…not much? I caught this at this weeks screen unseen and enjoyed it as spectacle. The vibes are on point, but as for a deeper theme/ message…I’m left without explanation.

3.5/5 stars.

My full review here

I've been thinking about something I keep noticing in films centered on young women: so many of them are structured around labyrinths.

Not necessarily literal mazes, but confusing spaces that the protagonist has to navigate alone. Coraline, Pan's Labyrinth, Alice in Wonderland, even Spirited Away all place their main characters in worlds governed by unfamiliar rules, where there's no reliable adult to guide them.

It made me wonder if the labyrinth isn't just a fantasy setting, but a metaphor for adolescence itself. Growing up often means moving through a space where nothing makes complete sense yet, identity is constantly shifting, and every decision feels like a test.

The connection became even more interesting when I started thinking about the Greek myth of the Labyrinth. Traditionally, it's a story about entering a place designed to trap you and emerging transformed—if you manage to find your way out. Many coming-of-age stories seem to adapt this same structure, but instead of slaying a monster, the challenge becomes psychological: fear, isolation, grief, or discovering who you are.

Do you think this pattern is intentional? Are there other films centered on female protagonists that fit this "labyrinth" structure?

There are plenty of films that are technically "perfect" :- the pacing is tight, the script is solid, and they hit all the right structural beats. But sometimes, those movies end up feeling a bit sterile or forgettable.

Then there are the massive, glorious misfires. These are the movies where a director was given a huge budget and swung for the fences.

Maybe the tone is all over the place, the runtime is bloated, or the third act completely falls apart. But the sheer ambition, the unique visuals, and the crazy ideas make you love the film despite its obvious flaws.

What is the ultimate "flawed masterpiece" for you? Which movie do you defend to the death just because of how incredibly bold it was?

So basically I was just looking for some good sci fi comedies with some really strong writing aspects because I just saw a review of Leonard Part 6 as the movie was one of the worst comedy movies I have seen.

Like when I look at some of the dialogue in the movie, I have to question who the movie was made for because it's hard to explain as the movie feels cheesy, but in all the wrong ways possible since while I enjoy campy movies sometimes, Leonard Part 6 just felt kind of awkward to watch.

Obviously Shawshank is first on the mind, as well as Girl Interupted, One Flew over the cookoos nest, and American History x. I just love the drama of being in an environment like this.

With all the talk about the Odyssey this week, I've seen people saying they drove over an hour to get an actual 70mm print instead of settling for the closer digital IMAX. Made me realize I don't actually have a consistent rule for this myself... Sometimes I'll go out of my way for the "real" version of a format, other times I just pick whatever's closest and call it good enough!

Ever since I started working at Fever Movies and using it alongside the individual theater apps, I've noticed myself picking format first and letting the theater be secondary, since it's easier to see what's playing where in one place. But I still don't have an actual rule for how much extra travel a format upgrade is worth.

Curious how everyone else decides: Do you have a hierarchy (like: true 70mm > digital IMAX > premium large format > standard), or does it come down to whichever theater is closest/cheapest that week? And has the recent premium-format price creep changed how picky you are about it?

Yes, the armours are not golden. Yes, the actors speak in modern American language. Yes, Helen of Troy does not align with the Eurocentric vision of the character that we might expect. And if all of these things are changed, you would end up with a more faithful adaptation. And I would argue you would end up with a much worse film.

The alternative would’ve been to do what Zack Snyder did with Watchmen: create a faithful adaptation. But in doing so, Snyder created an incredibly soulless version of Watchmen: an imitation, not an adaptation. He brought the images to life, but failed to interpret them and make them his own. Nolan’s movie, on the other hand, feels like it has a unique perspective, love it or hate it. This is not The Odyssey, this is Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey.

Since the movie was released, there have been numerous attempts (from haters) to create their own AI versions of The Odyssey. In doing so, they’re only proving what makes Nolan’s film so valuable. Because an AI would’ve never told Nolan to cast Travis Scott as a bard, or Lupita Nyong’o as Helen. These are off-kilter choices that Nolan made himself, and the movie is all the more interesting and human because of it. Does a movie like this prove why unfaithful adaptations are better? I believe so.

Here is my full review of the movie, for anyone who is curious.

What are two films with zero official connection, released in totally different eras or genres, that hit the exact same plot beats, where one plays the premise as a comedy/romance and the other plays it as a thriller or tragedy?

Los Mufas: Suerte para la desgracia

Una serie argentina creada por DisneyPlus donde Roque, un periodista de lo paranormal se une a Vicente, el “mufa” por exelencia. Ellos traman una investigación sobre la mala suerte. Un empresario mediático dueño del lugar de trabajo del protagonista lucha en contra de la verdad.

Dejen sus comentarios si la vieron

saludos!

What are some films where music is a prominent thematic and discussed element? I don’t mean movies with just a great soundtrack but movies where it’s critical to the characters and story, bonus points if the characters engage in discourse over it. Two examples that I can think of are High Fidelity and Empire Records.

any others?

What movies belong between Bottle Rocket (1996) and Brainscan (1994)?

What should I add to my collection?

Now when I say pushing the limits of their age rating it can be anything from violence, sex, nudity, swearing, emotionally strong scenes in kids movies etc. Are there any examples of scenes from movies were you felt amazed that they didn't receive an R rating? One that really stands out that many other people have pointed out is the fact that Titanic didn't get an R rating despite the fact that Kate Winslet showed a lot of her naked body during the drawing scene. I personally don't think that scene was R rated material in any way but it's kind of surprising that it didn't lead to that considering that nudity was and still remains a very tabo subject in the US.

When it comes to emotionally strong scenes in kids movies there is of course the death scene from The Lion King which actually shows one of the mains characters dead bodies in a G rated movie which is kind of mindblowing when you think about it since movies like Moana and Tangled were rated PG despite the fact that there is nothing that comes close to that scene.

So I’m a casual movie fan but can appreciate the classics, hard not to love Cool Hand Luke, All The Presidents Men, and some good indie movies, but once in a while I’ll watch the classics and just don’t agree or maybe don’t get it, example I hate Vertigo like hate it, but rear window i really enjoy, and recently Midnight Cowboy was the same, I like the gritty unique story, people on the fringes, but it just didn’t land, the story is kind of all over, good acting by Hoffman being a cripple street hustler I guess but found their story lacking as far as connection as friends, more seamed like Jon V dealing with childhood abuse and trauma, I’m not saying it was bad but not sure the ground breaking film as I remember being talked about by critics, love to hear the opposing view.

Hear me out.

Ever since I rewatched both movies, I haven’t been able to get this comparison out of my head.

I know they’re completely different genres. One’s a dark drama, the other’s a romantic comedy.

But I don’t think genre matters here.

I think they’re asking almost the exact same question:

What happens when a middle-aged man realizes he’s spent years living someone else’s life?

Both movies start with a guy who’s completely lost himself.

They’re emotionally disconnected from their wives.

They’re distant from their kids.

They’re stuck in comfortable suburban lives that secretly make them miserable.

They’re not really living anymore.

Then both movies introduce someone who completely changes their direction.

For Cal, it’s Jacob.

For Lester, it’s a mix of Angela and Ricky. Angela wakes something up in him, but Ricky is the one who ultimately changes how he sees life.

Then the same transformation begins.

Both men stop caring what people think.

They start taking care of themselves.

They become more confident.

They finally stand up for themselves.

They try to become the person they feel they used to be.

At first, both movies almost trick you into thinking this is about getting younger, looking better, or attracting women again.

But by the end, neither movie is really about that.

They’re about rediscovering who you are.

The wives also feel surprisingly similar.

Both marriages were basically over before the movies even started.

Both wives cheat on their husbands with men who are more successful and have higher social status.

Both families look like the perfect suburban family from the outside while everything is quietly falling apart.

Even the climaxes feel weirdly similar.

Both build toward chaos because of a false assumption involving the main character and someone they supposedly had sex with.

In Crazy, Stupid, Love, David thinks Cal slept with his daughter.

In American Beauty, Colonel Fitts convinces himself Lester is sleeping with Ricky.

Then comes the biggest difference.

The movies split apart.

American Beauty says that sometimes people realize what truly matters only when it’s already too late.

Crazy, Stupid, Love says maybe it isn’t too late.

One ends in tragedy.

The other ends in forgiveness.

One ends with death.

The other ends with a second chance.

That’s why I honestly can’t stop thinking about Crazy, Stupid, Love as the happy ending version of American Beauty.

I’m not saying they’re the same movie.

I’m saying they feel like two different answers to the exact same question.

Am I completely overthinking this, or has anyone else ever noticed these similarities?

When we look back at films like Hellboy II or the early Spider-Man trilogy, what makes them so relentlessly re-watchable isn't just the action........it’s the fact that the director's very specific, highly stylized fingerprints are all over them.

You can pause almost any frame and know exactly whose vision you are looking at.

Today, massive cinematic universes have largely adopted a uniform "house style." Everything is visually polished to look identical so that it fits neatly into a continuity timeline.

It feels like the only places we still see distinct, uncompromising, and grounded tonal visions in this genre are in serialized formats :- like the brutal, street-level atmosphere of Daredevil or the sharp, visceral edge of The Boys. But in major theatrical blockbusters, that highly stylized, director-first flavor seems completely lost.

I’m curious what everyone else considers the absolute peak of "director-driven" comic book movies. What is a film from that era where the director's unique stylistic vision was the main selling point, and do you think studios will ever return to that riskier style of filmmaking?

Any movie, any genre. Which supporting actor in which movie do you think completely stole the show.

For me, John C. Reilly in Stepbrothers was a complete scene-stealer. Totally made the movie for me.

I've been thinking about Black Panther, and I keep coming back to a question.
What if Wakanda isn't just a celebration of Africa, but also a eulogy for futures that many African nations were never allowed to have because of colonialism and external interference?
To me, Wakanda feels less like a reflection of Africa as it is today and more like a lament for what parts of the continent might have become under different historical circumstances. It's a vision of possibility that history denied.
At the same time, I find myself conflicted. Wakanda is often treated as a symbol of Africa, yet it's still one fictional nation with one dominant culture. It draws inspiration from cultures across the continent, but I sometimes wonder whether that unintentionally compresses one of the most culturally diverse places on Earth into a single image of "Africa."
We wouldn't expect one fictional country to represent all of Europe or all of Asia, so why are we often comfortable letting Wakanda stand in for an entire continent?
This isn't a criticism of Black Panther. I actually think it's one of Marvel's most thought-provoking films precisely because it raises questions like these.
Do you see Wakanda primarily as a celebration of African possibility, or can it also be read as mourning futures that history never allowed to unfold?

We all have that one flawed film that critically gets dragged or has a terrible Rotten Tomatoes score, but we will still go to bat for it. What is your ultimate guilty-pleasure movie that you know has structural issues, but you love it anyway?

Rewatching First Blood tonight and everytime I watch it I realize how often it actually makes me laugh out loud. It’s a pretty straightforward action movie but I find it hilarious when:

Rambo is escaping jail and double kicks the Sheriff and he falls over and his gun going off.

Galt trying to shoot him in broad daylight on the street.

The whole sequence where he’s taking down the Sheriff’s in the forest and they’re all incompetent whiners that make terrible decisions always makes me laugh.

The sequence with the National Guard is the same, hilarious.

Even the truck sequence has amusing moments.

But if you had to place First Blood in a genre it def would be action. None of the rest of the Rambo movies showed the same level of humour.

What are some of your favourite non comedy comedies.

Opens 9/25 in NY and 10/2 in LA with expansion across the country to follow. Looks interesting to me!

TRAILER

I just watched Predestination and I understand the time loop concept, but I really disliked the premise itself. My issue isn't that I don't understand that the character is technically the same person at different points in time, my issue is that the movie seems to require more than just time travel to work. If the only changed rule is "time travel exists," then normal biology and causality should still apply. A person giving birth creates a new biological individual, not themselves. The movie treats the child as somehow being the exact same person, but that feels like it requires an additional rule where reproduction/identity works differently, which the movie never establishes. Because of that, the entire paradox felt forced to me. I understand the philosophical idea of a person with no origin, but I couldn't get past the fact that the mechanism creating that loop doesn't seem plausible even within the movie's own setup. The incest aspect also made it feel more disturbing than profound to me. So gross and disturbing! I know a lot of people love it as a mind-bending time travel story, but for me it was a laughably bad film where the twist only works if you accept a rule the movie never really explains. It’s not genetically possible despite the time travel loop aspect! The child is a new soul and being itself, not her. You would also expect the incest to have severe consequences for the child, not just being intersex.

I think he might be my new fav actor now that PSH is gone... ive seen lots of movies with Joaquin and I think my favourite is either The Joker, or The Master. But I also loved Beau is Afraid. Im talking the movies themselves as well as his amazing acting.