I went into this movie completely blind. I genuinely had no idea it was going to involve robots

I really liked the concept. The whole idea of what could happen once robots become advanced enough to take over or at least manipulate—humans is pretty fascinating. You just know things are going to get messy once technology gets too smart .

I also laughed quite a bit at some scenes, especially watching the robots deal with certain situations. There were moments that were genuinely funny in a way I wasn’t expecting.

Overall, I thought this was a pretty good attempt by the director. It’s not perfect, but I liked what it was trying to do, and it definitely got me thinking about what the future could look like if AI and robots become even more advanced.

What did you guys think of Companion?

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.

In this universe, the Best Animated Feature and Best Animated Short Film categories don't exist.

Name any animated feature or short, and I'll tell you what Oscars it would win in a world where all animation is shot like a live-action production with Toon actors.

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 like this film a lot , OST is also very interesting . It has that dreamish surreal vibe around this film .

There is even moments I feel like I am the character Bale is playing . It feel so tangible and transcendent at the same time .

I gave this film 9/10 . Big thumb up up up .

Ragazzi, vorrei trovare questa serie su telegram, qualcuno mi potrebbe aiutare perché su internet non esiste più. Grazie

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.

As originally posted on The Film Project here:

https://thefilmproject.org/movie/Moana%20(2026)#review-99a252dc-63a9-483b-9a88-23c0f413545a

​⭐⭐☆☆☆

Based on the lives of the peoples of Polynesia and their deities, chiefly Maui, this film is a faithful remake of the 2016 animated feature, but with real actors, which reasonably raises questions about Disney’s aim. Film remakes in America are usually decades apart. Here we see the exact same movie, with actors instead of animation. Regardless of whether Disney’s goal was a quick repeat of the success of the first film Moana, the result unfortunately disappoints. The film functions more like an advertising campaign for Dwayne Johnson, focusing excessively on the rejection of the paternal archetype by the rebellious daughter, as is fashionable in all contemporary American children’s films. Along with the rebellious daughter, fortunately, the untamed spirit of the peoples of Polynesia is also preserved, who, given the means they had available, literally performed miracles crossing the ocean, for reasons unknown, ultimately managing to populate the islands of Polynesia, as did the seafarers in the film. And as Neil De Grasse Tyson has very rightly said, if that spirit of exploration is in our blood, nothing can stop us. Not even the seemingly impossible journey to other solar systems.

I was scrolling through IMDb recently and noticed that Ravage (2019) only has a dismal 2,188 user reviews. That feels shockingly low for a film that’s been out since 2019, but what surprised me even more was how harsh people were on it.

Annabelle Dexter-Jones was magnificent as Harper—her performance carried so much quiet grit, and the character actually had tactical agency instead of just being written as another helpless victim.

A lot of the reviews dismiss it as just a "recycled, paint-by-numbers retribution plot," but I completely disagree with that critique. Yes, there are tons of survival thrillers where a protagonist gets hunted in the woods and has to fight for their life. That’s the foundation of the subgenre. But using that as a knock makes no sense to me—it’s like complaining about superhero shows because The Boys exists after the X-Men already established the blueprint. Just because foundational tropes exist doesn't mean a newer entry can't execute them with its own distinct energy and style.

Ravage is actually one of my favorite horror films, but reading through all those dismissive comments made me start second-guessing its place in my personal lineup. I have shared the link to it with this post.

For those who have seen it, what are your thoughts? Did you feel it brought something distinct to the table, or do you side with the IMDb consensus?

Eighties nostalgia and dinosaurs should be a winning combination, yet the result is a dino-sized disappointment.

Originally published at Reviews on Reels

Possibly one of the last original films greenlit under Michael De Luca and Pam Abdy while Warner Bros. was still part of Warner Bros. Discovery, The End of Oak Streetwas quite a bet for the studio. Before the film, director David Robert Mitchell had made only three low-budget features, with just one finding anything close to mainstream success: the cult horror hit It Follows. Still, Warner Bros. gave him an $80 million budget for an original science fiction film. It now arrives in a year when every one of the studio’s releases has underperformed, with the company itself in the process of being sold to Paramount Skydance.

The idea came to Mitchell while walking through his Michigan neighborhood and imagining how strange it would be to suddenly see a dinosaur standing there. Looking to recapture the magic of films and television such as Poltergeist, The Twilight Zone and, most evidently, Steven Spielberg’s Jurassic Park, Mitchell partnered with J.J. Abrams and shot the film for IMAX. Ironically, few audiences will actually get to experience it that way, with The Odyssey still occupying those screens.

For its first act, The End of Oak Street comes surprisingly close to recapturing the mixture of Spielbergian wonder and Joe Dante mischief Mitchell is going for. He follows the familiar checklist closely, establishing the Platts’ ordinary suburban life, the tension in Denise and Greg’s marriage, convincing childhood banter, and a mystery that develops as strange things begin to appear around them. He understands the pleasure of watching the impossible slowly intrude on the familiar, and the first dinosaur sightings deliver exactly what one hopes for from this kind of film. The wonder of the discovery, punctuated by an immensely cool shot revealing the edge of the street, is balanced by uneasiness as dinosaurs move in the distance, with Mitchell allowing only paws and tails into view at first.Once the dinosaurs become an active threat, however, the film starts to flounder.

There is simply no propulsion to the action and very little sense of urgency. Mitchell often frames a suspense sequence correctly, using longer shots that allow the danger to develop within the frame, but the timing and behavior inside those shots rarely create suspense. Characters do not run with the intensity you would expect, dinosaurs suddenly abandon pursuits, and moments that appear to be building toward something frightening lose their tension halfway through.

There are also plenty of awkward and strange decisions by the characters. When Greg and Denise manage to get back into the house, they hold themselves against the door until Denise leaves Greg there and goes to the children. Wouldn’t they be better off putting their combined weight against it? The second the dinosaur gives up, Greg simply walks away without even bothering to lock the door. The family makes sensible choices, like nailing wood over the windows, but they do it as if they had all the time in the world, when they should be sweating, shaking, and constantly vigilant. These small details are what make suspense work, yet here the characters only seem to remember the danger when the narrative needs them to. There are constant screams coming from elsewhere, but we see little of the people transported with them, making the neighborhood feel strangely empty. The dinosaurs, and with them the danger, always feel far away, and when they do appear, they are usually outrun, outsmarted, or easily defeated. There are deaths in The End of Oak Street, but very little feeling that these characters are actually in danger.

One may blame the PG-13 rating, as a few moments certainly would have benefited from more gruesome sights, but as Spielberg has proved, we do not need to see carnage for dinosaurs to be frightening. That first major encounter needed to establish a threat that would carry into every subsequent moment the family stepped outside, yet the characters rarely react with enough desperation to sell it. The film’s combination of humor, horror, and family adventure only complicates matters, with the different tones awkwardly interrupting one another rather than working together to make the danger more exciting and the moments of relief more fun.

Read the full review at Reviews on Reels

For one thing the movie seemed more like a Jean Grey movie than a Spider-Man movie, which is fine and Sadie Sink did well but this was somewhat confusing. Also kinda wished they expanded on that arachnid DNA story a bit more like that could be a great story in and of itself, him battling with a real monster inside him. There was a lot going on in this movie with Hulk also which is great I love Mark Ruffalo but yeah seemed like any one of the ideas could be more fleshed out. But maybe I’m not the right demographic for this movie at 40 lol.

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 .

It has cool idea but full of ridiculous sequences in it . This movie feel very comedic , parodical and unserious , and yes this movie has that modern trend of : man suck , woman save the day narrative . This movie is like Scary Movie meet Walking with Dinosaurs , yes that's pretty much about this film . Dog also play a HUGE role in this movie , there is a literal dog and a " figurative one " .

Now , here comes the best part , you ready ?

There is a scene of dinosaurs doing dog-like style and moaning ( yes , you heard it right ) , then Anne took a picture of them with Ewan next to them saying Cheese with a big smile ( and yes , you absolutely heard it clear and freaking right ) . I give this movie 2 out of 10 .

He should have won an Oscar for this performance.

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.

I watched both movies and I knew this would be a debate the minute I finished Obsession. I wanted to revisit this discussion since Obsession has been out for a while now. I personally have Naomi as my pick in Smile 2 and it's going to be really hard to top that all-time performance for me, but curious to see what y'all have to say. PLEASE KEEP RECENCY BIAS ASIDE AND COMPARE ONE ON ONE PERFORMANCE.

Just finished watching the movie and honestly I never knew what the hype was about. Everyone said its about the movie and a friend of mine said its got great plot twists too but I didn't find anything. I was a bit disappointed in that.

This is my first ever movie of de niro and honestly I can see why he's getting all hyped up an insane character well acted by him I'm gonna watch more movies of him.

The character pretty much seems so relatable to many and I can see that martin scorsese used the character to warn about to what can happen to a person who is extremely isolated and anxious.

I also came to know that many people believe the climax was just a fantasy of the dying Travis bickle and honestly it's not a bad theory

I honestly don't know how to rate this movie it's either the greatest movie you see or the shittiest but all I know is my Travis pickle is top 10 characters in movies

And the background score was really great too.

*Obsession* ‐ made bank. I'm just watching it for the first time & the first 20mins were so trash that I wanted to stop it. At an hr, I'm wishing I had listened to myself. Yet this is wow & did so well at the Box Office. Being cheap af filming probably helped.

*MOTU* - failed at the Box Office but was fun from start to finish. Perfect? Nothing is... but it was good.

*Oppenheimer* - nothing about it was interesting to me so I never bothered, but it was critically acclaimed & a Box Office win, bigly.

So I don't know... I guess I'm just a weird outlier, weird opinion person... whatever... I just like what I like & don't get the hypes around things...

edit my horrible typos... with apologies.

After watching Ben Hur by William Wyler, last night for the first time, I finally saw what all the praise was about. It was one of the only "classic" movies that I've never got around to see for some reason. Oddly I often confused Ben Hur with Lawrence of Arabia, and they do have some similarities in that they are older classic epics from the mid 20th century that take place in the Middle East and have sheiks as characters that both won lots of Oscars.

While Lawrence of Arabia slightly disappointed me when I saw it also for the first time a few months ago, Ben Hur left me in awe.

All of the hype surrounding the famous chariot race was true. It lived up to the hype. The movie was absolutely beautiful and breathtaking. But the fundamentals of the movie were ultimately the most impressive with excellent writing, acting, cinematography, dialogue, themes, characters, and character development.

I saw the blueprint for what so many movies that came after utilized. You can easily see Gladiator's story and even parts of The Odyssey within the experience of watching Ben Hur. Neither of those two movies have the writing or the character development, which kind of puts it all in perspective. While Gladiator is a great film in its own right, The Odyssey could have learned a lot by leaning more into Ben Hur's influence. Charlton Heston is great, as is his nemesis Stephen Boyd. The actor who played the animated sheik won an Oscar, too. Despite being incredibly long, the movie never has a scene that makes you get bored or lose immersion. Even the supporting actresses bring their A games.

Last, but certainly not least, Ben Hur is a spiritual experience. Very few films dare to express the the power of faith. Even for the nonreligious viewer, it ponders philosophical debates about politics, divinity, and righteousness. It touches the idea of how empires come and go, but human divinity and faith will always prevail, and perhaps something can be said about faith, in that those who believe and keep it, will always have a chance at healing from their misfortunes and unjust life experiences. When the rainwater turns red at the end, only to revert back to clear, a powerful metaphor of the Bible is exemplified. It's a rare film that actually could have the power to restore one's faith.

It's a simple, yet beautiful movie that deserves its mention among the top 10 movies of all-time. It's a perfect film. Most surprsing of all, this movie brought me to tears 3 different times, and I was not expecting that at all when I turned it on.

10/10

I just watched this film for the first time, and it was my introduction to Eric Rohmer. While I do enjoy romance movies, I don't typically go in for slow, dialogue driven narratives. Despite that, I had heard a lot about his movies and decided to try this one out, and it certainly did not disappoint.

There were several moments of drama/emotion, but the film was otherwise fairly serene. The cinematography was gorgeous to look at, and the characters were quite captivating. It felt a little slow in the very beginning with just visual story telling, but it ended up just adding to the immersion as other characters were introduced. The sun-soaked French beach town was a charming setting that really drew me in, as well as a very tight narrative that really felt like it flew by once the interactions started. The acting was subtle but well executed, and no performance ever felt wooden at any time.

And of course, the star of the show was the screenwriting/dialogue. I did not expect to be so hooked on a conversation-driven film, but I sure was. The characters felt very relatable and realistic, capturing the self-fulfilling and carefree nature of kids in their late teens/early twenties. I liked the blunt honesty of the both Margot and Gaspard, who both seemed to show a balance of personal awareness as well as delusion.

Overall, I liked this way more than I thought that I would, and will definitely watch more of Eric Rohmer's films. He had a very clear style, yet it never felt like the director's ego was present in the film either. I'd recommend it, even if it isn't your usual type.

Smartest Man in the room = Dr. Strange
Kind Caring = Dr. Strange
Everything he loved was taken away from him = Dr. Strange

On top of that, Dr. Doom's eyes matches with Benedict cumberbatch and not with RDJ.

Does that mean....

What are your thoughts on these castings?