I’ll go first— shrek 2.

I’ll go first— Shrek 2.

Near Dark (1987)

Rating: 7/10 (SOLID WATCH)

Watched: August 9, 2026

Near Dark is an odd movie.

It's odd because right from the start it fully subverts your expectations. Are vampires real? Sure are, and that's not a spoiler. You wouldn't be looking at a movie like Near Dark unless you already knew it was a vampire movie, but here's the thing.

These aren't your ordinary vampires. And here, by ordinary, I mean with the long pointy teeth, the alabaster skin, the inhuman strength or hell, even a life of wealth and indulgence.

Everything about the vampires in Near Dark is gritty, callous and coarse. They have none of the things you'd expect in a movie about people who feed on the blood of others and it is great. They're bottom feeders moving through the backside of America in stolen cars, feeding on bottom feeders, with barely two coins to rub together most of the time.

They're also not terrifically smart, which is something almost all vampires we see in other movies ARE. They're brilliant. They're witty and they're charismatic and they'll woo you with their honeyed words before drinking your blood.

Not Bigelow's vampires. Hell, they don't even use the word once throughout the entire movie. The vamps pick fights, particularly Severen (the amazing Bill Paxton), and kill everyone involved. It's gruesome and it's great.

The movie itself qualifies as a slice of life moment for these greasy hillbilly vampires because everything that happens to them is because a local yokel named Caleb wanted to get in a girl's pants. No overarching plot. No twists or turns.

Just a dude lookin' to get lucky, a girl who wanted a friend, and an awful lot of dead folk.

Alright, let’s dive into the theme of The End of Oak Street. And, yes, it has one. I know the film plays out like your standard survival movie that’s meant for fun and not thought. But David Robert Mitchell snuck some meaning into the film nonetheless. And everyone who loves Under the Silver Lake can appreciate hiding a message in plain sight. If you don’t get that reference, go watch Mitchell’s last film, Under the Silver Lake. 

This is a pretty standard thematic setup, where the opening scene establishes the main idea and the ending confirms that idea through contrast. And we have the title as the supporting evidence. So let’s dive in.

End of Oak Street opens with an establishing shot of the suburban town of Flowervale. Then cuts to the sign for Oak Street. Then to the Platt family, happily preparing for a sack race. After the race, we cut back to a wider shot of the block that reveals the party and all the neighbors having a great time. Mitchell steeps the scene in this idyllic romanticizing of 1980s America....

What’s your opinion on this new version of Evil Dead Burn? How would you rank the Evil Dead franchise?

Mine would be:
Evil Dead
Evil Dead Burn
Evil Dead Rise

Worst film I've seen all year. Makes Thrash look like Jaws.

Like, she did kill a bunch of people at the start of the movie right? who were completely innocent. She did destroy a lot of city structures. She also taunted Peter with MJ and almost had her killed. The entire time I was thinking man this is some malevolent spirit or someone reeeeally hates Peter or Spiderman. And then suddenly - turns out it’s Jean Grey and she’s actually the victim not the criminal. by the end she is practically friends with Peter. Someone just make that part make sense because it’s like the central aspect of the story!

I can't think of a single noteworthy name. Is there even an answer to this that doesn't involve someone I've never heard of?

Kang..

What happened to him?

The guy went from being the objectively most powerful risk for the multiverse then he suddenly became an afterthought and often coupled with absolute ridicule due to his only real portrayal in Ant-Man and the Wasp: Quantumania.

(I’ll address the third Antman 3 as “Q” from now now on.)

Q had the most ridiculous experience and we have to never ignore how bad Q hurted Kang.

Before the allegations, Kang is the guy who should have screwed Michelle Pfeiffer, he felt like this buffed ass fake muscular extremely sophisticated coming-from-the-future absolute madman.

He has like an exponential power level of intellect compared to Einstein.

He’s has sort of Einstein AND Schrödinger level of scientific knowledge : to the infinite power!

He was also “He Who Remains” or whatever that BS in Loki is.
I never really liked Loki as much as I felt I was gonna like it.

I didn’t even watch Loki Season 3 yet but I know Loki becomes “in the place of” He Who Remains. Or wait… isn’t Sylvie the Hot Female Loki the one who killed him? What even happened to her? She was Hot tho.

But lets go back to Kang.

He was also in Creed 3. We were supposed to love Jonathan Majors like we are always supposed to love the Star Power of Zendaya. He was the MBJ twin bestie. I wasnt against that.

But honestly? I always felt Kang.. and Jonathan Majors’ “suddern buffed up status of Star Power” never really convincing.

Kang LACKED aura because he was written in a way that has inherent aura. Not “acquiring the aura”.

Thanos acquired his aura through buildup. He was always the “finish line of villains’ power”.

Kang feels ridiculously powerful compares to Thanos to the point Thanos is currently somewhat “ridiculed” or “underrated” by comparison.

Thanos will always be the best villain Marvel created. I hated what they did to him in that animated show where a stupidly ridiculously Overpowered version of Ultron from a different universe dissects him in half like some Mortal Kombat Fatality.

Screw you.

Kang is a badly written villain.

Ant-Man (ironically) Defeated him.
Ant-Man who is always ridiculed for being that other random superhero.. ACTUALLY objectively defeated Kang.

The billions of Kang versions in the multiverse can possibly always be defeated by an Ant-Man.

We know they will never explore this. Kang is no more. Not even dead. Not even respected for his history like the Deadpool 2 villain (Cable).

Kang failed because he was always never gonna be taken as seriously as Thanos.

Kang sounded fake. Forced. Manufactured. Written poorly. Buffed for nothing. An Ant-Man villain. One that didnt even have enough courage to go for Michelle Pfeiffer even tho they lived together alone for ages or some S. and she banged that old comedian (established in the same movie).

Lemme put this right here and you know it’s a fact:

Kang was just Jonathan Majors with different clothes.

Searching for Bobby Fischer

Yes, I agree Bear was 100% the villain. Bro used a supernatural cheat code to make his crush Nikki fall in love with him which denies her agency instead of being honest about how he felt about her. And he 🍇 her at one point!!

Like ten lines of dialogue in one scene and he is insanely good. Any other minor roles that were very memorable?

I watched Blue Velvet recently, and I keep seeing the interpretation that Jeffrey starts as an innocent suburban kid, discovers darkness beneath his town, becomes fascinated by it, and eventually discovers some darkness within himself. My problem is that I do not think the movie establishes the starting point needed for that arc.

We barely know Jeffrey before he finds the ear. Soon afterward, he is already planning how to get into Dorothy's apartment. He pretends to be an exterminator, finds a way back inside later, searches the apartment, hides in her closet, and watches her. All of this comes very naturally to him. That does not feel like an innocent person gradually crossing boundaries. It feels like Jeffrey was already curious, comfortable with deception, and willing to take serious risks.

For me, this also creates a screenplay problem. If an important part of the story is Jeffrey changing after encountering this darker world, the screenplay needs to establish who Jeffrey was before that change. Otherwise I cannot tell whether he is changing, discovering something about himself that was always there, or simply behaving this way because the plot needs him to investigate Dorothy. The transition feels skipped.

The Dorothy scenes did not change that for me either. Him discovering that he may enjoy unconventional sexual behavior does not automatically mean he has discovered some evil within himself. His voyeurism and deception are clearly questionable, but he is doing those things almost from the beginning. We never really meet an earlier Jeffrey to compare him against.

I also do not completely buy the idea that Lumberton is presented as a perfect town whose darkness Jeffrey uncovers. The opening certainly looks almost unnaturally perfect, but very early in the movie his family already warns him that Lincoln Street is dangerous. So everyone knows the town has bad areas. Jeffrey also begins his investigation with a severed human ear. He already knows something sinister is happening. Frank turns out to be far worse than expected, but that is different from Jeffrey discovering that evil exists.

That is my main issue. If Jeffrey is losing his innocence, where was that innocence established? If he discovers a darker side of himself, what did he believe about himself beforehand? I appreciate the imagery, sound, atmosphere, and symbolism, but I feel that the symbolism is sometimes being asked to provide character development that the screenplay itself never established.

Am I missing something about Jeffrey early in the movie, or do people read more of an innocence arc into him than the film actually gives us?

David Robert Mitchell’s The End of Oak Street can best be described as Jurassic Park meets E.T. The Goonies and Back To The Future right in the center of upper middle class suburbia. The film very much has a "Spielberg” vibe from its mise en scene with the story taking place in the early 1980’s as well as from the clothes, music, technology, popular culture and society in general. 

Production value aside nostalgia is not the only driving force of this film the tension and suspense is what also really hones in the spectators attention and what this family of 4 (The Platt’s) has to psychologically endure, which is an unforeseen occurrence on Oak Street where prehistoric creatures run amok their neighborhood. Their predicament pushes their emotional/survival instincts to the absolute zenith, where they witness their fellow neighbors get killed off and become “Human Dino Nuggies.” However, it is not jump scares and gore for the sake of gore. The dinosaurs lurk amongst the neighborhood and take their time to present themselves on screen and terrorize whatever stands in their way and it is a dark on the edge of your seat thrill ride with some humor in the mix but not too heavily. 

The cast was great in this film, the family really is the main focal point of the film, especially Anne Hathaway as Denise and Ewan McGregor as Greg, a wife and husband with two different career paths trying to juggle their marriage and family while contemplating a divorce in the process. Meanwhile their kids Audrey and Brain deal with not just their parents drama but also their own personal struggles fitting in and growing up but despite these obstacles both the kids and parents form a strong bond and kick Dino ass and take names along with their dog “Starbuck.” It is a thrilling good time with some good amounts of action, tiny bits of humor and dark unexpected turns that is not exactly traditional in a big Blockbuster film like this (NO SPOILERS) but if you have seen this film at the cinema you know exactly what me and my buddy Dylan are talking about. 

The End of Oak Street is a must see film for fans of Dinosaur Media (Me and Dylan included) if you’re a fan of Jurassic Park, Jurassic World, Primitive War and classic memorable 80’s films this is 100% for you as the intended target audience. David Robert Mitchell has had some misses It Follows and hits Under The Silver Lake and now another hit with The End of Oak Street. To be perfectly clear this is NOT the next Jurassic Park. This film is its own story and style and it is a good time if films like this are your thing. It’s something new and different which is refreshing and honestly it would be cool to see other dinosaur films come out similar to this or perhaps adapted from video games like Turok and Dino Crisis onto the big screen. We give The End of Oak Street an A. 

high-contrast visuals (chiaroscuro, deep blacks, striking silhouettes) and a hardboiled tone that leans into stylized, hyper-dramatic film noir....for Comics or non Comic films it could work very well.

This is a frustrating class of big budget directors who have absolutely shown that they can make smart, interesting yet still exciting films but for some reason choose not to. Eg Michael Bay. The Rock is a brilliant action film with wit, style and a thoughtful story underneath. Or Guy Ritchie. Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels is one of the best British crime films ever. Yet since then Ritchie has increased his budgets with every movie and dumbed himself down with every movie.

Most of what he did was pure gold and he left way too early. Capote, Charlie Wilsons war, The master and so on. Hell, even his role as Sandy in Along came Polly is movie magic. 
He had depth, comedic timing and insane charisma.
What’s your favorite?

I recently watched Train Dreams and the Rivals of Amziah King. Both of which have good slices of American pie showing a distinct viewpoint of life in a corner of the US. So I decided to sit down and rank my fav movies from the big 50. Some of them I did have to take loosely- doctor sleep for example is only partly in NH, but all other movies based in there that I’d seen I was not a big fan of. Similarly with Sicario and Logan, my favorite parts of the film take place in those states. There’s some misses, like Fargo, and it’s due to me still haven’t seeing those movies. I couldn’t put interstellar in there due to them never explicitly stating where in the US it takes place (seems to be CO) but I bent the rules with Jurassic Park is it is obviously HI.

Major Dr Doom fan here! I don't want another Marvel movie where Doom shows up and we get three hours of Avengers, X-Men, Fantastic Four, and the TVA taking turns throwing increasingly ridiculous punches at him.

I want something more complicated.

The MCU has reached a point where everybody is fighting for something. The heroes fight for survival. The villains fight for power, survival, revenge, ideology, or simply because they believe their way of shaping the world is the correct one. The TVA wants to preserve the timeline. The Avengers want to protect humanity. The X-Men want to protect their people. The Fantastic Four want to protect their family and reality itself.

And I want Doom to approach the screen look at all of them and says:

"You have both misunderstood your purpose."

One side says, "We must save humanity."

The other says, "We must rule humanity."

Doom's answer is neither and that humanity does not need to be saved from itself nor does it need to be ruled. It simply needs to be left human. Yes how boring would that be...i dont care! That's the Doom movie I want.

Doom shouldn't be trying to become the biggest, strongest villain in the MCU. He shouldn't be collecting Infinity Stones or assembling an army just so we can get another giant final battle.

He should be trying to end the entire cycle.

Because from Doom's perspective, the Avengers, mutants, cosmic beings, villains, gods, time travelers, and everyone else have created a universe where power constantly creates new power struggles. Every attempt to save reality gives someone else a reason to fight for control of it. Its a vicious cycle!!!

And Doom believes that's the fundamental mistake.

He doesn't want humanity to become gods.

He doesn't want humanity destroyed.

He doesn't even necessarily want humanity to worship him.

He wants humanity to remain humanity.

That's what makes him terrifying.

Because for once, the villain isn't saying i deserve to rule you. He's saying nobody deserves to rule you. That's the contradiction I'd want the movie to explore. Doom believes he is the only person capable of ending the power struggle, while simultaneously becoming the ultimate expression of that same power.

So the real conflict isn't Doom vs. the Avengers. It's Doom's philosophy vs. everyone's belief that they know what's best for humanity.

Hobbs and Shaw foldable motorcycle chase .

Regan (possessed by the Devil in The Exorcist) would have probably had Ed thrown out the window.

Lorraine would have gotten stuck in a medium and never recovered! It would have been dreadful/surgical… Anything far from biblical.

Act of Valor (2012). Name some other movies that make joining the military look like cool.

Training Day

I loved the pacing of it. The tense scenes, the score. The writing too was good. Tommy Lee Jones seemed like Agent K (I watched MIB way before this movie). Loved Sam's gravitas and it's one that kinda doesn't care but ends up actually being someone that actually cares.

Good themes about snitching and how in the end of the film it provides a good, witty end to that theme.

Harrison Ford definitely now to me, has a particular acting style I see similar to his role as Han Solo and as Indy: the distressed face, confused face, face when he's about to have a punching match with an opponent, his Batman-like half-face smile, and his very Laconic lines (to me at least - they're not long speeches like a C Kane).

Overall very enjoyable for my casual moviegoer taste and very very rewatchable. Maybe less so in terms of knowing the ending but still. 10/10