You could argue it looks better because you don’t have to see anything that may look bad on a big screen lol
1 Like
He’s just mad because he can’t see anything that small
Kathleen Turner and Michael Douglas, The War of the Roses
1 Like
Frankenstein (2025)
It’s not terrible, but it’s certainly a letdown given the strong source material and the director being a talent like Guillermo del Toro. It’s nice to look at, and there are occasionally interesting sequences sprinkled in, but holy shit does this movie spend a lot of time being boring. And I mean a LOT of time, because this fucking thing is a full 2.5 hours long and never comes close to justifying it. Once you get into the main story of the movie (there’s a non-chronological part at the beginning that is fun), you can’t fathom how long it takes to just get to the damn monster. Is there a good reason it takes that long? No. Is the non-monster part remotely interesting? Also no.
There are certain parts that attempt to be emotionally affecting. As these sequences play out, my heart has never felt colder.
I credit it for being a unique take on the story. Unlike last year’s Nosferatu reboot, it isn’t just taking the movie that already exists and making it look nice and modern. Unfortunately, the take kinda sucks, and frankly I prefer the Eggers Nosferatu knockoff over this. Good little Mia Goth performance, I’ll say that. Every time she got a scene, I was able to lean in. It isn’t enough to salvage the whole thing, but it’s not nothing.
This will hit Netflix fairly soon. Some of you may like it. I largely did not.
2.5/5
1 Like
I told a bunch of people today to watch House of Dynamite and they all said they wouldn’t be able to handle it 
2 Likes
1 Like
Were you selling it as anything but an unserious and fun thriller? I mean, it’s tense, but if it seems overwhelming to them then they can’t watch much.
1 Like
I described the premise and they said oh no thanks. They don’t want to think about this happening with the current administration.
1 Like
Personally, I have Goodfellas as my favorite movie of all time.
2 Likes
I feel similarly to LKJ re: House of dynamite, the 3 part structure is an interesting try but I don’t think it fully works. Narratively they would have needed the 3rd act to be the best one, but it is by far the worse.
Still in principle I like this choice, it’s great at making us feel how fast this thing would happen. And I like the idea of the movie, how despite all the agitation really there’s not much anyone can do in such a short time (and the closer you get to the top of the hierarchy the worse it gets). But again that doesn’t really make for a compelling narrative to just have people being “oh no” for a whole movie.
2 Likes
Strongly disagree. It’s the most intense film experience I’ve seen in some time for the reason risky said. This has a real possibility of actually happening and that probability rises every day. That’s what makes it so tense and scary. It’s a film filled with irl geopolitics. Much closer to documentary than fiction.
1 Like
I had the same reaction. Seeing the same drama play out from different perspectives just didn’t add much for me. The sum was never more than the sum of its parts. On the plus side, this does scratch that Tom Clancy itch that hasn’t really been scratched in a while.
Rewatched House of Dynamite and right away I could see why the ending felt so abrupt and unfinished.
The movie is told by repeating the same eighteen minutes from different perspectives. The film ends when we have replayed events from the final POV.
Except that’s not how the movie starts.
The movie begins with a sequence of scenes that take place over several hours. It takes great pains to make us empathize with the humanity of the people we are going to follow through the first 18 minute sequence by showing little moments of their life before the missile fires.
And by establishing this as the structure of the movie, the audience predictably feels like something is missing when the movie does not spend the same amount of time after the missile impact as it did before the missile launch.
Really, the movie should have been twice as long. Replay the NEXT 18 minutes from the same POVs. Then run the credits.
1 Like
I thought that Weapons was really good and it exceeded my expectations.
2 Likes
Watched HoD last night and thought it was ok at best for some of the same reasons as Risky. Felt like they wasted a pretty top flight ensemble cast on that movie although the acting was obviously extremely good. I was honestly bored by the time we got to the 3rd act and ready for it to be over.
2/5
1 Like
Started this last night and made it to just past the liqour store scene and realized it was not a good idea to watch right before bed. I was thoroughly creeped out and on edge from the start. Looking forward to finishing it.
Yeah I’m not a huge fan of the comedy/trolling so prevalent in horror movies these days so I was braced for the worst after seeing Barbarian and reading reviews of Weapons, and there was some silliness, but not nearly to the point I expected. The movie is scary but mostly functions as a solid mystery/thriller.
Blue Moon (2025)
Give Ethan Hawke an Oscar. What a performance. Really strong work by Andrew Scott in a key supporting role too, but this Hawke performance was special.
The movie is all just people talking in a bar for the entire runtime, but as a one-night snapshot of an artist who feels that the world has simply turned the page on him, it’s quite compelling.
3.5/5, could move up to a 4 depending on how it digests.
1 Like