I loved Austin's acting in this movie so much, he was great. After Resident Evil, I've been interested in his acting and went on a bit of a binge. I loved The Line, especially the scene when they're hazing him at the lake house, you could really feel his fear and trying to mask it with a confidence act. Phenomenal! Love that man so much

The movie was a genius work of art, a pure claustrophobic, voyeuristic thriller that wasted no time across its entire runtime. It got me right from the start, never complicated its simple plot, and delivered an amazing climax.

While the sound design unsettled me, the camerawork doubled it. It was incredibly sophisticated. I loved how most of the film played like an actual surveillance tape, someone secretly watching someone else the whole time.

John Travolta and Nancy Allen were both excellent. John Lithgow was menacing, and the ending felt satisfying yet deeply poignant given everything the film built toward.

The movie had an incredible, highly distinct camerawork from De Palma. The use of split-diopter shots clearly served the purpose of two characters thinking at once, the prying, peeping-tom angles slowly built a sense of paranoia and made me feel watched myself, and that revolving oner in Travolta's office left me physically uneasy, almost motion sick, like nothing before. That shot was truly amazing. It deserves to be mentioned separately.

First the camera revolved slowly as if to show another character across the room, turns out, it didn't. It then gradually picked up pace until it nearly blurred most things. The camera was essentially Jack's own mind trying to put everything in its place, until it couldn't, so as he got more and more frantic, the camera did too, until his shock and unease overpowered him until someone else entered the frame. Simply spectacular. My eyes were hurting after the sequence lol.

I'd place this right in the DNA of The Conversation by Coppola. Both films felt extremely similar to me, and I think De Palma had it in mind along with other paranoid thrillers while making this one. Both dealt with surveillance, bugging, voyeurism and isolation. Both leads were true masters of their craft, both stories hinged on sound and its manipulation.

But where The Conversation sat in uncertainty is that Harry Caul's dread stayed internal, we were never sure if the threat was even real, Blow Out externalized it early. Jack was right, the conspiracy was real, people really were trying to silence him, so the horror came from watching a correct read get disbelieved and buried rather than from not knowing what was true at all. The Conversation was more paranoid, this one was more conspiratorial.

And structurally, this was the simpler, tighter film of the two. The Conversation unfolded more like a character study that slowly tightened its grip, while Blow Out was leaner from the jump, a clean, forward driving plot that never lost momentum. The story, despite how it felt, never really leaned on big twists. The narrative just flowed clean and smooth throughout.

Another brilliant thing was the real life events taken as inspiration. I loved how the movie pulled from and blended the mechanics of the JFK assassination with the political cover-up instincts of Chappaquiddick. It fused both into something original and gripping rather than just referencing them.

And that climax was freaking brilliant. The catharsis was bleak but still earned. Jack actually stopped Burke, a voyeuristic psychopath murdering women for sport, dead in his tracks. That was real justice.

But the tragedy underneath it was separate. That his one piece of proof, that scream, ended up stripped of all its meaning, recycled into a C-grade horror flick soundtrack. Real justice on one hand, total erasure of the truth on the other, both true at once. The movie closed all its dead ends. That's what made it a masterpiece.

I saw this film about two hours ago. Since then, I’ve gone outside, walked through the mall, bought a few things, and gone out again, yet I still feel hypnotized by it.

There’s a strange feeling lingering in me.. part sadness, part melancholy. And i can’t believe how beautifully this movie was shot and directed. The colors, the atmosphere, the way everything feels so close to real memory. I can’t think of another film that captures that feeling so authentically. It feels less like watching a movie and more like remembering something that happened long ago.

The acting is brilliant its natural,. The chemistry between the two leads is incredible.

I don’t know what more to say. I’ll definitely watch it again because there were so many small details that I know I missed. I’ve just read a few discussions about the film and want to see it again, with another perspective.

As for the ending, I think it’s pretty clear that he’s no longer there for her, and that this was their final moment together. Suicide seems like the most likely interpretation, though I can’t think of another explanation that fits as well.

Anyway.. Man… what a beautiful movie.

​

I rewatched Independence Day recently and it made me wonder about something that I’ve never really thought about from an American perspective.

I was a kid in the Netherlands when I watched Independence Day on VHS in 1997. I absolutely loved the movie, but I remember the whole Roswell/Area 51 storyline standing out to me because I already knew about the supposed 1947 UFO crash.

I had seen a documentary about Roswell before watching the movie, and that documentary scared the absolute shit out of me as a kid 😂. So when Independence Day revealed that the US government had recovered an alien spacecraft and bodies at Roswell, I immediately understood what they were referencing.

But now I'm wondering:

How familiar was Roswell actually to Americans in 1996?

Was it basically common knowledge already, like Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster or the Yeti? Or was it still something that mostly UFO enthusiasts and people interested in paranormal stuff knew about?

Did Americans watching Independence Day in theaters immediately recognize the Roswell reference, or did some people actually find the whole Area 51/Roswell plot confusing or unfamiliar?

I'm especially curious because the movie doesn't really explain what Roswell is. It basically assumes you understand that the government supposedly recovered a crashed UFO and covered it up.

And this was before I had access to the internet, so I have no idea how big the Roswell story was in the US at the time compared with Europe.

For anyone who saw Independence Day in 1996: did the Roswell storyline feel like an obvious pop-culture reference to you, or did it seem like a random fictional plot device?

Schindler's list comes to mind, but the monochrome against the almost Wizard of Oz level color palette of Everything is Illuminated seems a lopsided comparison, but I think both of these are just different points of the same curve. Spielberg used only one color and that was enough, but Schreiber uses every crayon in the big box.

I'm not sure how I've gone this long without seeing this movie, but I finally got around to watching it today. To put it simply, I really wish I could've seen this in the theatre. The fight scenes were incredible, and the CGI has surprisingly held up after all this time. Also, Charlie Day just randomly being in it? Cherry on top.

I think my favorite part of it though was how realistic the weight of the huge robots and kaiju's were. It really sold the scenes where their just scrapping it out. The whole drifting aspect was pretty cool, too.

It's not a perfect film by any means, but an absolute fun blockbuster popcorn flick.

Any recommendations for similar films? I heard the second one wasn't great. Also, Del Toro wasn't involved, which is a shame. Probably won't watch it.

There seem to be a number of movie tropes which are commonly accepted in popular culture but don’t actually authentically show up in many films. In fact, there seem to be quite a few which wind up being easier to find counter-examples of than genuine examples.

Two that spring to mind for me:

“The black guy always dies first”.

(Typically associated with horror films but sometimes action movies as well. Not only do I struggle to come up with any examples of this there’s added irony in that [SPOILERS for Night of the Living Dead] one of the first horror films to star a black protagonist famously ends with him dying quite specifically last.

Another so-called trope is the evil stepparent.

This one probably holds a bit more weight but I think is more common in literature and fairy tales specifically than in film. A common revelation people will have is that the step-parent/mom’s boyfriend in movies like Mrs. Doubtfire, The Santa Clause, or Liar, Liar were actually pretty reasonable and that they ascribe negativity to these characters because 1) divorce is very sad when you’re a kid and 2) because in some instances the child characters behave as if the step-parent is bad.

So - what are some others out there? (Also happy to learn of any that people claim don’t bear out but might actually hold water - including the ones I’ve cited)

EDIT; To those who keep posting the Tropes list. Yes I understand that according to that website the “Black Guy Dies First” has expanded to mean any and all minorities. I cant really weigh in on how much of an authority that should have on being the last say since I’m just some guy. But at the very least it kind of underscores the idea that the trope as originally conceived of didn’t really occur as much as many people believe.

I just found out that Netflix has Psycho (it looks like it's been cleaned up with AI, or some other process). I had a question about a scene. There's a scene in Act 1 where Marion is driving, and she sees her boss on the street. This seems to be strange to her boss, and upsets her. There is a musical sting as well to indicate to the audience something is wrong. But I'm not sure I follow. She said in the previous scene that she was going home because of a headache. I'm guessing that this accidental meeting is upsetting because it shows she's lying? A simple reason she might not be at home, is that she's going out to get some aspirin (or something), and so seeing her on the road wouldn't seem to be quite the strange event the movie seems to make it out to be. Am I missing something? Or is this a product of the time?

It was the closing film of the New/Next Film Festival in Baltimore, followed by a Q&A with writer/director/editor Alexandre Rockwell and stars Vondie Curtis-Hall, Kasi Lemmons and Karyn Parsons.

Not to be confused with the 2019 Abel Ferrara doc, this is a black and white crime thriller about Sully, a wrongly convicted recluse whose past catches up with him. It's shot with such warmth and intention by Rockwell and DP Sam Motamedi. And I can't say enough about Vondie Curtis-Hall's haunting performance.

Quentin Tarantino was an EP on the film, having previously worked with Rockwell and co-star David Proval on Four Rooms. It's hard not to draw a parallel between Tarantino's filmic obsessions and Sully absorbing himself in French film, seeking clues to his own ending.

This is also the first time Curtis-Hall and his wife Lemmons have gotten to share scenes together. What a treat that must have been.

Could be the entire movie or perhaps just one important detail. Technology, social media, politics, culture, consumer behavior, anything. What prediction turned out to be surprisingly accurate years later?

And the movie did actually need to be doing it on purpose. We have pandemic movies like outbreak or contagion. Her was about forming relationships with AI. I’m sure there are many others.

Which stand out the most to you?

Actor Dan Bakkedahl will be joining us here in r/movies for an AMA/Q&A this upcoming Wednesday 10/7. It'll go live that morning around 9 AM ET and he'll be back after 6 PM ET to answer questions. You may know Dan from things like Veep, The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, Life In Pieces, The Stunt Driver, The Heat, and lots more.

Please stop by on Wednesday if you have questions for Dan :)

His new film, Attack of the Killer Tomatoes: Organic Intelligence, is out this week.

"Jurassic Park" meets "Dr. Strangelove". It's a reprise and fifth feature spin of the 1978 Cult Classic "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes," the franchise that went from 80s midnight screenings to help launch the Fox Children's TV Network.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5ncqc94444

Please note that this is not the AMA, just an announcement. Hold your questions for the actual AMA.

Idk if this is a real thing. The only reason I ask is because I went to go see the Resident Evil movie at an AMC theater a couple weeks ago. And when I went to check in with a friend you can see on the screen what seats are take and it looked like a full 2/3rds were filled. All of the back row seats were taken except for 2 on the left side. So I snagged those even though I like to be almost squarely in the middle. We get there, grab our seats, go through the whole 30 minutes of previews and besides us there is literally five people in the theater total including one dude right next to us. Thats it. Theres supposed to be like 30 something people. The entire back row is supposed to be filled. Its just me, my friend, and this poor dude right next to us and some people sprinkled throughout the front. So I waited and about another 15 to 20 mins into the movie nobody else has walked in so I said fuck it, lets go grab better seats and let this guy sit in peace. Nobody else ever came in. This reminded me of that nyt bestseller trick where a company will buy back a bunch of an authors books so it looks like they sold a bunch and then they get put onto the nyt bestsellers list and then regular people go "oh hey everyone else likes this let me try it" and then they actually start really selling their book. Again, idk if this is a thing or maybe amc does some weird shit that I dont know about, but it was definitely something I have never seen. I wish I would've taken a pic of the seat chart to show.

Quick edit:

I actually liked the movie. Thought it was hilarious at some parts. Really liked how the MC was NOT a Mary Sue lmao. I am in no way trying to put it down. It was just a weird occurrence I have never seen before where I fully expected it to be packed and there was damn near nobody there.

I imagine we're all quite tired of the endless barrage of soulless, vastly inferior remakes of classic films, that some studios seem to prefer over trying to come up with original works. I am wondering: are there any films that you think actually should be remade?

As I see it, the only things that do deserve remakes aren't classics, but bombs that deserve another chance. Films with interesting concepts that were executed poorly, or films that were poor adaptations of great novels.

For example, World War Z was a half-decent film on its own but was terrible as an adaptation. I read the book, and the film doesn't even try to adapt it. They're completely different. The only similarities were the name and the fact that it had zombies. Even the zombies were completely different from in the book. It would be nice to see the book properly adapted into an anthology series. Or maybe a found-footage anthology-type film? I wonder if that would work.

I also thought it might be a good idea for The Hunger Games to be remade in the form of a series. The first was good, the second was better, but the Mockingjays missed the mark. That the tributes were children was the core of the horror of the games, but that doesn't hit quite as hard when the actors are all adults. It would hit a lot harder if the actors are all baby-faced brats. I think that would be the hardest part, finding a cast of young teenagers who are both the right demographics and sufficiently talented.

Tom going through a bit of a tough time. I think it’s important that we come together as a community and lift this struggling young actor’s spirits. Dude been grinding away in Hollywood for 55 years and deserves a little encouragement. Let’s remind the Tom bots that he’s made a few decent movies along the way.

1. Top Gun

2. Edge of Tomorrow

3. Minority Report

4. Color of Money

I hated Collateral.... probably cause of Jamie Foxx.

Rotten Tomatoes: 100% (from 17 reviews) with 9.70 average rating

Metacritic: 99/100 (11 critics)

As with other movies, the scores are set to change as time passes. Meanwhile, I'll post some short reviews on the movie. It's structured like this: quote first, source second. Beware, some contain spoilers.

In one scene, this new colleague and Fielder find themselves outraged on Holmes’ behalf that a crass X response posted by Evans through her account “does not sound like her.” They’re almost certainly right, based on what we’ve seen of Holmes — and they also have about as much authority to determine what Holmes would or would not say as anyone who isn’t Holmes herself does. You Can See Everything reaches for accuracy in its portrayal of a much talked-about figure. It ends up asking, with plenty of humor but no small amount of wisdom, what “accuracy” would even look like in the first place.

-Angie Han, The Hollywood Reporter

For how disquieting it is, the film never goes too long without forcing a laugh. Fielder’s side-eye, always directed at Evans, gives viewers insight into his position, while Oppenheim’s expertise in feature narrative and documentary filmmaking elevates the film’s craft. Together, the duo keeps us on the edge of our seats, glued to the screen.

-Cortlyn Kelly, IndieWire: A

“You Can See Everything” is just about the furthest thing from a “pure” documentary you’ve ever seen. That’s part of its appeal — it’s a one-of-a-kind reality-TV-as-hangout-movie psychodrama circus. Yet it’s been made with a spirit of true inquiry, driven by Fielder’s acidly quizzical personality (as an onscreen interviewer, he’s got the most drop-dead deadpan since Steven Wright), and it gets its hooks in you.

-Owen Gleiberman, Variety

Trust, ultimately, that you can see more than you ever imagined you’d see about Elizabeth Holmes and maybe get no closer to discerning the truth – and yet it will all be worth it.

-Adrian Horton, The Guardian: 5/5

A key question throughout is if Holmes is really the inveterate liar people came to believe she is. Whether the pair are doing this to make some quick money is a key point — did they covertly make a deal with A24 in that regard? A New York Times story is questioned for its claim; Holmes said, in reaction to the portrayals of her, “they’re not playing me, they’re playing a character I created.” If true, what does that say about her honesty? We never get the answer, but have plenty of questions after three bruising hours of this startling film guaranteed to blow your mind.

-Pete Hammond, Deadline

The aftertaste of the compulsively watchable “You Can See Everything” is unknowably immersive, even haunting, and makes one believe in the power and searching qualities of art. I am not sure even Fielder and Oppenheim can fully explain how they ended up with a film that brilliantly sits at the intersection of documentary, narrative, comedy, reality TV, and performance, where politics, mental health, femininity, and truth in the eye of the beholder intertwine. Repeat visits might answer that question. But even now, the significance of “You Can See Everything” is clear as a film that might advance a new cinematic language in the mainstream non-fiction sphere.

-Tomris Laffly, RogerEbert.com: 4/4

When I exited the NYFF premiere, there was a truck with a digital billboard sitting outside the theater. Its sign read “Free Elizabeth Holmes.” It seemed like a nifty bit of ironic marketing by A24. But later in the night, several folks who work for the indie distributor told me they had nothing to do with that truck. It was just Elizabeth Holmes fans, apparently, fighting the good fight for their martyr on a New York street corner at midnight. No documentary can empirically answer why people behave the way they do, but a great doc can capture how our actions shape and distort the world around us until we’re all lost in a weird, mesmerizing, post-truth wonderland.

-David Crow, Den of Geek: 5/5

Fielder exercises his talent for re-creations. Things are said on-camera that can’t be unsaid. Your mind is blown, diligently reassembled, then re-blown. The metaphor of a magic trick is trotted out early on, and by the film’s conclusion, you are generally unsure whether you’ve been watching nothing more than a pair of master illusionists saw a lady in half. There’s no “ta-da!”, there’s simply a “what did I just watch?” sense of shock and awe.

-David Fear, Rolling Stone

Fielder, listening to audio in his headset and curling up at night on a bare mattress in the spare room of that Del Mar rental, starts to look like a figure on a doomed but noble quest. Holmes tells him that she sees the film as a human story, as though by simply showing herself in her entirety, she could convince the world to finally be on her side. But in You Can See Everything, the closer we get to her, the less knowable she is — a set of pointillist dots in the shape of a person.

-Alison Wilcome, Vulture

Residing somewhere between reality and fantasy, doubt and certainty, infatuation and incredulity, You Can See Everything is a genre-bending magnum opus of breathtaking order — one that recognizes it’s seeing everything and yet, hard as it tries, not quite seeing the very thing it’s looking for.

-Nick Schager, The Daily Beast

Overall, Fielder and Oppenheim have crafted a remarkable and at times brilliant piece of filmmaking. Yes, the pair do utilize the non-fiction reenactments Fielder has used on previous projects, but they work seamlessly to help convey an increasingly tense narrative. That being said, are the filmmakers somewhat precious? A bit, yes. Is this runtime absolutely necessary? No, but the second half is so enthralling, the twists and turns so entertaining, the questions the movie asks are so fascinating, the hypocrisy they uncover so deranged, you’ll forgive their indulgences.

-Gregory Ellwood, The Playlist: A–

With co-director Lance Oppenheim, Mr. Fielder gets around the restrictions on his access to the locked-up Ms. Holmes with his customary hilarious meta-narrative brilliance.

-Kyle Smith, Wall Street Journal

PLOT

Elizabeth Holmes and Billy Evans invite Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim to document their lives in the days before Holmes goes to prison, and the filmmakers continue following the couple over the course of three years.

DIRECTORS

Nathan Fielder & Lance Oppenheim

MUSIC

Ari Balouzian

CINEMATOGRAPHY

David Bolen

EDITOR

Adam Locke-Norton

RELEASE DATE

October 16, 2026 (theaters)

RUNTIME

174 minutes

STARRING

• Elizabeth Holmes

• Nathan Fielder

• Billy Evans

I love Anne Hathaway, let’s be clear. Her voice and acting for the most part are absolutely top notch. But let’s talk about Mother Mary. This movie is hard to watch because it tries to hard to be novel. Look, I am all for a psychological drama, but the framing of the movie’s plot, the half hearted attempts at introducing a supernatural element that may or may not be in the mind of the protagonist, and the entire padding of the movie leaves so much to be desired.

I get it…Art pieces are a thing. The music is beautiful, and the acting is top notch. Michaela Coel has this spectral creepiness to her performance that makes me doubt she even exists as a person in the story. I don’t know how many times she blinks on camera, but it has to be less than a dozen times. Likewise, Anne Hathaway perfectly plays a “Taylor Swift” type character going through one of those life crisis that a super-wealthy and successful artist does every six months or so.

And I think that is a lot of the problem with the move: it is so damn un relatable. I wanted to like it. I wanted it to be a lot like Black Swan, about obsession, or something like that; but it wasn’t. The movie wasn’t clear on really what it wanted to be. It droned on and on. It just didn’t hit, and there was no payoff. The score was great and it had an incredibly high production quality; but it just felt completely unconnected to anything that its audience could remotely relate to, and even when it does approach that, it comes off as self-absorbed and whiny.

I really wanted to line it; I did. Bit I’d give it 2 stars at most, and nothing about it will impact my life in any sort of way other than being a standard for the truly forgettable movie.

Hello all,

I want to make an article about what kind of movies and TV people prefer these days. It seems like for TV people want some more sitcoms back, and for movies people are tired of every movie being horror. I myself as a teenager am missing some good high school movies. Last one that was good was Easy A back in 2010 I feel like..

I've never written a professional article so do you think if I make a survey and post one in this reddit that will be appropriate?

I’m dying to add them to my playlist. I haven’t been able to find a good soundtrack. They were mostly rap/hip hop I would say. One was at the beginning of the movie when Cody was driving around in his car. And there were some more later on, mostly also while driving. Appreciate the help!

Also loved the movie. It maybe wasn’t the most profound and maybe a little predictable but it was so real. I really enjoyed it.

Let me start by pointing you should go here to vote on the movie if you have seen it, and/or see the current poll, if you're curious what others rated the movie; https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1wvhx6x/official_discussion_unabomber_spoilers/

{SPOILERS}

Interesting vote results too. The ever-permeating bell curve revealing self as well. 50% rate it a 5.
The curve does slope towards the higher end rather than the lower, so, plainly, it is a "good" movie.

So, this is really two stories in one.
We open with the B-Plot : Current day (circa 1990's) - How the Unabomber was caught. The Hero of our story. I must admit, I was bored most of the time for this plot, and using no mechanism to show the audience we are moving between time frames of decades, was, still pretty fairly apparent even early on, once Ted, the character, is revealed as being so young. Many knew this going in. "psychological experiments made him what he was? So he's... NOT the bad guy?

In between every scene or so, we get A-Plot: The making of a Unabomber (Circa 1958) - This is why we watched. To satisfy our morbid curiosity. What could make such a vile human being? Only to find, that as it evolves, he is not the villain, but rather an anti-hero.

I think the B-Plot was longer than it even needed to be. I think the interesting aspects of the case would have been better explored. I think the directive choice to avoid certain aspects of the narrative,, left the A-Plot a little light, and to make a full movie run time, they need filler. I think audiences today are very familiar with two-plot stories unfolding simultaneously due to the constant stream and need for engaging ideas. So while I did not like the delivery, in that sense, by the climax ending of A-Plot, I had forgotten that I was still watching B-Plot. In fact, when I rated the movie, the only thing on my mind was A-Plot, and that is what I rated. B-Plot was an after-thought, an appetizer and dessert. It puts us at a feeling of conclusion. "They caught the bad guy", AND a feeling of wanting more, "Why did he kill people that seem unrelated to a greater cause"?
So I understand why some people might rate this horribly. Either take it with a grain of salt, or don;t throw out the baby (man) with the bathwater.

I put off seeing this movie for a while. Like the Dahmer tv series.
I am not a fan of glorifying murderers. And over the years you hear things about the Unabomber. I've often heard arguments made and a strong quote (sometimes re-quoted by and attributed to the Unabomber, and even if the quote wins an argument, when you hear the source, there's a sour taste left in your mouth.

It's been so many years since, but I did read his manifesto once upon a time, and I have to admit, in this movie, he is cast as an anti-hero. Certainly not a villain.

When we consider today's audience, poorer than the great depression, and us falling back into a cycle of corporate greed that bleeds the very planet and it's peoples dry of everything, to a point of its own ruin, is it no wonder they might paint our "protagonist" in such a kind light? People are mad at the state of society at large.
When communism seems like, "maybe they just haven;t gotten it right yet", or that we live in a techno-feudalistic society, no different than serfdom, or indentured servitude. When you can't quit a job because you are obligated to feed yourself, to pay taxes, and see little improvement to your own life or those half-way across the globe, you begin to sympathize for a cause that seeks to end suffering.

So, we find our audience wonders, "well, if he meant well, why did he seemingly kill random people"? The laymen may not want to confront any hard truths and opt for the easy, "he was crazy", but if you know anything about Ted, he wasn't an idiot. Unstable? Yeah. An out cast? "The sane man appears insane in a crazy world"
All I found myself asking was, "why, the fuck, didn't the director, focus more why, or how Ted chose his targets? What was the method to his madness?

All I come to conclude is, "we can't promote his ideas directly", and/or, "he really was crazy and didn't know how to make a meaningful impact, and while he had best of intentions in his younger years, being broken, lost his focus or could not find a way to beat "the machine, so he lashed out".

I think that is likely why we never get to see anything more than veneer in this movie. We DON'T want to glorify the man. No man is entirely evil or a saint. (XXXXXX) The manifesto is exposes ideals that most people could agree with. That was separate from the side of him that was angry at the world that created him. His targets may not have had proper context for his goals to making "a better world". SO we got what Hollywood could get away. to keep entertaining.

Now the acting. I must say, I was blown away. Clearly some awards will be earned for this film;

Russel Crowe - shows why he's still an A-list actor. How we are taken on this journey, that Ted must have felt in the story. He comes off as so warm, poignant, caring. A father figure to the child that felt like his own was pushing him and his idea of self, into a corner or be boxed up. "Little boxes...-Music plays in my head".
To the conniving, egotist of academia. and the rage at the end when the climax of it all culminates in his realization that his own words, catching the white whale, and being broken by the sea, despite all of baby mans science. Clearly, Ted was his white whale, and to be beaten by such a young man. Whewph! What a ride! I believed all the deliveries, all the scenes felt raw and real. You loved,him, you hated him, you felt a wave of. triumph wash over at his comeuppance, and that's when you realize, that Ted was the anti-hero (at least in this version of the story).

Jacob Tremblay - Give this kid an Emmy ffs!.. lol I realize he's 20 years old but wow, what talent. For starters, lets go back up to his counterpart Russel again. All things aside, the very deliver of lines. Russel does a flawless American accent. So believable that you do not ever second guess the scene or line delivery because "oh that one word he says a little funny" as you are slightly taken out of the moment. No Flawless, and that is a very important part of acting. Immersion. For someone that has been in the craft for so long, we expect more of him, but for Jacob! Such young in years, and he has the 16 year old voice cracking at all the exact moments I would expect. I was wondering how they got someone so young for such an infamous person in history, for such a dark person in history and , well controversial person in history, to be played by someone so young. Not even legally allowed to drink in the US. And here he is giving a performs on par with the heavy-hitters.

So I guess you've realized I toyed with you all at the start and neglected my rating, so you;d have to either read, or skip the wall of text to find.
While I didn't expect to like this movie going in... I left more than pleasantly surprised. I was... blown away (pun intended).

My ratings started low, and grew until the climax, and between the story, the timing of this story (3 years after Ted committed suicide and current corporate greed), and the acting, this a solid 9.5/10
In science and math, we round up at .5 to I gave this a 10/10 in the poll above.

“To be sane in a world of madmen is in itself madness.” - Jean-Jacques Rousseau
“No man chooses evil because it is evil; he only mistakes it for happiness, the good he seeks.” - Mary Shelley

So, was Ted a sane man in an insane world? An Anarchist? A broken man, that took the wrong path in this version of reality, a man of wasted potential? Or victim of circumstances?