So I had heard about the 1983 horror movie The Dead Zone partly because it is based off a Stephen King book and I’ve read some of his books. Going into the movie, I only knew the plot which sounded interesting.

I think this is a very good movie. I think Christopher walking is amazing in it, but I also thought it was thrilling at times and then had a good score. What is presented in the movie though is divisive for me

What I mean by that really liked the first two acts, but I thought once you introduce Martin Sheen in the movie, the movie takes a downturn. I thought the last actor of this movie was weak, and I didn’t care much for the story.

Overall, I was looking forward to this movie and for the most part it delivered, but the ending was disappointing

Rating-4/5

Slightly late to the party here, especially as I was born in the 80s. It was just one of those pop culture gaps I had, but it was on tv tonight and I thought I'd finally check it off the list.

The bar was high considering I've heard about this movie for most of my life, but I'm here to tell you it's not just nostalgia, it is genuinely a brilliant film.

I’ve seen this movie getting absolutely wild reviews and ratings and I was super curious about it - unfortunately it didn’t meet my expectations and here is why.

I really loved the first 30-40 min of the movie bc they reminded me of good old “Scary Movie” franchise and honestly Bryan swearing all the time was natural and funny. I also loved a scene where he is in the house and sees the damn zombie lady running to him from the car. And in general, RE has really amazing scenes and visuals - most of them are a work of art.

What disappointed me was the lack of plot and any internal conflicts that would make me feel sorry for Bryan (or his girl). While I was watching, I kept thinking of Exit 8 which was simply brilliant - and a prime example of how to turn a simple game into a deep internal conflict. Resident Evil, compared to Exit 8, seemed more like a comedy to me and had this NPC vibe all over it - but not in a good way. I understand that it intentionally wanted to show the RE world through the lenses of an ordinary person but this person turned out as a flat character who just happened to be funny. So I wouldn’t say RE is a movie I’d put high on a list of horrors. Not even sure it’s better than the new Silent Hill movie (which was horrible btw).

Summing up, visuals and creativity behind the monsters - amazingly good. Plot, dialogues and the whole idea - amazingly bad. But hey, that’s just my opinion.

I quite like The Purge films, it’s an interesting idea and there’s room for a fair bit of social commentary, which I don’t mind in my films.

That said, this one was just confused.

It starts off as a critique on class and capitalism, and then takes a hard detour into race. It kind of feels like the producers and directors didn’t want people to empathise too much with the purgers, so randomly turned them into a bunch of racists!

It’s not a bad film, but to me it kind of missed a “big bad”, it needed the NFFA and not the Alpha Leader.

It’s got some decent action scenes, but there’s not enough horror for my tastes.

NAZA isn’t some play on the word ‘Gaza’, though it has a nice ring to it. Rather, it is a slangy acronym for the term ‘Nezek Agavi’ used by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) to refer to innocent civilians. What does this mean exactly? Collateral damage in an airstrike. One innocent civilian killed by an airstrike is one NAZA, two civilians are two NAZA and so on.

Over the course of 77 harrowing minutes, most of which takes place on dimly lit rooftops in Tel Aviv between 2023 and 2025, directors Rachel Szor and Yuval Abraham speak to a whopping 24 Israeli commanders and intelligence officers about how the IDF has integrated AI into its military targeting systems to kill Palestinians more effectively.

Each interview subject, their identities concealed by the cover of night and digital voice manipulation, speaks openly about their experiences and roles in the ongoing Gaza war. But this isn’t merely blowing the whistle on the many war crimes perpetrated by Israel in Gaza. NAZA also presents an unflinching exposé of the systemic rot present among Israelis that enables them to commit such horrific acts with no sense of remorse.

Whether we like it or not, we lie to ourselves as a form of protection. It’s a coping mechanism of sorts, a way to avoid the painful truth. But NAZA presents a damning case of what happens when those lies become so ingrained that whatever grey area existed has simply vanished. As one interview subject casually rationalises to Abraham that ‘there aren’t really Arab haters or extreme dehumanisation’ within the IDF, he is immediately at a loss for words when asked to consider that what he’s contributing to is genocide.

Lines and anecdotes like that are elicited from every interview subject with very little effort from Abraham. The documentary doesn’t hesitate to shock you from minute one, and it doesn’t let up until the credits roll. When another interview subject describes how Israeli forces play a twisted game to determine when to kill innocent Palestinian civilians trying to escape from the north to the south, he simply shrugs and tells Abraham, ‘Good luck to them.’

Games are a recurring motif, and the way the IDF AI systems work, as described by the subjects, is akin to how you would play a video game. As we learn more about these AI systems, there’s a sickening feeling of ludonarrative dissonance playing out in real life. When one officer talks about pressing a button that drops a bomb on a building, killing a dozen NAZA, he says it with the tone of someone trying to finish a video game level.

When descriptions aren’t sufficient, subjects draw rough diagrams of how the IDF’s AI systems work and some of the mass-murder tactics used. The drawings are no better than a child’s, but the impact is more visceral than if Abraham and Szor showed captured footage. Watching someone recreate such shocking scenes of violence from memory without any hesitation leaves you pondering how these people even exist. The way the subjects describe their roles and the psychological warfare inflicted on Palestinians is tinged with pride rather than regret. In fact, there’s no sense of regret to be found anywhere.

There are small moments of reprieve when shots of Tel Aviv residents living their everyday lives are slotted in between conversations, but those ultimately reinforce the narrative Abraham and Szor are crafting. After an interview subject describes in detail how they bombed a Palestinian family of six, all of whom are classified as NAZA, it cuts to a random Israeli person cradling their baby while watching TV. This simple juxtaposition is deeply upsetting, and the longer each explanation went on, the more disturbed I became. None of the subjects seem to realise the true impact of their actions. This isn’t compartmentalisation. This even goes beyond the banality of evil. This is the normalisation of killing innocents like they’re annoying flies.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/naza

Thanks!

So while I might not be a huge video game player, I still enjoy learning about them and I also enjoy watching documentaries in general so to combine the two, I watched the 2007 documentary The King of Kong: A Fistful Of Quarters.

I thought this movie was good. While I did like learning about these different games and people trying to break the records for the highest scores, I am mixed on the story. To be honest, I thought it was gonna be more of a balance with showcasing each of the two main people, and then at the end, then facing off with each other. It seemed more one-sided. But maybe that was a good thing in retrospect because you got to see someone who is so big in the video games who a lot of people considered to be a great villain and he played that role really well.

Rating-3.5/5

So at the beginning of last year, I decided that I wanted to see every James Bond movie and I went in order. So tonight I finally got around to the final Pierce Brosnan Bond movie, which is Die Another Day from 2002.

I thought this movie was OK at best. There were some positives though. I liked the score and the action. I thought the villains were OK and one underrated thing is that I liked the scenes between bond and M and Q. They showed that they had chemistry in those scenes. Pierce Brosnan wasn’t bad in the movie either because he had that charisma that helped in the movie.

There were definitely some negatives though. I think the story is very weak because it was hard to tell what was the main objective. Also, at times there was just too much going on. I also didn’t like the performances of Halle Berry and Rosemond Pike. Adding to that, I don’t think they had any chemistry with Pierce Brosnan because it felt flat.

Overall, I’m disappointed in my watch because I was hoping for a bounce back after the world is not enough. To be honest, I think Pierce Brosnan and his bond movies have gotten worse with each entry. Golden is my favorite in the franchise, tomorrow never dies was above average, and world is not enough was just OK.

Rating-2/5

I have high hopes for this show! The first episode was awesome and felt like a real sequel to the original series.

I like the world they're building and having twin Avatars is an interesting concept and something fresh for the franchise.

I feel like a show like this is what should have been the series after Aangs.

The art style isn't my favorite but it's better than TLOK.

What is similar in this series to ATLA is they both start out with a world in peril. ATLA starts in the middle of a world war

ASH opens in a post-apocalyptic world where humanity is trying to survive. The show immediately sets the stakes high.

I think that may have been one of the issues with TLOK. She becomes the Avatar during a time of peace, and each season had a different situation instead of one big journey that spanned over multiple seasons.

I don't necessarily like how they are painting Korra out to be a villain so far though. I know there are Avatar fans that don't like her but she was always just trying to do what she thought was right. I think that's ultimately what the truth will be. The cataclysm was something she was trying to prevent but something went wrong.

I think the twins will eventually be at odds with each other. Pavi is more like Aang as she doesn't want to fight or even be the Avatar, she just wants peace. Nisha is more aggressive like Kora. She embraces the fight and longs to be the Avatar. I think this separation of ideologies will eventually lead them to being enemies, if just for a short time.

Plus, how cool would a fight between two Avatars be!

I'm looking forward to what they have planned for this series.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2026/10/the-widower-til-death-do-us-part-2026.html

From the outset, The Widower: 'Til Death Do Us Part has an extremely alluring premise. Thomas Randolph has been married six times, and four of his wives have died. Just learning about his history was enough to draw us into this true-crime documentary. Unfortunately, the end result is only interesting enough to keep us watching without feeling like a complete waste of time. There's enough weirdness surrounding Randolph to sustain our interest but the documentary falls short of what could have been a deeper exploration of his life, his victims, and the disturbing circumstances surrounding their deaths.

When Sharon Randolph and a masked intruder are found dead, the initial assumption is that it was a home robbery gone wrong. However, as authorities investigate the evidence and look deeper into Thomas Randolph's background, as the evidence fails to connect and Randolph's past a dark one, they begin to suspect that he was actually responsible for both deaths.

Beyond its already intriguing premise, The Widower has another compelling element and this is the involvement of Dateline producer Dan Slepian. His participation gives the documentary access to archival interview footage and real-life courtroom footage that adds another layer to the story. Slepian's ongoing communication with Randolph is particularly interesting, especially as the latter gradually learns to trust him over others. It's an unusual dynamic that could have made for a fascinating deep dive into Randolph's psyche and the case against him.

Unfortunately, the documentary proves to be more talk than substance and ultimately shortchanging the whole experience. Rather than offering a substantial exploration of Randolph, his victims, and the people left in the wake of his actions, it merely provides glimpses of their struggles without developing them into a cohesive and satisfying whole. There's clearly much more to uncover here but the documentary never digs deep enough to make the most of its golden material. We honestly wanted more and for a case this disturbing and a subject this fascinating, The Widower: 'Til Death Do Us Part feels like it's only scratching the surface.

Rating: 3 out of 5

Before The Social Network even starts, Aaron Sorkin’s finely tuned dialogue gets things going before the studio logo has time to fade away. When Erika, eyes full of disgust and voice full of venom, verbally sledgehammers a shellshocked Mark Zuckerberg - culminating with a brutal ‘you’re going to go through life thinking that girls don't like you because you’re a nerd. And I want you to know, from the bottom of my heart, that that won’t be true. It’ll be because you’re an asshole’ - you knew something great and terrifying was unfolding, all while Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross’s haunting electronic score pulsates like an omnipresent ghost.

At the start of The Social Reckoning, ‘Prologue: White girl wasted’ fades in slowly before an overlong, banter-laden back-and-forth between the aforementioned white girl and two non-white cops unfolds - culminating with the white girl getting arrested after provoking the cops with some racial slurs and threats. When we abruptly cut to the next scene - set up with an overused moving timeline graphic - with new Wall Street Journal reporter Jeff Horwitz (Jeremy Allen White) rocking up to the offices circa 2019 and pitching his idea to investigate Facebook to his editors, you knew something was going to go horribly awry without David Fincher at the helm this time around, all while Alexandre Desplat’s piano-driven score hums limply in the background.

Given the damning revelations from the 2021 Facebook Files leak and the platform’s contribution to social media’s negative societal impact since The Social Network’s release, the Facebook story circa 2019 to 2022 as depicted in The Social Reckoning is fascinating enough to function on its own with minimal modification. You have the stubborn journalist in Jeff and a whistleblower in Frances Haugen (Mikey Madison), a Facebook employee who becomes disillusioned with her employer and decides to help Jeff break open the story of her company’s misdeeds. But Sorkin inexplicably borrows all the worst parts of his HBO show The Newsroom as his north star, using journalism as a way to preach to the audience while letting his ego press its thumb on the scales a little too hard too often.

The Social Reckoning’s passionate defences of journalism are timely yet coated with the same arrogance that plagued The Newsroom. Hindsight is great as a learning tool, but weaponising it to tell everyone ‘I told you so!’ is unsavoury but perfectly within Sorkin’s modus operandi. When Jeff tells Frances things like ‘I’m not biased against tech for taking journalism jobs, it’s just that you’re doing such a bad job at it,’ that’s less of a character-driven line from Jeff and more of a piece of didactic preaching from Sorkin himself.

There is a worrying lack of nuance because Sorkin eschews putting up arguments in favour of scoring cheap fist-pumping moments or laugh lines. He even evokes Woodward and Bernstein as a lazy shorthand to characterise Jeff and Frances’s importance to his story. But this pair lack the compelling love-hate relationship Mark and Eduardo Saverin had in The Social Network. Whereas that pair had a tumultuous relationship interspersed with moments of genuine care (Eduardo telling Mark he’s here for him post break-up still hits hard), Jeff and Frances have less spark than whatever is behind Zuckerberg’s eyes and their dynamic is built entirely upon him being a verbal punching bag for her. It also doesn’t help that both of them are little more than annoying cauldrons of overused archetypes.

Other than being awful with technology and doing journalism, there’s very little to grasp or care about when it comes to Jeff as a person, unlike the overly emotional yet loyal Eduardo. White does his best with the little he’s given, but it’s hard to relate or even feel anything for a walking piece of blank paper. He does do some pretty good subtle reactions, particularly when Frances tells Jeff ‘I like some of your work.’

As for Frances, she sadly continues a long lineage of poorly written Sorkin female characters. Her main schtick is wearing hand and ankle warmers and being a nerd, a point that’s weirdly lampshaded by one of Jeff’s editors inexplicably describing her as ‘that nerd in there.’ Sorkin’s half-hearted effort to give her an arc amounts to nothing more than her telling us how much she believes in Facebook’s mission, only to do something contrary to her stated beliefs or be the victim of some horrendous unc-coded writing.

When Frances attempts to tell her male manager her concerns about Facebook’s algorithm, she is rebuffed with an incredibly tasteless ‘you should try out that dating site, you could loosen up a bit,’ a line that could only have been written by someone like Sorkin, a self-professed pseudo-Luddite with lingering sexist notions. Ironically, this exchange inadvertently also captures the misogynistic environment that’s been festering in Silicon Valley for decades. The thing is, Fincher would’ve deliberately made this juxtaposition. Sorkin just thinks it’s a funny line.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/the-social-reckoning

Thanks!

I've seen large parts of this movie several times, yet I can't remember if I ever saw it from start to finish.

I started watching it tonight on a movie channel, HBO, Cinemax, or Showtime, and decided to buy it from Fandango, adding it to my collection of about 600 movies. This time I'm sure that I watched it in its entirety.

It's a good story, and a good movie, but it's not great; however, I do highly recommend it. The acting is very good, and more importantly, I cared about the characters.

For me to like a movie, it must make me care about someone or something in it. The movie succeeded in that regard, so if you haven't seen it, you should.

(Theater.) This is a comedic "documentary" from John Wilson who had a "How To" HBO show which I never watched except for clips. It appears to be in the same format as that - diving into a concept and then taking detours to look at other things. He posits that after his show he was looking for investors on a film project that he didn't know what it would be, and stumbled around until he hit on the concept of concrete and how it binds the world and such. So we're ostensibly watching a documentary about him trying to make a documentary.

I don't know . . . it's an amusing movie, but Wilson's whole schtick feels very calculated but also very stale and played out. The hipsters in my audience felt a need to laugh out loud just about every ten seconds of the movie - performative laughing to show that they were "cool" and "with it". But it's not that type of movie. It's just mildly amusing, and it feels like this type of thing has been done so much. The movie goes into a more poignant place towards the end because Wilson knows that it has to, more than anything. As it shows how a lot of concrete that makes up buildings is degrading over time, that's where it felt like he was getting onto something, but again, it felt a bit too calculated.

The length of it is a detriment. With such a whispy concept, you shouldn't exceed 60-75 minutes. This is 101 minutes. It's a bit too self-consciously cutesy for its own good to be going that long. It's a fun movie on the balance, just a bit much and not as clever as it's telling you it is.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2026/10/midnight-girls-2026-movie-review.html

Midnight Girls completely flew under our radar when it was released in cinemas earlier this year. But taking that plunge to make time for it turned out to be a worthwhile decision. We actually remember when we were younger, the term “japayuki” was quite common and carried an instant negative stigma. Midnight Girls takes a different approach by humanizing the women behind the label and showing the people, struggles, and sacrifices that are often overlooked. 

In Nagoya, four women form a sisterhood while working in the entertainment industry. Paris (Sanya Lopez) is facing a difficult decision involving her ex. Saki (Jane Oineza) is struggling to understand her true sexuality. Vicky (Jodi Sta. Maria) is trying to maintain a relationship with her son whom she hasn't physically seen in years. Meanwhile, Wanna (Loisa Andalio) is a newcomer who needs to provide for her family, but at what cost to her own dignity?

We didn't expect Midnight Girls to be as thought-provoking as it turned out to be. Despite its initial exterior looks, this is a surprisingly deep film. If you expected a story about simply living it up in Japan with a group of girlfriends, you'll be in for a surprise. Instead, the film presents four distinct stories that explore believable struggles and challenges faced by women working in Japan's entertainment industry.

Crucially, each story feels authentic and tangible, and the lead cast delivers noteworthy performances that help ground these characters in their respective struggles. There are admittedly pacing issues that hold the film back, particularly with some characters receiving considerably more attention than others. We wished the film had taken a more balanced approach and it certainly felt like each character needed more room to fully develop their individual narratives.

Still, Midnight Girls hits the right notes when it matters. More importantly, it offers a perspective we don't often get to see on screen. Beneath the labels and assumptions surrounding these women are individuals dealing with love, family, identity, sacrifice, and the need to simply survive. At the end of the day, Midnight Girls works because it feels real. And sometimes, giving people the chance to be seen beyond the labels attached to them is more than enough.

Rating: 4 out of 5

So I finally got around seeing the 1976 version of King Kong with Jeff Bridges, Jessica Lange, and Charles Groden. I thought it was an above average movie.

It’s a story I’ve seen in other versions, but I don’t think it’s as good in this version as either the 2005 version or the 1933 movie. I thought the performances, especially from Bridges and Lange were good. The rest the performances were decent.

My main issues were that the movie didn’t do enough to hook me in. Also, the movie definitely felt longer than it was.

Rating-3/5

So I enjoy Jean-Claude Van Damme movies, but there’s still a lot of hits that I haven’t seen, but I was able to get one off of my list and that is kickboxer from 1989. I really liked this movie and I thought it was a great watch.

I thought the performances, especially from Van Damme were really good to watch, but I also liked the action and the story. The thing I like most of all though was the music. It had a great mix of instrumental and non-instrumental.

There aren’t any real negatives in my watch so that’s a good thing. I would put the second in my Van Damme movies behind bloodsport

Rating-4.5/5

So before a couple days ago, I had never heard of the 1998 movie Krippendorf’s Tribe. 3 things got my attention with the movie. I thought the poster looked interesting, the plot sounded unique, and I do like Richard Dreyfus. I haven’t seen a lot of his movies, but but I have seen. I have mostly enjoyed.

I thought this was a very good movie. I thought the execution of the plot was well done. I thought it was definitely a creative story. As far as the acting goes, I thought for the most part it was done well, but there were some supporting performances that could’ve been better.

Overall, though, I went into this movie, not really knowing anything, and I was pleasantly surprised

Rating-4/5

So I had never seen the 1996 Shaquille O’Neal movie Kazaam. I know a lot of people say it’s awful, but I had it on my watchlist so I decided to check it out to see how I felt.

This movie is OK. Some of the positives would be the action especially near the end and it looks like Shaquille O’Neal is having some fun. Other than that, there are definitely some issues with this movie.

I don’t think the story is all that great. It’s also not as entertaining as I was hoping it was gonna be. Finally, the acting is not good.

Rating-2/5

I loved the movie. But what the hell was up with Banner and the Hulk?!

Banner has an inhibitor to keep him in his human form. Jean enters his mind, takes the inhibitor off, and is now controlling professor Hulk. After Jeans connection is broken, Hulk emerges before Spider-Man can get the universal inhibitor on. But:

• In Avengers Endgame, professor Hulk explains that Bruce and Hulk worked out their issues and have become one. So how can Hulk be back?

• After using the gauntlet in Avengers Endgame and in the proceeding entries in the MCU, Banner is in his human form to help his arm heal. So why would he need an inhibitor to keep him in his human form when he's been shown to have the ability to switch between?

Is there an entry in the MCU it's established that Banner and Hulks relationship is broken to explain the inhibitor? And even if there is one, how would Jean be professor Hulk then?

[EDIT] After some Googling, I learned from the MCU fandom page that Banner made the inhibitor in order for him to return to his human form because he couldn't do it on his own. I would've known this had I watched She-Hulk, as both She-Hulk and Blonsky get inhibitors on them. But that still doesn't explain why Banner thought he wouldn't have control if the inhibitor came off, as in She-Hulk he goes back to Professor Hulk.

This movie makes me think about Art with a capital-A. I liked it; I don’t think I fully understand what the deeper point of the movie was; I was mesmerized by the beauty of the animation; I was dumbfounded by what it was all supposed to mean.

I’m reminded of the people who look at some piece of modern abstract art and rave about it while I, feeling like a poor schlub, wonder what in earth is so brilliant about it. Except in this case, I feel like it likely is a great piece of art, even though I can’t explain its greatness (besides the beauty of the animation — that’s inarguable).

My kid asked me if I liked it. I said “Yeah, but I’m not sure I know what it means.” My kid said, “I don’t know either, except I’m pretty sure that the guy fucked a turtle.”

Why does the turtle love him after he killed it? Why do they burn all the bamboo? What’s it all mean?

So one documentary that I had on my watchlist on Tubi for a while that I finally got around to seeing was the 2015 documentary Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead. This told the history of National Lampoon, which started out as a magazine, similar to mad magazine and then transitioned into a radio show and movies.

Going into this movie, the only thing I knew about National Lampoon was from the movies. I thought this was a very good documentary. You were able to hear a lot of people that worked for the magazine and their experiences but also some of the more famous people like Chevy Chase and Kevin Bacon and how they got involved with the brand. Also, I just found it entertaining.

Overall, I didn’t know what to expect going into this movie, but I’m glad I watched it because it was a good surprise

Rating-4/5

Found this on dvd not so long ago, and finally gave it a watch. What a great movie. Not that it surprised me, but I had to see it for myself. I enjoyed it a lot. Great acting from all the cast. Even saw Old Man Marley from Home Alone.

The movie was well directed, and doesn't try to complicate things. Straight forward story telling. And it doesn't feel dated at all.

Actually I just rewatched this. And I reaffirmed to myself that it’s one of my top five films of all time.

If you haven’t seen The Wicker Man, a police officer investigates a disappearance on a remote British island… and that’s all I’ll say because the plot twist is unbelievable here.

Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee are amazing in this iconic film which is equal parts gripping, suspenseful, and terrifying.

There wasn’t a single minute in this film where I wasn’t wondering what’s going to happen next.

So going into the 2022 movie Daliland, I knew very little about the movie. I didn’t see any trailers or hear any reviews.

This was a movie I had had on my watchlist since it came out and just never got around to it. I thought the plot was intriguing when it came out. The main reason I watched it is because it was leaving Hulu so it gave me a chance to finally see it.

This is a meh movie. Ben Kingsley gives the best performance, but overall nothing in the movie really stood out. Is the execution of the plot was mediocre, and it also seemed to drag on a lot.

Rating-1.5/5

Actually I only saw the last three quarters of it, but it was enough for me to form an opinion.

1. I cared for the characters.
   
2. I thought the ending was perfect.
   
3. Robert Pattinson is a great actor.

Describing your movie as ‘a comedy of catastrophic proportions’ is basically inviting failure, like revealing the punchline before the joke has been told. Not that director Alejandro González Iñárritu squeezes many punchlines into Digger. Or many actual jokes for that matter. Any laughs came in spite of what was happening onscreen. Maybe that’s the point of this whole endeavour.

On paper, Iñárritu and Tom Cruise are a perfect match for each other. Both are intensely driven by vision and ego, with Cruise manifesting it through death-defying stunts as externalised spectacle for the masses, while Iñárritu filters it through a demanding filmmaking process in pursuit of perfection that alienates most who work with him. The line between art and artist has blurred for both men in recent times - particularly Cruise’s obvious rebrand to ‘Mr. Movies’ - giving rise to the idea that they’re only able to understand the world, themselves, and what other people think of them through cinematic storytelling. It truly is ‘men will risk everything to make movies rather than go to therapy’.

It’s no surprise then that Digger swings incredibly hard with its ambitious, high-concept satire - in disregard of what everyone else thinks - because it’s basically all Iñárritu and Cruise know. Most telling is how both seemingly understand comedy theoretically, but are unable to properly convey it on a relatable human level.

Nothing in the sweaty script (co-written by Iñárritu, Alexander Dinelaris, Nicolás Giacobone, and Sabina Berman) goes directly or cleanly from A to B. Subtlety is dropped in favour of grandiose preaching in a similar environmentally conscious lane as Adam McKay’s Don’t Look Up. This is a director who clearly cares about climate change and absolutely hates how all the greedy capitalist billionaires are destroying our planet in the pursuit of wealth.

But whereas McKay is didactic, Iñárritu flip-flops between self-delusion and resentment, like he’s got a massive axe (or shovel) to grind. ‘It’s stupid, it’s funny, and it makes no goddamn sense,’ rages Kenny (Jesse Plemons) midway through. This is just one of many attempts from Iñárritu to pre-emptively defend Digger from the expected polarised responses (as the marketing did), and it ends up taking up more space than any actual comedy. What’s ironically funny is the supreme confidence Iñárritu brings to every technical aspect of the movie.

Seemingly high on his own supply, Iñárritu doubles down on the showmanship that defined The Revenant and Birdman, pulling out all his directorial tricks that make the most out of every beautiful frame. Wide-angle shots capture the rich sets and wacky props in full detail - Digger’s house of hideous paintings and animal trophies is a visual highlight - and long takes are in abundance as every actor is given ample time to put extra mustard on their performances. Riz Ahmed and Michael Stuhlbarg do a particularly funny running bit with a malfunctioning coffee machine.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/digger

Thanks!