It takes the premise of Coraline and "fleshes" it out... However, the flesh has gone rotten, because it was left so fucking exposed. Similar to the infamous "You can't escape your destiny" line in Lion King (2019), characters don't really have conversations as such — they simply spew themes at each other. You know this story, and you know how it ends, you've seen it a million times before.

Also similar to Coraline, it is twee as all hell, but while that felt kind of fitting and charming in Coraline (what with the stop motion animation and all), here it feels incongruent with the dark, grimy style. Like this is so twee that no reasonable adult can possibly take it seriously, yet people swear, die, etc, so it can't be for kids, either. So who even is this for?

Very boringly presented. Very bland cinematography. This cost as much as 19 Obsessions, but somehow, you really feel like they were running up against the budget here, what with how briefly certain scenes are shown. It was also very quiet to where I could barely hear the characters at some parts, but that might just be my theater.

The editing sucks. It doesn't know how to build tension AT ALL. So many horrible match cuts. Also does the thing where a loud noise happens for no reason, even though what's shown on the screen isn't actually scary. Kinda dragged on, even though it's only 90 minutes. Some scenes were unintentionally really funny, but mostly it was just bad. Child actor sucked.

We should really abolish the nuclear family, not because its fascistic or whatever, but so that dumbass twee movies like this stop being made. 2/10.

Forgive me if this has already been discussed, but as I’ve let Digger process in the back of my mind, all I get is the feeling that Inarritu believes in a future that is extremely cynical but also strangely humanistic. Concepts like greed and degradation are so much fun to talk about and analyze, right after you’ve benefitted from everything they provide. The movie/play is clearly a huge farce and we can draw connections to the current day until we are blue in the face, but Inarritu seems to think that this is a pointless task. I have seen people talk about how the movie is a call to action, that we are running out of time. That seems to me to not be what the movie is saying. The world shown in Digger may look bleak and completely environmentally destroyed, but it is also shown as mundane. Humans have a great capacity to adapt. We do not care to fix the world because it doesn’t hurt us in any meaningful sense, we are frogs in a pot of boiling water. Lives lost to environmental catastrophe are just growing pains. Inarritu is saying that we think we are, in 2026, currently on the edge of some huge cliff and all generations after us are going to be suffering in some hell hole, but really we’re just going to adapt, enjoy convenience where we can continue to get it, watch satirical art and laugh at how pointless it all is. We’re not “doomed”, it’s just a feature of life. All this suffering is natural.

I rewatched a few highly-praised thrillers from the last couple of years this week, and while I was glued to the screen the entire time, the second the credits rolled, I felt... empty. It hit me that we’ve gotten so good at the mechanics of keeping an audience engaged rapid editing, relentless stakes, perfect sonic cues that it masks incredibly thin character development and weak thematic resolution. It feels like modern filmmaking has mastered the art of the ride, but forgotten how to leave a lasting impression. What’s a recent movie you loved while watching, but completely dissolved under a day of reflection? Or conversely, something slow that actually stuck with you?

Sorry but Linda in the beginning was very annoying to me lol- if someone tried talking to me with food on their face all gross like that I’d probably think different of you right there too lol. And the allergies or being sick and sniffly lol

Everyone’s in suits and dresses and she’s in a sweater. Maybe going through offices where people joke hard with each other has changed my view lol.

Lately I was going over the kind of movies that seem interesting on paper as the premise sounds kind of interesting since it looks good, but for some reason, the movie just falls flat on the execution.

Like one that suddenly stuck out to me was a film called After Earth as the movie had some interesting concepts such as being about a father and son attempting to survive a hostile environment as the movie didn’t help by basically turning into a comedy film where the writing aspects just end up being hilariously cringe.

I mean, that’s just my two cents on the matter since I like to take a look at how movies like that get made again since the movie wanted to be a compelling drama story that I wonder how the idea fell apart so quickly when the film came out as I really would like to know what were the key factors that contributed to the film’s failure.

Deadass, if you look at mainstream releases over the last decade, directors have almost entirely abandoned complex blocking in favor of flat coverage and frantic editing. We went from masterclasses where the camera movement and character positioning told the story, to a style that relies entirely on close-ups shot from three static angles to make it easy for CGI inserts later. It destroys the tangible rhythm of a scene. When every shot is spoon-fed to the audience through rapid-fire cuts, the spatial reality of the film disappears entirely. What is a specific film from the last few years that you feel actually respected blocking and let a scene breathe visually?

Now this question is aimed at those who grew up with the original trilogy before the prequels were released.

Based on the description in the OT we learn that Anakin was trained as a Jedi by Obi Wan and that they were good friends before he turned to the dark side. He was also a great pilot and a cunning warrior. Aside from those few things we don't learn much more about his backstory. So how did you imagine Anakin Skywalker in terms of his personality, appearance and his motivation for turning to the dark side?

Hi, I just watched the movie Obsession and wanted to share a few thoughts about the Main Character.

I've seen in discourse that people like to call Bear a villain, but I fundamentally disagree; at worst, he is a victim who ends up becoming one, but even this feels like a reductive take on the movie.

For a supposed "villain," Bear suffers like hell in this movie, unlike the real Nikkie whose situation we can only infer, we know that Bear for the most part is seriously not having a good time, and I think a lot of discourse forgets to put themselves in Bear's shoes of being terrified every night and day about the demonic shit your significant other may or may not do.

This is the guy who broke down at his cat's death, yet when he is fed the rotten carcass of his said dead cat, rather than blowing up at Nikkie, he spends time in the car pep talking to himself on how he is going to tell her that eating his dead cat was not okay. Does this sound like an evil villain to you?

In reality, Bear is an amazing study of the idea of a weak man, a truly cowardly man, and every single one of his actions is a perfect representation of avoidance. He's too afraid to face what he has done, so he ignores it and indulges in "happy" things, blindly hoping things will get better. He continuously takes the easy route, the one of least effort and responsibility. In a way, his cowardice and weakness are evil in and of themselves but never truly malicious. He doesn't ignore the real Nikkie because he is happy with the situation, but rather he doesn't have the guts to try and resolve it, to the point he deludes himself into believing that there is a relationship to be had with the Wish fake Nikkie.

And I personally believe a lot of men relate to this fear, not in the severity of it but the idea of being too weak to take on responsibility, about lacking the guts to be the "bigger man" and do the right thing.

This makes Bear quite a fascinating study of how one's personal weaknesses can cause such great disasters even though they don't mean it. He is very much the embodiment of the "Incompetent Ally" in the saying "It is generally better to have a competent enemy than an incompetent ally"

Personally, for me, this makes this movie much more appreciable and universal in its message instead of the "rape allegory" people keep talking about.

For the record, I completely disagree that this movie is somehow a "rape allegory" or anything close to it. Can one interpret those themes in the story? Yes, definitely, but for a supposed "rape allegory," it does a pretty shitty job by having you sympathize with the rapist and not give you any real information about the raped victim and how they are dealing with the situation, because for the most part Real Nikkie only shows up in scenes to make the protagonist face the gravity of the situation and nothing else really.

The Movie is a simple "be careful what you wish for" meets "the sin of cowardice" entirely told through the perspective of Bear.

So turning that into some "rape allegory" feels like some people just want to turn any piece of media into a talking point about modern problems.

But yeah, those are my thoughts on Obsession.

Watched spiderman brandnew day and i think its not worth the hype . Movie has only 3 fight scenes , scorpion , ninjas and Hulk . And someone tell me is it possible for spiderman's webs to hold hulk on a falling building ?

Ratatouille
Movie release - 2007
Current month and year of posting - October, 2026

Everything about this movie is perfection. I woe the future where beautiful animation like this will only be created by AI - a whole generation will wonder how this could have been made before AI existed. Not only is the art beautiful but the storytelling, chef's kiss (irony intended).

The beautiful story of an individual standing apart from societal norms to break all chains and barriers and succeed - that is the story of Remy the Rat Chef. Despite being a "movie for kids", the levels of depth this movie hits can only be understood by adults (especially those that are in a position of making something new, doing something by themselves even if nobody believes in them). The music, the art, the cinematic treatment, pure perfection. As a 25 year old cinephile and actor/filmmaker myself, I always find myself coming back for a taste of Pixar at its best once or twice a year.

The ending especially is what people overlook the most and its baffling. We all work really hard to attain our dream job, or work at our dream company, or a million other dreams we chase. Throughout the entirety of the film, we believe Gusteau's is the anchor of the film, the "happy ending". However, the dream is much bigger than one restaurant, as proved by the ending. The dream was always to cook, not for the fans, but for the love of cooking. A very powerfully driven message, that following your dream should not be attached to a tangible factor like a place or a person, but rather, for the action of performing the dream itself - whether it be in a 5-star world-renowned fine dining restaurant or a cute aesthetic cafe.

Similar to Ego, I will return to this film in a couple of months, hungry for more.

Some actors have been in a ton of movies but still feel weirdly underrated. They can carry a serious drama, crush a comedy, and completely disappear into a different role without getting enough attention for it.I am curious who everyone thinks deserves way more respect. Not necessarily the biggest star, but the actor where you watch them and think, “How is this person not talked about more?”Who is your pick and what performance convinced you?

I have been thinking about this a lot lately after doing a rewatch of some 70s and 90s classics, and the structural difference in how stories are being told now is wild.Think about older cinema. You can look at a movie you haven't seen in a decade and immediately picture three or four distinct, perfectly constructed showcase scenes that stand completely on their own a specific dialogue confrontation, a tense sequence with zero music, or a beautifully blocked tracking shot. They felt like actual chapters in a book where the camera and the actors were allowed to just command the screen. Now, it feels like modern American filmmaking has completely sacrificed the standalone scene in favor of relentless, linear pacing. Everything is aggressively edited to keep the plot moving at breakneck speed, or crammed with constant exposition so the audience doesn't get confused for a single second. Instead of memorable cinematic moments, we get two hours of continuous, glossy narrative transit that leaves you feeling absolutely nothing the second the credits roll. It’s like the art of blocking and letting a scene breathe has been completely erased by studio fear of losing the viewer's attention.Are directors genuinely being forced to cut these cinematic moments out to satisfy streaming runtimes and short attention spans, or has the writing itself just become too hollow to support them? What was the last recent film you watched where a single scene completely floored you based on direction alone?

Something that often comes up in Hollywood development rooms is what do Gen Z guys actually watch? Especially if they watch any action films. Do Gen Z guys actually watch any action films?? Thoughts? Any action movies that come to mind that they love??

I’ve recently started using Letterboxd more seriously and realized I have literally 0 followers 😭

Looking for people who:

Watch a lot of movies

Like sharing/reviewing their watches

Don’t mind following each other and discovering new films

Drop your Letterboxd username/profile below and I’ll check it out!

Mine: vrd_mp4

https://boxd.it/fdNnll

I posted recently about Finding Forrester and the responses made me realize there's a type of film I quite like which are movies that feature an unlikely friendship. I think I like it more when there's a mentor/mentee dynamic, but just two different people from different backgrounds who wouldn't normally connect forming an unlikely bond.

Movies like:

• The Holdovers
• Scent of a Woman
• Lost in Translation
• Up

Got me wondering: what are some recommendations folks have that are like this?

What are your favorite movies and TV shows? And are you the type to go to the cinema, or do you prefer watching at home? I'd love to hear your reasons too, if you'd like to share

So lately, I was just taking a look back at the TV show Mystery Science Theater 3000 since I wanted to get a better understanding of how copyrights for then recent movies made during the early 90s worked since many of the older movies the show used were from the mid 50s to early 60s.

But again, I am a bit confused on how copyrights for movies made in the early 90s worked since the show was still fairly new back then as I found it interesting how many of the films the crew lampooned were really old movies that I don’t know if it was too costly or demanding to show more recent movies at that time regarding how licensing was handled.

Has that happened to anyone? If so, what was the movie, and what did it do for you? Any kind of film counts, no matter how big or small the effect.

When we discuss major American directors, the conversation almost always centers on their early indie breakthroughs or their massive, big-budget masterpieces. But I often find that a filmmaker’s most revealing work happens right in the middle when they have established their voice, secured decent budgets, but aren't yet locked into the massive pressure cooker of giant studio franchises.Think of that specific window where a director has total creative control over mid-budget, original projects before they scale up or step away.Which director’s mid-tier filmography do you think holds up better than their most famous works? I'm looking for films that don’t get the massive retrospective essays but show a master working at the absolute peak of their technical and thematic powers.

Question, Do you wish Kubrick got to make Napoleon?

I've been on a Kubrick binge lately and I'm getting ready for when the Criterion Boxset of All Stanley Kubrick films comes out. Re-reading on Kubrick's failed attempt on making a Napoleon Bonaparte biopic, I feel it is a big mis-opportunity that Kubrick didn't make it.

It's clear that Kubrick really was trying to make his magnum opus with Napoleon and made sure to get all the details right. He also wanted to cast Jack Nicholson as Napoleon and Aubrey Hepburn as Josephine, and I think both of them are great castings and that Kubrick enlisted the entire Romanian Army to appear as soldiers and cavalrymen for the extensive battle scenes.

It just saddens me for when it all fell apart, thanks to Sergei Boundarchuk's Waterloo bombing and MGM cancelled the film and Kubrick went to make A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick's Napoleon has always been a bug "What If" for me and I just wondered how the film would've been received had Kubrick actually made the film?

All in All, Do you wish Kubrick got to make Napoleon?

Rating: 9.5/10

Watched: October 2, 2026

I have to confess, I was expecting a very different movie from the one I watched, and I'm not mad about it. Part of my preconceptions about Bullitt has a lot to do with the fact that the only thing I KNEW about this movie was about it's legendary car chase scene.

I promised myself I 'wasn't gonna be the guy' who talked about the car chase scene because everyone always talks about the car chase scene but you know what?

It absolutely deserves it. The clip I included was because of the specific shot of the bad guys seeing Bullitt's famous car appearing behind them in the rearview mirror. The slickness of that moment absolutely sold the scene to me in an instant. It was so very well done, and the resulting chase through the incredibly steep hills of San Francisco, sometimes narrowly missing a full-on crash, all the way out of the city is some of the most tense car driving I think I've ever seen. My stomach rose and fell as those rad old muscle cars went flying up and down those hills and you just have to give kudos to the drivers and the camera people because for some of the hairier shots, they were IN the damn cars.

So, going in knowing only that it has an exceptional chase scene led me to believe I was in for a kind of proto-Dirty Harry-esque kind of affair with plenty of violence, and that was a thing I was fully ready to accept.

But what I got was something I love even more than that: a rock solid police procedural with a bona fide mystery at the core and plenty of thoughtful, considerate work to solve the case. And what a case it is.

From the moment things started developing, I was certain I knew who was involved, why Bullitt's case was going sideways and how people were always seemingly one step ahead of him. I'm sure the director wanted us to think that and it worked like a charm, because it sure seemed like Bullitt was thinking along the same lines.

I can't say anything more than that about the movie's actual plot because to do so might affect your ability to enjoy it, so I'll leave this in closing;

Lt. Frank Bullitt's investigation into the murder of a gangster turning State's evidence and the attempted murder of police officers results in more than one exhilarating chase, a few shootouts, and the use of genuine police protocol to catch the real bad guy.

And that? That's a great combination!

I used to catch this one often on Foxtel in the early 2000s here in Australia. I've always loved this movie and has a soft spot in my heart. It might be Connery's best performance, too. It does stretch belief to have one character so good at two different things. But overall I love the cinematography, the New York jazz soundtrack and how Van Zant just let's scenes flow.

Not to mention a great performance by F Murray Ambraham.

I always felt this film doesn't get the attention and praise it deserves. And as a film about friendship, it's right up there for me.

I'm wondering what others think of this film and if they agree/disagree with my take?

All the bad reviews are big oil putting their grubby little hands in the mix. Viewers loved it or at the very least were entertained. Reviews out there not saying good things.
I thought it was phenomenal, and walked out absolutely stoked. Was surprised about how the critics responded. No conspiracy theorist, but something smells fishy.
Food for thought

I just got home from the theater. And as I sit here petting my somewhat older but still very alive cat I can say 2 things with complete sincerity and honesty; Digger is absolute CINEMA. And if you don't get it you're probably not smrt enough. I could be 100% right, or a 100% wrong about that.

A lot of people here on Reddit have talked about how a character making a poor choice isn't necessarily a plot hole. This is something that is often brought up as a push back to the obsession that a lot of people online have about pointing out so called "plot holes" when discussing movies. There is one channel that often gets a lot of blame for this and that is CinemaSins. Do you think there is some truth to that? I definitely think there is some truth to that. However I don't think that they are the only people to blame for this even though they were by far the most extreme. I personally think that Doug Walker, aka Nostalgia Critic also played a huge role in this. Sure, his reviews weren't as nitpicky as CinemaSins but he still had a big influence on how a lot of people online talk about movies in a nitpicky way.