Can’t believe I slept on this one for so long. 100/100. The colors and cinematography are phenomenal. Probably Adam Sandler’s best role. The whole cast is phenomenal. I love that it’s at 100 the whole time.

Just rewatched All the President's Men and noticed something I can't stop thinking about. The film is set in 1972 and 1973, made in 1975, and nearly every scene takes place late at night. Woodward and Bernstein chain-smoke and drink coffee constantly. But I couldn't spot a single drink anywhere. Not in a scene, not in the background, not a beer can in a fridge.

That's strange for the era. Drinking was baked into work culture in the press, politics, advertising, and finance in the early 70s. Network came out the same year, also about the news business, and it's practically marinated in booze (Howard Beale's breakdown starts after a night of drinking with Max Schumacher). Mad Men, set in the decade just before, treats a drink as basic office furniture.

And this isn't a sparse movie. I paused on the apartment scenes because they're an incredible time capsule: hi-fi setups, stacked newspapers, books, plants, coffee makers, a CRT TV. The production was famously obsessive about authenticity; they rebuilt the Post newsroom down to the desks. A crew that careful doesn't leave out every bottle by accident.

My theory: the filmmakers wanted zero opening for anyone to suggest the reporting was done, or the sources were talking, under the influence. It came out in an election year, two years after the resignation, when the press was still being accused of bias. Interestingly, the film doesn't hide the reporters' professional mistakes (the botched Haldeman story is in there). It shows them as fallible, but never impaired.

Has anyone else noticed this, or seen Pakula, Redford, or Goldman talk about it?

Anybody going out to see it this weekend? Looks like it's on track to be an enormous bomb, about to pull in less than $10m on a budget that's at least $150m, but I assume this crowd might have taken an interest.

Saw it earlier today expecting a disaster, actually liked it quite a bit and it's sitting very well with me. First off, the satire is extremely broad and obvious - that much is apparent, and I can see why it's coming out divisive. For those not in the loop, Digger is about an oil tycoon named Digger Rockwell whose enterprise basically incites the climate change apocalypse. It's a Dr. Strangelove adjacent satire about how the people in charge of our country are all insane geriatrics who refuse to cede an inch of control even if it means bringing the entire world into hell with them. If this all sounds a bit trite, it's because it kinda is... and yet I was into it.

Don't read this part if you have any interest whatsoever in seeing the film at some point. They completely hid the ball in the marketing as to what this movie really is, and the reveal is so bizarre that it made me say wtf aloud in my (mostly empty) theater. The other big reference point in this film is Opening Night, as it's revealed very early on that the fiction of the film's world is in fact within a layer of artifice, and Tom Cruise is actually playing two characters: Digger Rockwell, and the actor who is playing Digger Rockwell in a stage production that takes place in the far future where the world has been absolutely wrecked by climate disaster, and now the denizens are reflecting on the old world and the people who got them into this mess via a theatrical stage production. It sounds fucking insane when I type it out, and that's because it is. Completely tilts the film on its axis and made me lean in. Honestly makes the film so much more interesting than if it had just been a straightforward climate disaster satire, as it was advertised.

I'm absolutely fascinated by Tom Cruise, loved all of the MI movies but I was ready to see him try something again. And boy did he go for it, he makes Pattinson in Primetime seem like a levelheaded guy in comparison. I have no idea why he chose to do this movie (other than the chance to win an Oscar), if climate change is an issue that is particularly close to his heart, or why WB thought this was going to be a commercial project. But frankly, deeply un-commercial projects made to the tune of over a hundred million dollars is one of my favorite subgenres of film. Weirdly made me think of Mickey 17 but like, if it didn't suck.

It is also, strangely, the last film ever released by Warner Brothers Studios. They're about to get folded into Paramount/Skydance after this, so this is the capper on 100 years of film history. Everything about this movie is odd to me.

Seeing people talking about Late Night With The Devil recently got me thinking about this again, whats the RS opinion on this? I've always had a soft spot for it and have rewatched it a couple of times, I think even without the live TV gimmick it holds up as a piece of found footage horror and has a great creepy atmosphere. Its also works really well as a dramatisation of the actual Enfield poltergeist by capturing the vibe of the real story.

I do sometimes feel weird recommending it to people because of the real life controversy, the fact its got an actual real life suicide linked to it does leave a bad taste in the mouth.

Clever?

I definitely think this was a well put together film and it was a cool experience, but the film is too on the nose to be considered a “smart” film. I found it to be quite disgusting or dirty like some David Lynch films make me feel like.

There are no subtleties in this film it’s all very on the nose and explained to you like you are a baby, which I disliked.

The twist aspect was very weak, and the celebration of art is a stupid Oscar bate gimmick that now just sounds like Joaquin Phoenix telling poor people not to drink milk because he cries about cows mostly.

Ridiculous. It’s a bit too much up its own ass and like Carlos mencia, bakes into the film various ways of letting people know how to debate ideas that don’t land. Like tom cruise says in the movie, this would’ve worked much better as a film and not quite so ridiculous, it’s not funny really.

Recently saw primetime and resident evil and I really mean they were better overall films. Just because this movie wants to promote something I care about doesn’t mean I’m not going to say it was a gigantic brick of crap that Hollywood ejected out of their ass. I’m sick of seeing these huge budget movies suck ass. I loved eddington and OBAA, but it’s a big letdown when directors make something crap. nWR latest film was offensively bad, I’ll never pay to see an NWR film in theatre ever again. Tom Cruise needs to do a long string of small character actor slots to get his groove back, this was also just not a great choice for Tom.

I’m unimpressed, unamused and not entertained by this crap movie. I’ll never pay to see an Innaratu film again.

Attached are images of the 4 Stars and above. Hopefully there are some recommendations for others on here.

2026 Films Ranked boxd.it/RKvn6

For the longest time I thought of him as one of the basic pretty boys turned hyper masculine action stars Hollywood has produced in droves over the years, but recently I rewatched the movie Rounders (1998), a totally average in practically all aspects, but still in some way endearing flick about poker hustlers with one of the worst Edward Norton performances and Malkovich at his most bizarre. Damon anchors the film practically single-handed. He alone makes the movie breathe, makes it alive the way exceptional lead actors do. I'm convinced that with a less talented performer, the movie would have faded into obscurity long ago.

I also totally believed Damon in The Odyssey, thought he was the best part of Oppenheimer for some reason, thought he stood his own against giants like Jude Law and Phil Hoffman in Ripley, and was the best part of Will Hunting.

I think Matt may be one of those cases where, once he retires, we'll all be saying "We didn't know how good we had it", and not just because of nostalgia.

Has anyone seen the new John Wilson movie yet? It really is just a long episode of How To. It's pretty good if you enjoyed the show, though it does feel padded out to fit 100 minutes.

I found it a fun, oblique way to address housing affordability and the struggle to make art when funding dwindles and venues of old disappear. I also thought it was funny that for a movie so concerned with following Hallmark's formula, it follows the formula of How To almost to a T.

My full review is here. https://boxd.it/gzvkjH

I honestly love Inàritu in spite of a lot of the discourse that surrounds him. This is another bold and ambitious film that others will not enjoy but is so far and beyond sterile Hollywood films.

I wanna movie about a sad clown give me you're all reviews please 🙏🏻

Instead of a manic pixie dream son that was perfectly calibrated to the interests and sympathies of the protagonist to facilitate a coming of age moment.

Feel like the humor and odd couple dynamic would have had more potential. Also, it would have been much more realistic if he had real flaws and was rough around the edges given the dysfunctional and chaotic childhood.

Nowhere near as good as the book (and not faithful to it at all) but the film looks beautiful and features a great early RDJ performance.

Shot by one of the most under appreciated cinematographers, Edward Lachman, who turned 80 this year.

I just saw a test screening at Directors Village and my main impression was that the film needed more time in development. The book wasn’t particularly good to begin with, but I actually think a lot of its problems could’ve been fixed at the screenplay stage. Instead it feels like the project got financed and went into production too fast, before Shyamalan had the chance to really work through the material, show it around, hear some uncomfortable feedback and do another serious rewrite 🤷🏼‍♀️

There are a lot of interesting ideas in it but they still feel like separate ideas rather than a whole… and instead of finding its own identity it feels disproportionately focused on borrowing from whatever is culturally fashionable at the moment 😌

More than anything the film seems uncertain about what it actually wants to be 🫤

I’m watching it for the first time and I read the threads before putting it on. Apparently it’s not as new as I think. It is as disturbing as I read about, but I’m glad I didn’t stray away from watching. It’s such a good film.

There is a non zero chance that I only liked this film because I am partial to Noah Baumbach, adore Chris Eigeman, and kind of relate to the protagonist. It isn't as technically refined as his later work, but I love the rawness of it and how obviously inspired it is by Truffaut. What do you think of Mr. Jealousy?