs conjure up strong nostalgic feelings & melancholy for a time long past but Pt. 2 adds this sort of feeling of “hey it’s going to be okay.”

I hope Pamela at least gets an Oscar nomination for this but more importantly I hope this puts more eyes on her because she showed everyone that whoever doubted her that she deserves to have her name amongst the greatest. I cannot stress enough how beautiful her performance in this film was.

P.S. Jesus, I don’t think anyone works as hard as Willam Dafoe except for Jason Shwartzman, love seeing him on-screen, even if it is just him hiding in the shadows.

In honor of David Lynch I decided to watch one of his films tonight (Jan. 17). I spent the entire film crying, and I think part of it is due to David Lynch’s ing (may he rest in peace) but also because of John Merick’s (John Hurt) story. 

The film is inspired by the story of Joseph Carey Merick, born in 1860 Victorian England. Merick was born with a very severe physical deformity. 
  Lynch’s films are very well known for their dreamlike sequences & sometimes borderline disturbing subject matter but this film is so heartbreaking & a reminder of the indifference of the world. A very beautiful story about a man who was taught he was nothing more than a “freak”, but despite all the hate he suffered from he still managed to learn to love himself & feel as if he was a man, not just “something” to be looked at & revolted by. Learning that he has every right to exist just like anyone else. 

You know a film is going to leave you in pieces if you’re only 10 minutes in & you’re crying at the same time as Dr. Frederick Treves (Anthony Hopkins), which by the way is an absolutely amazing scene.

Beautiful cinematography and the music in this film was phenomenal. This easily has become one of my favorite films of all time simply because of its critique of human vanity & apathy. 

One of the things I want to be able to understand when I decide to rewatch this film is what did Lynch intent to draw out or emphasize with the cuts of industrial workers & shots of industrial factories? There is something there but I can’t put my finger on it right now.

This review may contain spoilers.

A three-hour long epic odyssey about revenge & love. Edmond Dantès (Pierre Niney) is a shipmate who saves a random woman in the sea which results in a chain-reaction that ultimately causes Edmond to be wrongfully accused of a crime he did not commit. Losing more than a quarter of his life rotting away in his prison cell, Edmond meets a prisoner while inside, Abbé Faria (Piersco Favino). They conjure up a plan to dig themselves out of prison which also helps them create this bond between the two & with this new found trust Abbé reveals to Edmond he is the final knight of the Templar order & he knows of a treasure deep within the island of Monte-Cristo.

This was a blind-viewing for me, I had zero idea of what I was going into but it was exciting to see what was up with this film. 

The first-hour of the film was alright to me but I understand it’s meant to set up the ground work for the rest of the film: betrayal, loyalty & Edmond’s reasoning for his seemingly endless hatred for a certain French aristocracy. After that first hour, especially after Edmond escapes prison, the rest of the film goes by so quick. It’s like the film ramps everything up to 100.

There are a lot of amazing performances in this film: Anais Demoustier (Mercedes), Anamaria Vartolomei (Haydée), Laurent Latitte (Gérard De Villefort), Patricia Mille (Danglor), Jullien De Saint (Andréa), Julie De Bona (Victoria). Crazy ensemble but that’s a guess because one, I’m not French & two, I didn’t know any of these actors prior to watching this film. 

A round of applause to the hair & make-up department and to the costume design team because this might be one of the few films that rivals Barry Lyndon in of production design

The film is essentially an explicit showcase of the destructive nature of revenge & how it affects not just one person but everyone around. I think everyone in the film deserves what was coming but Edmond was so consumed by his hate that it seeped & molded Andréa in way that it eventually would cost Andréa his life.

This Palestinian documentary that is composed by an anthology of short films is probably one of the most moving & heartbreaking films/documentaries to date. 
Testimonies from Palestinians of what they are actively going through & a reality that the West continues to ignore. Stories from those who have given into despair, some who have attempted to find joy in what little they have in order to survive & in depth look into the day-to-day life of a Palestinian mother: how she makes use out of a few gallons of water a day to be able to cook food, rinse a few dishes, bathe her children & to use the restroom in her bomb-stricken home. 

This film left me speechless & honestly I’m at a loss for words but these stories inspire something in me therefore I am going to end this review with a poem I wrote: 

A flock of beautiful white doves fly over head
 free, they are carried across that vast sea
 across that beautiful horizon the sea reads of a future.
prosperous & unchained.
The feet of a nation, the earth begins to tremble.
a jumping of joy & unshackled excitement. 

Probably even more Shakespearean than the first film & 100% more tragic, The Godfather pt. II is the continuation of Michael’s (Al Pacino) story & his full turn into a sociopathic murdering mafia patriarch. What cements this film as one of the greatest films is its narrative & the way structure of the film. As opposed to creating a linear storyline the film jumps between two stories: the upbringing of Vito Corleone and his ascend into crime boss. The other story is of Michael Corleone, his rise to power and descent into  machiavellianism. These two overarching stories help to understand the differences between both characters as the intention of this overarching narrative structure is to juxtaposition Vito & Michael. 

I believe Vito’s story is meant to show us his rise from poor working class immigrant to a beloved & respected mafia boss as opposed to Michael’s ascendancy to power which was filled with bloodshed & constant violence. The film depicts Vito earning the respect of the people and those who follow him by virtue of his reputation while Michael’s is forced through murder and deceit. Everyone who went against Michael ended up dead, he even ends up killing his own flesh and blood without remorse. I think what helps drive this idea is the stark contrast between the two opening sequences in pt. I & Pt. II: in the first film we open with Vito being buildup by Bonasera & in this same scene Vito’s respectability never falters. In the second film when Michael meets with Sen. Pat Geary (G.D. Spradiin) he is outright disrespected & indirectly strong armed to do something that would not benefit him or the family.

There is some sort of social commentary in this film but I’m still trying to figure out the “what”, as in what it could be critiquing or highlighting.  I’ve seen some people suggest the film can be interpreted as anticapitalist but I don’t see it. It also doesn’t help that Puzo & Coppola romanticize the fuck out of the mafia. 

Great film & definitely a timeless masterpiece; watching earlier Coppola films only makes me wonder how he came up with Megalopolis, nonetheless Coppola has without a doubt cemented his amongst the greatest because of this film alone.

With the winter storm that just hit north Texas i’ve found myself with more than enough time on my hands to watch The Godfather Pt. I & Pt. II.

One of Francis Ford Coppola’s most highly acclaimed films, The Godfather is the story of a mafia family being forced to enter a new epoch that almost cost the life of Vito Corleone aka The Godfather (Marlon Brando) because of his reluctance to move along with this new era, but this reluctance does ultimately cost him the life of his oldest son Santino (James Caan) and having to burden his youngest son, Michael (Al Pacino) with the weight & responsibility of the Corleone family (blood and business). 

I can see why a lot of people love this film & with hindsight I can understand why men love this film, it appeals to that masculine “power fantasy” & It’s overall a bit misogynistic. As far as “mafia films” go this was really good & the performances were stellar all across the board. That opening scene is so amazing, Bonasera has his monologue, single shot, camera slowly zooms out. Bonasera continues his monologue for like 2-3 minutes as the camera continues to zoom out The Godfather begins to slowly appear in the frame, menacingly & attentively listening. 
Salvatore Corsitto was given roughly 10 minutes of screen time & he made every second count, my lord.

I wish I could fully dissect this & Pt. II but I’m going to save my analysis for a rewatch.

This review may contain spoilers.

I watching this film for the first time almost a decade ago and being swallowed whole by the cynical world David Fincher brings to life in Se7en. Years later & I get to see it again but for a third round in but this time in an IMAX theater*. Nothing is better than getting the full cinematic experience: a theater full of people captivated by what we are watching. 

Fincher is such an amazing director because you are telling me he was able to create this magnificent piece of work as his sophomore feature film? Definitely a flawless film. Amazing screenplay from Andrew Kevin Walker: a cynical & gritty world that is constantly drowned in heavy rain is so perfectly captured by Cinematographer Darius Khondji. What helps complete this film is Howard Shore’s score; that score really amplifies the tension & eerie in the film. In fact it makes everything feel more “biblical”. 

On this third go-around I noticed a lot of things I didn’t notice before. One of those things was that piece of exposition from Detective Mills (Brad Pitt) does come full circle in the film and it wasn’t just some piece of filler. When Mills is asking Detective Sommerset (Morgan Freeman) if he has ever drawn his weapon Sommerset tells him he has but that he also has never fired it. Mills responds with an anecdote in which he tells how he has both drawn and fired his weapon. Revealing how this altercation escalated and it lead to him killing a criminal to which Mills attempts to the criminals name but he can’t it all. In the final scene this comes full circle because Mills will now never forget the last person to ever make him draw his weapon and fire it as this person is someone who not only had the police chasing its own tail but someone who murdered and mutilated his pregnant fiancee, Tracy (Gwyneth Paltrow).

Mills was always far too emotional & impulsive which in the end it cost him the life of his fiancee & unborn child. He became too invested, consumed by the case and his need to prove himself that he didn’t even feel the need to check up on his lonely wife, who by the way was alone in a city that has serial killers and rapist funning around. I mean the damn city is 100x worse than Gotham city. 

All jokes aside this film is so thrilling & a very good example of how to utilize gore and violence without being too upfront about it. For example, it was more jarring to hear how the sex-worker was killed rather than showing us the event happening. Fincher doesn’t even show you her body, you’re left to imagine & piece together how she was brutally murdered. Brutality done right without the on-screen violence; just an amazing physical performance by Leland Orser. The physicality he brings to that performance is honestly the bit that helps sell the entire scene.

Definitely the greatest showcase of a speedster in a live-action film, I don’t understand why it’s so difficult for live-action films to get this right but god, it looks so fucking cool when it is done right. 
Haven’t watched the first two sonic films not because I don’t want to but I simply just never got around to them but I kind of regret not watching them in theaters now because watching this one in Dolby was magical. 

I don’t have really anything insightful to say except we should really cherish Jim Carrey while he’s still alive because the dude is an absolute gem as an actor, and honestly without him these films would 100% not be as good. He has become as necessary as sonic himself for these live action films.

“Once you understand the joke, you’ll understand the streets.”

“Training Day”, now considered to be one of Denzel’s & Ethan Hawke’s greatest performances in their careers. I shouldn’t have to give a summary about what this film is about as it is incredibly popular & if you haven’t seen it then do yourself the favor of watching it. 

This would be my third(?) time watching Training Day & this time around I saw the film through completely different lenses: an insight into the rampant contradictions under capitalism but more specifically an in-depth dialectic of the material conditions of poverty stricken areas in California and how this affects everyone. I say everyone because i’m also including Alonzo (Denzel Washington) amongst those affected. Alonzo during the entire film is already a hardened & corrupt cop but it is clear he cares for his family. During the final act after Jake (Ethan Hawke) leaves him for dead in the hood, Alonzo looks up to his apartment window & sees the mother of his child look back at him in disappointment. Alonzo gives a look of defeat, guilt and regret. 
 What drives Alonzo to these lengths? Well for the same reason there are criminals in the first place: the physical manifestation of the underclass’ and poor’s anxieties. 
 
The entire film is essentially like the snail allegory/joke that Rodger (Scott Glenn) says earlier in the film. No amount of work the cops do will amount to anything because there is an inherent “flaw, rather contradiction within the system itself. The problem is poverty, fear of poverty; drugs & crime are a direct byproduct of the poor violently fighting their way out of poverty. 
Just like the snail that gets tossed back to square one, cops like Jake who wish to do good will always return to square one because the path they continue to take will always lead them back to where they start, and why? Because the system exists to protect capital not to solve the problems it causes.

 A Complete Unknown tells the story of Bob Dylan (Timothée Chalamet) between the years of 1961-1965 but the crux of this story is the controversy over Bob Dylan playing electric guitar. Director and Writer James Mangold adapts Elijah Wald’s book “Dylan Goes Electric” which covers that period in time in which well… well when Dylan started to play electric and a lot of people hated it. 

Really great performances all-around: Joe Tippett, Edward Norton, Eriko Hatsune, Scoot McNairy, Monica Barbaro, Elle Fanning but the best performance definitely comes from Timomthée. I mean the guy literally transformed into Bob Dylan. Within one year we got Wonka, Paul Atreides and now Bob Dylan. Insane range. Kind of sucks this might be the film that gives him the Oscar and not Dune: Part Two; only because the academy loves biopics. Decent film don’t get me wrong but it’s not an Oscar winning picture, definitely not when you have films like The Substance, Conclave and Sing Sing.

I think i’m going to research a bit more on this period in time because I genuinely do not understand the political and cultural importance of Dylan going electric because I found it a bit, I don’t know, pointless? To play electric and with a full band at a folk music festival. That’s like Miles Davis going to a jazz festival and playing down tempo metal, like what exactly is the point? I get that he hated being told what to do, I mean early on the film we are shown and told by Sylvie Russo (Elle Fanning) how contrarian Dylan was but at the end of the day I still don’t know what Dylan was trying to accomplish doing that and what are the historical implications of him doing that? I have to do a bit of reading about this because that’s one of my biggest concerns with the film. Especially considering the poster for this film reads: 

He Defied Everyone
To Change Everything.

But what exactly did he change? You would think Dylan was a marxist revolutionary musician the way Mangold made this film. Not a dunk on Dylan because I have a somewhat decent understanding of who Dylan was and an alright understanding of his political stance. 
Sorry for the tangent. 

Great “biopic”, great performances and hopefully I get another chance to watch this in theaters before it leaves but first gotta get some historical reading done for this before going at it again.

Nicole Kidman has given us the greatest Christmas double feature with this film: Eyes Wide Shut & Babygirl. 

Romy (Nicole Kidman), CEO of an automated service company with a very naughty secret: fantasies of being dominated by another person and a humiliation kink. 

The film is pretty straightforward, at least to me it is. Director and Writer Halina Rejin tackles themes like sexual desires and infidelity in a weird way because the film kind comes off as infidelity apologia. The push Romy needed to do the things she wanted to with Samuel (Harris Dickinson) comes from her daughter, Isabel (Ester McGregor) when she tell her mother that she does love Mary but only wanted to have some fun with the girl next door. Later in the film when everything finally blows up in Romy’s face she’s comforted by the same daughter and that she will be forgiven by her husband, Jacob (Antonio Banderas). 
 

With that being said the film does do an incredible job at retaking ownership of women’s sexual preferences and showcasing it in an explicit way. I think bringing on Nicole Kidman was perfect because having an older woman be the center of this film kind of further proves that this kind of sexual preference spans across all ages and not just some new sexual deviancy that was concocted by “young people” or whatever kind of bullshit rhetoric ignorant people usually come up with. I think my point can be ed with Samuel’s rebuttal towards Jacob when he tells him that his statement towards women dominating in sex was an outdated way of thinking. 

Pretty good film and visually this is a really beautiful film. Love the greens and blues.

I finally had the time to watch Barry Lyndon after buying it last year during the Criterion sale in November; I don’t like watching films in a rush. Especially films that are almost 3 hours long. 

I’ve heard many great things about this film. The Tik-Tok edits, people praising the cinematography and the overall production value of the film: the sets, locations, lighting and costume design. Usually people and myself included can sometimes exaggerate the quality of a film (reasons are irrelevant), but with Kubrick there is no exaggeration. His films are just that good. From the opening scene where Barry (Ryan O’Neal) is involved in a duel to the closing scene of of Lady Honoria Lyndon (Marisa Berenson) & her son Lord Bullingdon (Leon Vitali); each scene is pure art, motion picture? No, these are paintings in motion. 

Stanley Kubrick brings to life “The Luck Of Barry Lyndon” by author William Makepeace Thackeray, the novel upon which the film is based off. Barry Lyndon was released in 1972 & it’s kind of sad that in the last 52 years almost nothing has even remotely come close to looking as amazing as this.

“Barry Lyndon” a picaresque story about an Irish boy’s attempt into ing the English aristocracy. Barry Lyndon or formerly known as Redmen Barry (Ryan O’Neal) used to be a young Irish-boy whose only concerns were that of his mother & his secret taboo-love between his older cousin and him. The narrative itself is very interesting because you would think it’s about the vanity of the 18th century aristocracy but it’s about (at least to me) the material conditions in which Barry was growing up in. By no means do I the person Barry turns into towards the end of the film but it is important to note the difference between Act I Barry & who he becomes by Act III. During the first act of the film Barry is nothing more than a naive child whose only concerns were mostly childish things & his older cousin. By all means Barry was a timid (at least around his cousin), naive but not an entirely selfish child. These notions can be backed by certain moments in the film i.e days after Barry’s initial departure leads him to an Inn where he asks the waitress for a cup of water. Two odd-looking men try to offer him food & drink but Barry refuses but not because he notices their hidden intentions (which is to rob him) but because he’s simply not hungry and is pressed for time. This naivety and lack of perception from Barry returns to him as both men end up tailing Barry and wait for him further down the road to mug him, this time without any tricks. He tries to make the men empathize with him as the money they are taken from him is all the money his poor mother had given him but ultimately he fails. 

Through act I and act II Barry is constantly trying to make it home but he always ends up in a position worse than before. First he is robbed, then he s the military in order to survive because he is far from home but since unfortunately for him there is a war going on, specifically the European wars which means he has to go out on the battlefield as a cannon fodder. Lucky for Barry he survives but after the death of a close friend Barry experiences and sees first hand the brutality of war and decides to desert but is caught by a Prussian soldier who gives him the choice of death or to fight under the Prussian flag. Barry ends up in the same position as before but rather than the comforting lifestyle of the British military he is now under the very strict and violent conditions of the Prussian army. Nonetheless it is not that hard to understand why Barry would try endlessly to become an aristocrat through sycophantic means but what I do not understand is what caused him to be unfaithful to his beautiful wife, Lady Honoria Lyndon (Marisa Berenson). I guess if we apply Occam’s razor the reason Barry Lyndon was unfaithful to Lady Lyndon was because as the american idiom goes: like a child in a candy store. He now has money at his disposal and his good looks. At this point in the story life had hardened Barry’s heart: war, sleeping with other peoples women, state conspiracy and espionage. 

I have a lot to say about this film but honestly i’m going to save my thoughts for a rewatch because damn this such a good film. Hopefully we get the 4K transfer on physical soon.

Nosferatu: The Dark Lord Of Cinema

Robert Eggers adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula is much more reminiscent of F.W. Murnau’s “Nosferatu” than it is to Coppola’s or Browning’s. Just like the classic silent-horror film from 1922 the characters have their names changed. Rather than using the original names in the novel Eggers decided instead to use the names given to his characters by F.W. Murnau: Hutter, Ellen, & Count Orlok. If you have watched the other “Dracula” films I think this would have been easy to pick up on once you saw the story took place in and not London. 

I really enjoyed this adaptation from Eggers; while F.W. Murnau’s “Nosferatu” is a masterpiece of a film, Eggers’ Nosferatu is a great re-telling of a re-telling. In Murnau’s film Count Orlok decides to go to the west in a haste because of the appetizing look of Hutter’s Wife’s neck but Eggers’ adaptation we are given greater depth into Count Orlok (Bill Skarsgård) and his obsession with Hutter’s (Nicholas Hoult) wife. Eggers delves deeper into the occult & what I find very interesting is the decision to make Count Orlok an entity of cosmic horror. Ellen Hutter’s (Lily-Rose Depp) prayer in the opening scene & her usage of the word “celestial bodies” is what makes me believe Eggers’ decision to make Count Orlok into an eldritch horror was deliberate and not accidental. 

It was also quite a surprise to see that this film would end up utilizing sexual desires and sex vastly different than Coppola. In Coppola’s adaptation the utilization of sex was more sensual and it wasn’t portrayed as deviance but more of a natural impulse. A lot of the nudity in that film and romance was just “normal” for the lack of a better word. The half naked vamps seducing Harker, the scenes with Lucy & Dracula himself was portrayed as a very attractive man. (90s Gary Oldman with beautiful long hair) 
The sex in this film is less erotic and more grotesque especially in the subtext. Sex is only shown during the possession scenes meaning it’s always against the will of the women. Furthermore Count Orlok is not attractive in this film, not in the least. In this film he is the personification of ill-omens and evil; similar to Murnau’s character, Nosferatu  wears the centuries he has lived quite grotesquely. 

I hope I can watch this film one more time in theaters because it is probably the most provocative adaptation of Dracula.

Lily-Rose Depp gave an immaculate performance in this film but the ing cast was so strong it’s hard to decide who gave the best performance. Willam Dafoe was made for these kinds of films and so was Ralph Ineson both of these men ooze of victorian energy and style.

Nosferatu: The Dark Lord Of Cinema

Francis Ford Coppola’s version of the lord of the night is significantly different from the last two films I saw. Renfield (Tom Waits) has already been enslaved by Dracula (Gay Oldman) so the one who travels to visit Dracula’s castle in this film is Jonathan Harker (Keaune Reeves). Upon visiting the castle on real estate business he is insistent by Dracula to stay a month with him which leads to Harker being imprisoned while Dracula goes to London. 

This film has a much longer runtime and it's because Coppola decides to flesh out the characters more and give each one in their own motivations. In Symphony Of Horror Count Orlok goes to London in search of Hutter’s wife, in Dracula (1931) he goes to London to look for more potential victims, and in this film Dracula goes to London because Harker’s wife, Mina Murray (Winona Ryder) bares an uncanny resemblance with his former wife Elisabeta (Winona Ryder). At this point the film already sets itself apart from the last two because that change in the story alone changes everything else in the story. The only similarity this film has to Dracula (1931) is the sexual and sexual provocativeness, in fact this film dials it up even more. Speaking of which i’ve heard Egger’s even dialed up the sexual and sensual provocativeness even more than Coppola but i’ll have to wait and see until tomorrow night. 

I actually enjoyed this film a lot: the cinematography was absolutely beautiful, the color palette and production quality were amazing. The costumes in this film are so beautiful except for the armor they had Gary Oldman wear in the beginning, that was absolutely horrendous i’m sorry. 
Something really cool that Coppola did in this film was: since the film is set in the mid-late 19th century it means Bram Stoker & his former boss and inspiration for Dracula, Sir Henry Irving were alive. Coppola puts a tiny little easter egg in this film around the moment Mina rejects Dracula, behind Mina there is a board that reads out “Lyceum Theatre - Hamlet - Starring Sir Henry Irving”.I forgot to mention that the Lyceum Theatre was also the theatre Bram Stoker used to work for. 

Watching this film I can’ start to get an idea of what to expect now from Egger’s Nosferatu but considering his work with The Lighthouse & The Witch there’s a good chance we finally get a Dracula film that is actually both thematically and visually terrifying not just sexual and horny.

Nosferatu: The Dark Lord Of Cinema

Dracula (1931) is the first (legal) adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Similar to F.W. Murnau iteration, Dracula (Bela Lugosi) lures a naive real estate agent, Renfield (Dwight Frye) to his castle but instead of imprisonment he enslaves Renfield before departing to London. At this point the story changes from Murnau’s version and I assume sticks closer to the source material. 

Tod Browning’s version of Dracula is much more sexual as oppose to just being evil. Dracula goes to London because well… he is going to live there now and torment whatever victims he finds in the night. Upon visiting the theatre one day is attention is immediately directed at two women: Mina (Helen Chandler) & Lucy (s Dade). He goes up to both and makes quick acquaintances with them to which sets off the chain of events in the film. This version of Dracula like I mentioned earlier is much more seductive & sensual. 

If I can be honest Tod Browning’s Dracula is not as terrifying as F.W. Murnau’s and i’m a bit disappointed with that but this film’s cinematography, and production value are actually insane. The matte paintings in this film is absolute eye candy. Cinematographer Karl Freund did a masterful job in this film. The usage of lighting, shadows and smoke; everything in this film was visually stunning. This film has introduced me to my new favorite cinematographer Karl Freund, I have to now check out more of his work because damn was this an absolute treat to look at.

Nosferatu: The Dark Lord Of Cinema

In anticipation of Robert Eggers Nosferatu (2024) i’ve decided to watch every cinematic adaptation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula. Starting my descent into Dracula’s world of gothic horror with the earliest adaptation of the novel: Nosferatu: A Symphony Of Horror. 
This might seem redundant to do for some as Dracula is a very popular and well known character but Bram Stoker’s Dracula (in comparison to the character itself) isn’t.  I also want to experience each iteration before watching Egger’s film as there is a very good possibility he does something completely different with the story. 

Let’s talk about F.W. Murnau’s Nosferatu now. 
This horror film made during the silent period of cinema is a very unique film in its way of capturing the disturbing and terrifying nature of the character without the help of dialogue or sound effects; the only audio from the film is its score. Being able to terrify your audience with this film during the 1920s is understandable as this film was released post-WW I, in a time where the zeitgeist of the world, especially where this film was shot and produced, was pretty conservative. But how has this film been able to withstand the test of time? It’s because F.W. Murnau understood what would make people unsettled: the uncanny look of Count Orlok (Max Schreck) and the films sinister score composed by Hans Erdman. Both of those elements of the film combine to form a truly horrific cinematic experience. 

This film didn’t have the rights for Bram Stoker’s novel so they had to give the characters different names. So no Renfield, Van Helsing, or Mina. 

I haven’t finished the novel so I can’t give a proper analysis of the film as I just took everything at face value without over-analyzing the story. 

Even with the technological limitations at the time Nosferatu: A Symphony Of Horror is a spectacular film and modern horror film creators could learn a thing or two from this film.

The first and earliest iteration of Bram Stokers Dracula that has been lost for quite some time now. Only some pictures are left of this film.

Is it safe to say that maybe animation films were qualitatively better this year than non-animated films? This film’s message is pretty straightforward so I won’t go into a long discussion about it but what I will do is give a virtual standing ovation. Such beautiful animations and it should be applauded that someone managed to create a dialogue-free film that is arguably one of the best films to be released within the last decade. 

I have a hard time watching films like this because anything to do with animals I just immediately start crying over anything with them. It was difficult to watch these animals struggle but my was it beautiful to see these animals overcome all of those obstacles together. 

That scene where the cat, dog, capybara and lemur are all hugging each other in joy of what they did made me cry tears of joy. Please go watch this film before it leaves theaters!

“How can a man who sees and feels be other than sad? Should have thought of these things.  What is an experience if it is not shared? Did it even happen? A centipede can be seen as a test upon which love.”

Ever since I saw Queer last sunday the film has been etched into my brain and I just felt the need to watch it again. This is probably Luca Guadagnino’s most thematically esoteric film and I think it’s almost necessary to give this film a second rewatch to fully understand its symbolism. 

If it wasn’t clear to me before it 100% is now: William Lee and Eugene Allerton loved each other but what caused Eugene to be afraid? I still couldn’t figure that part out though it becomes evidently clear that their love was not one sided. It’s so interesting to see where Luca places “pure love” in the film. The first time the song plays is when Eugene & Lee first sleep together, the second time the song shows up is during their trip together; essentially this song would play each time they would be caring and intimate with each other. So what makes this song even more gut wrenching to hear on a second rewatch is hearing it play during their last time sleeping together after the Ayahuasca hallucination. It’s amazing to me how “pure love” throughout film helps emphasize the tenderness between Eugene and Lee but by the end of the film it becomes a nostalgic soundtrack for a memory Lee cannot escape or rather doesn’t want to ever leave. 
The final dream from Lee is meant to represent his inability to ever move on from Eugene. My interpretation is: The hotel in which we never see either of them in is meant to represent secrecy and their intimacy which nobody else ever really knew about. The snake, Ouroboros the self-eating snake in the shape of lemniscate (infinity) is symbolic of his state of mind, Lee is now stuck in this perpetual state of heartbreak because Eugene has finally decided to leave. At the same time I think it symbolizes Lee’s love for Eugene prior to the trip to the jungle, Eugene was always reserved with Lee with the only time they were both equally vulnerable with each other was during Lee’s sickness and the hallucinations in the jungle. Lee’s relationship with Eugene was very one-sided and it was a constant cycle of Lee being overly attached with Eugene. The lemniscate ouroboros sheds a tear while it’s eating itself just further emphasizes the pain Lee is in. In this same hallucination sequence Eugene puts a glass atop his head with Lee pulling out his pistol and aiming it at Eugene. Lee fires the pistol killing Eugene, I think this is Lee’s attempt at moving on from Eugene but shortly after we see this attempt at moving on has failed, because he immediately jumps onto Eugene’s body emphasizing that no matter how much effort Lee puts into trying to move forward he will never be able to forget about Eugene. 

I think I might need to watch this film a third time to understand that second hallucination sequence, because I don’t actually know what the infant baby symbolizes. 

I never expected to love this film as much as I did, I was expecting to like it but not actually love it as much as I do. It’s such a beautiful and heart-wrenching film.

1. Sing Sing
2. Queer
3. How to Make Millions Before Grandma Dies
4. Memoir of a Snail
5. Dìdi (弟弟)
6. The Wild Robot
7. Anora
8. Flow
9. La Chimera
10. From Ground Zero

...plus 81 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.

My personal Top 1️⃣1️⃣ of 2023 🎥🎞️ (last two are interchangeable)

1. Killers of the Flower Moon

   Arguably one of, if not THE MOST important film of 2023. Also Lily Gladstone was magnificent in this and she was robbed out of that Oscar for leading actress. 
   

2. The Holdovers

   I love this film. 

3. Oppenheimer

   The sheer anticipation for this film since watching the teaser before Nope (2022) just a year before and being able to witness this film in IMAX 70mm was a life changing experience. 

4. The Iron Claw

   I’ve seen some people call this film overrated but it deserves the praise it receives. Everyone’s performance in this film was phenomenal and Zac Efron should have, at the very least, received an Oscar nomination for his performance in this film. 

5. Anatomy of a Fall

   There’s no greater feeling than choosing a film at random to reserve and when you go in for that blind viewing you come out with greatest catharsis known to man. 

6. Past Lives

   One of the greatest directorial debuts of this decade so far. 

7. Poor Things

   One of the most beautiful (partly) B&W films to ever be made, thank you Robbie Ryan. 

8. Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3

   In retrospect, it’s still kind of insane that between Endgame and the most recent MCU film (Deadpool & Wolverine) this was the last and only good MCU film to date. 

9. Theater Camp

   This film is actually insanely UNDER-WATCHED! Please watch this, maybe it will escape the vault and we get an actual physical release for it 😭

10. Close

    Another the film that went pretty under the radar and deserves more recognition. 

...plus 1 more. View the full list on Letterboxd.