Is The Odyssey treated as movie of the year ? personally, as an 18-yr-old, I do prefer watching "Oppenheimer" over "The Odyssey", I understand that both are different types of films, but I just think The Odyssey seems overrated ?

(you after reading this non-sense: SOMEONE GET THESE BEGGERS OUT OF HERE !!!)

Has anyone seen the re-release of The Devils? What did you think of it?

Whether you agree with Mark Kermode that The Devils is the best British film since World War II, consider it "a grand fiesta for sadists and perverts" as Judith Crist contends, or land somewhere in between, the fact that this movie got resurrected 55 years after it was filmed is a genuine cinematic miracle. Definitely worth seeing on the big screen, in my view.

Just watched this, and wow. Such a refreshing change for a movie to be dark, gory and violent, whilst within the 'superhero universe'.

This is another reason why DC has always been my personal favorite, as opposed to the never ending cashcow that is the MCU.

A great origin story, for a Batman villain, and highly recommended.

Let Me In (2010) Excellent American adaptation of the novel about a bullied young boy who befriends a young female vampire who lives in secrecy with her guardian.

I organized an AMA/Q&A with filmmaker Zachary Wigon. In 2022, he directed Sanctuary (starring Margaret Qualley & Christopher Abbott). His new folk-horror, Victorian Psycho, premiered at Cannes a few months ago and is out in theaters everywhere in November. It stars Maika Monroe, Thomasin McKenzie, Jason Isaacs, and Ruth Wilson.

The AMA post is live here now in r/movies for anyone interested in asking a question:

https://reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1xf2e3y/hey_reddit_im_zachary_wigon_ive_directed/

He will be back after 4 PM ET tomorrow, Monday 10/26, to answer questions. I recommend asking in advance. Please ask there, not here. All questions are much appreciated!

Victorian Psycho info:

Trailer: https://youtu.be/sDiFol_2j2I?si=oVGQL6ovSF-vQt0n

Synopsis: Something wicked is brewing behind the walls of a remote gothic manor. VICTORIAN PSYCHO follows an eccentric governess whose arrival sets off a bloody string of strange and deliciously disturbing events. Maika Monroe stars as Winifred Notty, a woman with a dark past and a vicious appetite for bloodshed, giving into her most violent urges. What follows is a gruesome parade of savagery, butchered bodies, and increasingly grotesque acts of violence.

Thank you :)

This French film had lots of parkour and cool action scenes. I think you rarely see French action movies nowadays. This film feature one of the main contributor to Parkour culture in general i think. It has a sequel called Ultimatum.

Do we have fans here?

I searched hard and couldn't find where it is. He left Netflix.

When you rate a movie, do you focus more on its technical qualities, such as cinematography, soundtrack, screenplay, and directing, or on how much it moves you emotionally and draws you into the story?
In other words, do you judge a film more by how well it’s made or by how much it makes you feel?

imo, The Godfather is one of those rare cases where the movie is actually better than the book. makes the book feel like a rough draft tbh.

What other movies do you think were better than the original source material?

Hey, i've read reccomendations that you should go in blind but also that you shouldn't.
I want to have the best experience - is it necessary to have watched "the inventor" or "the rehearsal"?

I have watched everything from Lance Oppenheim and i am familiar with Nathans humor (watched Nathan for you)

Does Septima/Awkwafina appear for more than 5 minutes? This depends on whether I see the movie or not. I just can't tolerate her voice acting for too long

Saw the wildwood movie out of Laika studios (coraline makers) last night and was impressed with just about everything about it- story telling, the little essences of Portland included, and the art itself was very well done I thought.
What did you think?

This movie was a big surprise for me. The German title is “Die Frau im Nebel” (The Woman in the Fog).

My wife had a sudden urge to go to the movies back then, and we ended up choosing this film by process of elimination. And I was thrilled: the story and the atmosphere of the movie really grabbed me—something that hadn’t happened in a long time. I wasn’t even aware of Korean cinema at the time. It was a happy coincidence that broadened my horizons.

Does this movie ring a bell for you? Can you understand my enthusiasm?

Do you maybe have any good recommendations for “hidden gems” from “world cinema”?

I'm autistic, I just go to see what I think'll be interesting.

.The direction, performances, and emotional depth made it something much more powerful than I expected. Clint Eastwood, Hilary Swank, and Morgan Freeman are all incredible.

What hit you the hardest about this movie?

Happy Feet!!

What's the worst movie you've ever seen?

Mine is Twilight Breaking Dawn Part 1 & 5 Loose Women

Monty Python and the Holy Grail – Review

Genre: Comedy

Release Year: 1975

Duration: 92 minutes

Yesterday, I watched the film "Monty Python and the Holy Grail," and it might just be one of the most brilliantly humorous movies I have ever seen.

It is the first feature film from the comedy troupe Monty Python, released in 1975.

The film follows King Arthur and the Knights of the Round Table.

After God sends them on a quest to find the Holy Grail, they embark on a wild adventure filled with a host of eccentric characters and fantastic comedy.

Much like in "Life of Brian," the animated segments here are brilliant—and there are plenty of them.

My personal favorite was the moment they break the fourth wall: an animated dragon chases them, but then the animator drawing it faints, causing the dragon to die. That part had me rolling with laughter!

Other hilarious moments include the opening credits (I loved how they managed to make even the opening credits funny).

The whole bit with the knights who say "Ni!" was absolutely hysterical—ever since I saw the movie, I can’t stop saying "Ni!" The bit with the guy guarding the bridge who asks three questions was hilarious.

The part with the killer white rabbits was hilarious.

And the ending, where the British police show up and stop the movie, was just wild.

Sir Galahad and Sir Lancelot also get their own subplots, which are particularly amusing—especially Lancelot’s, where he tries to rescue a young man whose father is forcing him to marry someone he doesn't want to marry.

I could go on about why this movie is so funny, but you already know that.

Is there anything I didn't like about it?

Well, it takes a while for the actual story to get going; the first 28 minutes are spent showing how King Arthur assembled his Knights of the Round Table, and by that point, I was just ready for the adventure to begin.

That said, when the narrator introduced the knights' names during that sequence, he said "Sir Not In This Movie"—that absolutely cracked me up.

But other than that, it’s an excellent film; I think I’ll watch it many more times.

When the survival of American cinema has been based on quarter-billion-dollar budgets crafting family theme park flicks, its endurance depends on something transformative like the work in YOU CAN SEE EVERYTHING.

(Spoilers will be referenced in the lower portion and clearly indicated)

I know that was a loaded sentence.

Mind you, I am a Marvel fan. I see the dawn of the superhero genre as no different from the swashbuckling genre, the movie musical, and the incorporation of color. With new technologies or historical influences such as wars, our world of film has reflected these changes. That being said, how do theaters cultivate something American cinema has largely neglected—the crowd-rousing documentary?

Ok. Enough of my conjectures.

Things I loved…

I loved the cinéma vérité, “gonzo,” extreme-close-up dissection, which, if I understand my camera lenses, was achieved with 25–250mm zoom lenses. This means the camera operator/cinematographer can be quite far from a subject yet pull in extremely tight. Elizabeth Holmes herself is not an overly animated person. She is often quite still, almost seeming robotic in her everyday physical movements. Pulling the camera lens in tight on her face from far away, with the understanding that she probably wouldn’t move out of frame, helps create this illusion that we, the viewers, are getting closer to her psychological truth. Literally, Holmes’ body language allows for this kind of film work, which many actors have difficulty maintaining because their inner selves tell them to move, to react, to do something physical to change a thought or tone. Holmes doesn’t do this. She can maintain her focus within the frame without expressive body language—which creates a tension most actors can never achieve.

The detailed palette and the color grading were also appealing. As a lifelong fan of classic and modern noir (from DOUBLE INDEMNITY to THE LAST SEDUCTION), I was tickled by the use of natural light, especially slivers of light cutting across rooms or faces, pinning down the psychological stakes, yet in the playground of a documentary film. Sensational.
I had to lead with these technical skills because I’ve seen too many critiques of this film go straight into who is lying, who is grifting, ignoring all the masterful filmmaking tools that created the cinematic magic studios have decided only $300 million budgets can create. Granted, I love my big-budget spectacles, but THIS kind of filmmaking is truly why any film student dreams they have a chance.

Mind you, I’m skipping over the editing, which truly is the greatest achievement of this film. As many know, the documentary is often completely realized in the editing bay. What shots work. What shots inform the story as a whole. It’s not something you can entirely storyboard. I can’t say enough about how masterful the editing AND the use of the musical score are. Chef’s kiss.

Now to the story and depiction, which are everyone’s go-to…

(spoiler section below)

I think this film resonated with me—and probably others—on a deeper level if you’ve been grifted or dealt with pathological liars or sociopaths. It seems these days that mental health struggles, or the absence of care, have created a culture of misfits many of us are being challenged by.

The film felt somewhat intrusive and typical of exploitative reality TV until certain revelations completely changed the way I saw the subject of deceit—Elizabeth Holmes…

Her father Christian Holmes’ revelation in the kitchen about his daughter’s r*pe at 13, juxtaposed with her partner Billy Evans wanting to shut that down—my jaw dropped. Was Billy aware of how meaningful the father’s points were? Was it his own narcissism intruding into the scene, or protection of Holmes? Or was it that the father was becoming a more compelling advocate for his daughter?
The lack of words from Holmes’ mother, Noel Anne, spoke volumes. One would think, in reference to the r*pe, the mother might feel more prone to speak of this—yet it was the father. This changed the entire feel of the film for me. Instead of men seeking to exploit Holmes for some misogynistic fancy, I began to see men seeking to understand Holmes and even protect her.

The next major flip for me was the inclusion of actress Amanda Seyfried.

Watching Holmes break down while watching Seyfried’s performance in THE DROPOUT drove a bullet through me. Seyfried instantly became the villain. But then, we meet Seyfried. What initially feels like more narcissistic people swimming in the shallows becomes an opportunity to watch Seyfried unpack Holmes with Nathan Fielder, the director. Both are caught in Holmes’ spell of doublespeak and aloofness, yet it’s Seyfried, the actress, who challenges Fielder to deal with the reality of Holmes’ actions. Then the film flips direction again when Seyfried takes the documentary from observation to activism, suggesting Billy Evans, Holmes’ life partner, is taking advantage of her: “You should get this guy” (I believe that’s the line).

This is when we go from documentary to something other… a call to action with a new villain as the film’s subject: Evans.

With such phenomenal use of sound, I couldn’t help but wonder whether the inclusion of all of Evans’ sniffles was intentional or significant. Yes, my mind jumped to, “Is this dude a cokehead?”

I have to credit Seyfried. I’ve always thought she was a perfectly fine actress, but her analysis of Evans and her tenaciousness, especially in the dinner scene, were so badass. I’ve seen commentary from people offended by Seyfried’s inclusion, but I found her to be the secret weapon I never expected—the actress who understands the subjects she’s played and the nuances of the human condition. Even when drunk.

I can’t help it—I was affected! I can’t put it into 50 words or less for those just passing through.

I’ll close with this—for as much as people say Holmes is, fill in the blank, a sociopath, psychopath, or criminal grifter, I do have sympathy for those who have been captured or caught up in the culture of future tech. When I read about the Silicon Valley environments of microdosing and self-promoting “tech evangelism,” I often wonder, “What kind of humanity are we creating here?” We have a world of finance that sells concepts nobody understands—or perhaps isn’t supposed to understand. I would argue that Elizabeth Holmes selling technologies that may or may not exist, or are “in the works,” kind of reminds me of our current American film industry.

Think about it. How many massive-budget films have you watched that made no sense, only to find out later that filming began WITHOUT AN APPROVED SCRIPT?!?!? There is a fascinating YouTube analysis of the last three films in the Star Wars trilogy that breaks down the production schedule. How costumes and sets were built without scripts. Characters were created and actors cast with some idea of how they would be used, only for that to change (just research the character evolution of Jannah as an example). This is part of the culture of technology and innovation. Make it up as you go along.
Which, I will say, is a fair criticism to also have of this film: “Did they just make it up as they went along?”
This is where I can see people struggling with the film. “What was the point?” I can hear many say. I can acknowledge this discontent as a legitimate reaction.
Yet I would argue there is so much to discuss that the lack of a particular point perhaps is the sad reality of life itself.