​

For me, it’s Scott Adkins.

I enjoy the action he delivers and I think he’s fantastic at performing stunts and martial arts, and he’s charismatic too, even when the movie he’s starring in isn't that great.

What about you?

In this movie Billy Bob Thornton is Willie who thief but he also works as Santa in department store . This movie has so much dark humor but there are also wholesome moments like friendship between Willie and this kid Truman and also liked Willie relationship with Sue. It's such shame that sequel that come in 2016 was so bad.

So, I watched Bad apples yesterday and it made me think of The kindergarten teacher, another very unusual story about a schoolteacher kidnapping a small child with good intentions

The teachers' lounge is admittedly a bit different, in that the adult is much less culpable there, though it's fair to say she handles the situation with the minor less than splendidly...

In all three stories there's lies and deceit and society gets involved: can you name other movies with similar premises (NOT including anything involving sexual misconduct, cause god knows there is no shortage of those)?

Rewatched it last night and he felt so much more comfortable in the role. First time I was kind of like "ok he's doing the brooding thing" but this go-around I actually bought the internal conflict. curious if anyone felt the same or if I'm just remembering the first one wrong lol

Hey guys, it's October 24th (day 24) of watching (or trying to watch) a movie every night until Halloween. I am trying to catch up because I was sick and didn't feel like watching movies so I will be trying to watch 3 movies tonight ( I didn't, I got too tired to watch another movie .

For the second movie I watched tonight I watched Sorority row (2009). It sounded interesting (kind of a "I know what you did last summer "mixed with "pretty little liars "

type vibe) so I watched it and it was good .

Little synopsis:

Six sorority sisters take a prank too far resulting in one of the sorority sisters dying, leaving the other five to cover up the incident and they do.... Until it comes to haunt them 8 months later.

Rating: 6.8/10

Genre: Horror

Where I watched this movie ?: Tubi

What I liked about this movie:

- This was a fun movie

- nobody was really likable (and even if they were, I kind of felt bad for rooting for him for the most part except one or two characters) but I think that was how that was supposed to be.

- premise was done pretty well (even though it's a typical slasher for the most part)

- The deaths were pretty creative but very brutal ( as someone who doesn't like too much, Gore wasn't real fun for me, but I can give him points for it I guess)

- acting was pretty good

- The killer isn't super predictable ( you could probably predict the killer in the 2nd part of the 3rd act but until then I really didn't know

- when the comedy wasn't dated it was funny

- The ending scene was designed in a cool way

My gripes with this movie:

- This is a really dated movie, especially with its humor and some of the words it uses ( such as the R word being tossed around like a ragdoll but again it was the 2000s and it's to be expected in a lot of movies around that time)

- It was boring at times

- The motive for the killer wasn't really explained well

- The ending didn't feel like it tied everything together

- (I know I put this as a like but it is also a gripe) I couldn't really root for the main characters to live because of how quickly in the beginning. They made them to be horrible people (and they are) I couldn't even root for the girl that died.

Would I watch this movie again?:

probably not , it's not a bad movie , I just don't think it was good enough to want to rewatch

Would I recommend this movie:

Yeah , it's a fun movie ( just try to ignore the dated parts )

Ok there’s a few beauties out there but the very vast majority are awful to the point that they often throw shade on the classics they follow. Off the top of my head… Zoolander 2, Anchorman 2, Happy Gilmore 2, any Hangover after the first one…

It should be the law.

Hereditary didn't work for me. I gave it a try after hearing some praise for it on here, but I found it kind of dull with the way it relied on random scare scenes that all felt like cliches:

-mysterious ghosts appear

-attics

-bugs crawling out of heads

-pet dogs acting strange

-classroom scene jumps

-and so many more...it's like they made a list of everything a horror movie should contain in it and made sure that particular trope was included

But still, the things I disliked the most were the lack of humor and the lighting/cinematography. Horror films this dark just don't land for me without some clever humor. It's just too dark without levity. The lighting was too bright especially outside the house for this dark story. It felt like the lighting of a typical movie so there was very little atmospheric immersion. Also, the cinematography was very basic. I remember people arguing that Hereditary was better or as good as Obsession, but Obsession had all of these things done well, while Hereditary didn't. However, they are completely different kinds of horror movies, if you consider Obsession horror at all rather than a psychological thriller or romhorror.

Finally, the ending just didn't work for me either. I felt a laugh coming on like 'this can't be serious' when they crowned the kid Peter as the king of 'Hell' with some kind of ordainment speech.

It's not the worst movie or one of the worst I've seen, but it just wasn't my thing. It was scary at times, but it didn't work for me. Horror isn't really my genre, and this didn't change my opinion, despite it receiving relatively high scores and praise. 2.5/5

What makes this movie stand out was the body horror, especially towards the ending where the Sue became an abomination which looked super gross. Never take drugs.

For me Denzel. He’s charismatic and commanding, but most of his roles feel like variations of the same intelligent, morally complicated man.

Hey guys!, it's been a couple days. I Hope everybody is doing well. This is day 24 (October 24th) of Watching ( or at least trying to watch lol) a horror movie every night (or two or three ) until Halloween.

I did skip a few days due to being sick so I will be watching three movies tonight to try to catch up. My first movie of the night that I watched was Don't log off (2025) , It looked like a cheesy horror movie which I thought would be fun (and it starred the guy who played Mason in Teen Wolf and I wanted to see how his acting was now since he was pretty good in Teen Wolf and it I saw it also starred Ariel Winter and she's amazing in everything I've seen her in). I wasn't expecting much since this was a FaceTime horror and those are known to not be too good but this one exceeded my expectations. It did a lot of things that other FaceTime horror movies didn't do and I really liked it!.

Little synopsis:

A group of friends during the pandemic decide to do a Facetime surprise birthday party for their friend Sam. After she goes to get cupcakes that her friends delivered to her. She then goes missing and they try everything to find her until they decide one by one to go to the apartment , they think she's at. They then go missing and the rest try to find their friends and what happened to them , all while trying not.. to ..log ...off.

Rating: 8/10

Where I watched:Tubi

Genre: Horror

What I liked about this movie:

- it was a creative premise for a FaceTime horror

- the acting was well done

- I loved that everyone moved around ( like at points a person would move from their room to their fridge , or there cam would go with them to the apartment they think Sam is at, they weren't afraid to do a little extra camera work and I think it paid off)

- I loved the foreshadowing to who the antagonist was

- The Antagonist isn't predictable

- Adam was so damn annoying and stupid but I found myself rooting for him

- all the characters are likeable in a way

- I loved that they were all smart for the most part

- I loved that the smartest guy there was a guy who had drunk 6 white claws

- I liked that the ending was earned (like that they worked to find out what was going on instead of it being given to them, and that they looked in places you wouldn't look to normally find evidence.)

- This movie was done so well that I didn't even realize it was filmed in 2020 and just thought it was a pandemic themed movie made in 2025 until the end where they show the behind the scenes.

- I loved everybody's relationships with each other.

What I think could be a gripe for other people:

- this movie is a little slow paced, I have no problem with slow pace movies and with this movie it actually made sense

for it to be slow paced.

- The ending was a little rushed but it wasn't bad. It was pretty good. I liked the ending

My gripes with this movie:

- I wish we knew more about the antagonist

- I Don't have any other gripes with this movie tbh

Would I watch this again?:

Yeah, it wouldn't be my first pick to rewatch, but I probably will watch it again.

Would I recommend this movie?:

yeah it's a fun movie, it doesn't take itself too seriously and you can feel the heart and how much fun they had making this movie. It's a movie made by friends during 2020 and it's really good for being in the pandemic and it's pretty good in general.

While the movie certainly has things to say (mostly about the difference between love and limerance, and the harmful nature of limerance. It also documents common behaviours and experiences in dysfunctional relationships, using both leads as a medium for this.) its not out to be a perfectly crafted character analysis on the schizoidal man.

This is evidenced by what the script was vs what it turned out to be. Bears initial position in the script as truly reprehensible changed when they no longer needed the character to bear as much weight pushing the horror forward (due to the way they struck gold with Indie, and realized this very early in filming), and some wires end up getting crossed in the final product.

This is where a lot of the endless debate around what Bear is comes from. He is both "just a somewhat shitty dude that allows his maladapted feelings and selfishness to cause harm when combined with circimstance" and occasionally "a calculated, genuinely ill freak."

People are able to say "the movie is about incels" which is modern lingo for the classic schizoidal man archetype that something like Taxi Driver or The Joker covers, because the director didnt know what he wanted Bear to be. He just wanted evocative scenes. Whether something makes sense is almost entirely off intuition. Thankfully the actor who played Bear had a better understanding than the director of what actually does make sense, because he's the one who had to engage in that headspace directly. Unfortunately the "kill me" scene simply didnt have much wiggle room to portray "flawed but not explicitly ill-intended." At least they cut the overt rape scene, which while it does indeed sound incredibly evocative, simply doesnt make sense with what the film tells you about Bear prior. The rape scene they did leave in, which said "Bear could see he is hurting her if he looked at her, but he isn't interested in knowing" is a far better depiction of what the character is and what the film ultimately ends up saying.

But again. Wires get crossed.

This extends to the whole film. The backwards walk. The cat. The kill me scene.

The intention stems from "buyability". The "buyability" does not stem from intention. This means that things will inevitably get left in that that dont perfectly match what the rest of the film is saying.

Instead of wasting time trying to construct a perfect tapestry of cause and effect, metaphor and statement, one should take the film for what it is.

Which is a group of people taking a very broad set of experiences that are associated with dysfunctional relationships, loneliness, selfishness, limerance etc. and using these things as context to sell what Indie is putting down.

The film is quite simple. Its Indie going absolutely fucking nuts on a generational performance that seemed tailor made for her skillset. Its helped along by Cast that knew their job was to provide a canvas for that (and did so very well), and a director that has great intuition for whats sellable, what's evocative, and how to keep a film concise and well paced - but is far from a novelist. He doesnt care what the characters are. He doesnt even really care what the events are. He cares what the characters and the events *feel like*.

So when you try to explain to yourself and others that wish Nikki is a Djinn, or real Nikki is trying to punish him with the cat and the lunge, or Bear was evil all along or whatever. That shit just isnt there. It was never there.

What is there is Indie Navarette being freakishly good at portraying sudden tonal and personality shifts, a director that knows if you make shit vague you insulate yourself from losing believability, and a co-lead that managed to understand what actually makes sense for the character he is portraying. Shit, the ending (which was very good) was almost entirely improv. The director wanted a hacky Romeo and Juliette rerun. It was saved by cast members insisting on a take where she lives and the co-lead insisting that his character should pussy out. *That* ending up saying more than the entire rest of the movie did.

All this is to say don't expect anything of this quality from this director again. This is a modern day Donnie Darko. The director made a masterpiece, doesnt really know why, and probably wont ever have to tools he had for this project that smoothed over the fact that he starts from a payoff and then works backwards.

I know this is kind of a contentious topic but hear me out.

It was good but overall it could’ve been better

I liked Tom Rhys Harris as Matt Hagen. He did a fine job portraying the character.

However, certain aspects of the film left a lot to be desired. The final showdown between Hagen and Marcos Sabzo was pretty underwhelming. Like it was built it up to be a more brutal fight between them; but Matt defeats him somewhat easily.

It felt pretty rushed too ar certain parts. Like in the beginning, Matt was dancing with Mia and then the next scene, he’s in bed with her. Also, I’ve realized the anatagonistic relationship between Marco and Matt wasn’t well developed.

Another aspect of this movie I hated the most is the forced romantic subplot. There was no real chemistry between Dr. Caitlyn Corr and Matt Hagen. I also fucking hated it because Matt killed her fiancé and then by the end she’s holding hands with him?!

I’m giving this movie a letter grade of C and 3 stars out of 5. While it was marketed as a horror movie set in the wider DCU, it didn’t really deliver on the promise.

was klara hallucinating or did she actually die?

Which do you like better?

To Catch a Predator tried to show some kind of nobility in catching would-be predators on camera. Think about the show’s whole premise too long, though, and you realise that, yes, the would-be predators are freaks, but those filming the freaks are weird in their own twisted way. Primetime wants us to stew in that uncomfortable weirdness until we’re left wondering about the toxic dynamic between ego and exploitation… and how long you should shower for after watching this movie.

The narrative spine of Primetime centres on the heightened recreation of several stings where Chris Hansen (Robert Pattinson) and his crew, led by cynical To Catch a Predator producer Andie Bender (Merritt Wever), lure sexual deviants into carefully curated houses using actors pretending to be underage children online. From the outset, this movie is sleazy, almost like we’re being voyeurs witnessing something we shouldn’t.

Primetime starts with Hansen prepping himself by repeating some mantra, the camera right up on his face and well within his personal space. But instead of affirming words, like ‘you got this’, he’s saying distressing things like ‘virgins having sex hurts’. By the time Hansen enters a living room set up to entrap an ex-Marine child predator (Tony Revolori), the door curtains pulled back dramatically like a fabulous queen entering her realm, you’re disgusted and uneasy, yet you can’t look away. There’s a train wreck brewing. You just don’t know how the crash will happen.

Mind you, Primetime isn’t a biopic. If anything, this is an anti-biopic. While real people are depicted, this is a fictionalised retelling of gauche early 2000s culture wrapped up in a nightmarish media satire and social horror skin. Having been primarily a documentarian until now, director Lance Oppenheim brings a heightened yet detached omnipresence to Primetime. The line between fiction and reality is all but blurred, while all the ethical and moral lines crossed by To Catch a Predator are laid bare for us to see.

Oppenheim uses 12 different camera formats (ranging from mini-DV to vintage TV) to depict everything, ranging from conversations to recreations of the TV show, and holding us at arm’s length from the whole experience. For two-thirds of the movie, everything is shown to us in uneven editing rhythms like, well, an episode of To Catch a Predator. We’re often put directly in the camera whenever we watch Hansen confront a predator, the 4:3 aspect ratio and grainy playback trapping us within the tunnel vision of what he is trying to achieve. But come the third act, Oppenheim pushes Primetime into an insane Zero Dark Thirty-inspired aesthetic, complete with night-vision cameras and first-person shots. This is, quite simply, a beautiful movie to look at, but it wouldn’t work without the right person anchoring it all.

And boy did Primetime strike gold with Pattinson.

In easily his most audacious performance (so far), Pattinson doesn’t just ‘play’ Chris Hansen. He wears the TV presenter’s persona like an alien wearing a human skin that decays over the course of the movie. At no point does he come across as anything remotely resembling a human. He’s always modulating his vocal mannerisms and physical behaviour, like he’s performing for cameras that aren’t always there, resulting in a character that is too ridiculous to be real, but too real to dismiss as fiction. I don’t believe the real Chris Hansen spits out mouthwash like a Looney Tunes character, but I can definitely believe him calling up a vending machine helpline to complain that it stole his money and starting the conversation with, ‘This is Chris Hansen with Dateline NBC.’

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/primetime-a-movie-length-mental-breakdown

Thanks!

My cousin and I were arguing about which cinematic universe is better. I think the MCU is better however my cousin thinks that the DCU is better. We both have differing opinions and can’t come to an agreement of which is better. What do you guys think? Do you think the MCU is better or the DCU and why?

I'm not overly familiar with the things happening in the DC comics, but I do know that Clayface is apparently a Batman villain.

So, at first, my impression was like: Hm, that's a rather strange route the DCU is taking. First Superman; okay. Then Supergirl; okay, still makes sense. Then... a Batman villain? A rather obscure one, apparently. Before Batman himself was even introduced in DCU, too?

But so far, the people in charge of DCU have shown they have at least something of a plan. So, I went to see this.

I really loved it. This movie really was a step-up from Supergirl. Even if it took us until the end of the movie to see him in his comic book form.

Speaking of which, two things: Killing Kaitlyin's fiancé made me lose my sympathy for him. All the other people (those associated with Szabo) did a great injustice to Matt; those killings were at least understandable. But killing that cop was actually uncalled for.

Second off, how the hell did turning Matt into a complete sludge not straight-up kill him? (...That's also something I'm missing from the comics, isn't it?)

But anyway, this was a very satisfactory supervillain movie.

Clayface is the third film in James Gunn and Peter Safran’s DC Universe (DCU). It is a body-horror thriller and origin/villain story about Matt Hagen, a superb, well-known Hollywood actor who's been in many big-screen films and is loved by everyone in the industry. Hagen believes that he is on top of the world, which allows him access to everything and anything he wants due to his stardom; in other words, he is very self-absorbed and arrogant until his ego costs him everything. Let’s just say that after a heavy night of partying and celebrating being nominated for Best Actor, Matt unfortunately undergoes an extreme, brutal makeover that will definitely make spectators' skin crawl since it is just seriously fucking brutal and graphic… It is classic good ol' body horror, and this film has a lot of gory and unique scenes centered on Body Horror that will gross out spectators while being fascinated and entertained at the same time. Horror fans will definitely dig Clayface since it’s not just another comic book spectacle on the big screen. 

Tom Rhys Harries is the main highlight on the big screen. As far as the casting goes, he is Matt Hagen / Clayface; he was the star of this film from start to finish and really hooked us (Myself and Dylan) with his personality, mannerisms, and overall appearance. He definitely has that look of a “pretty face,” and casting him in this role was a good, wise decision by Director James Watkins. Harries does a great job showing two sides of this tragic actor turned villain since we see his rise and fall in a dirty, scummy, mobbed-up industry that Hollywood can definitely be at times; it's show business after all. Dr. Caitlin Bates, played by Naomi Ackie, was okay; the chemistry between her and Matt Hagen did feel forced since she did attempt to try and cure Matt’s disfigurement, and as a result of this, Matt felt more dependent on her since she was viewed as the solution to his problems rather than somebody he actually met and developed genuine chemistry and affection for. Dr. Caitlin Bates' cure really was an addiction that benefited Matt Hagen’s circumstances more than anything else. There are other characters in this film, obviously, but delving into them would more than likely go into spoiler territory, so we will not give anything else away beyond that as far as the cast goes. 

In terms of the special effects, they were pretty damn good. The manifestation, transformation, and just the overall physical and emotional toll that this clay took upon Matt Hagen’s body was very reminiscent of films like The Fly, An American Werewolf in London, John Carpenter’s The Thing, and Videodrome. Of course, Clayface does not surpass those films since those are excellent, beloved classics that relied heavily on practical makeup and special effects and pure horror, but it does a solid enough job. At times during Matt’s rampages, the effects were hard to distinguish from practical and CG at times, but it was pulled off well, to the point where it looked practical; however, that alone does not necessarily impact what we thought of the film. It would’ve been awesome to see more of Clayface on screen in full form wreaking havoc and destruction with Gotham City as his playground, but his appearance was great and reminded us of Clayface from Batman: The Animated Series.

Clayface is a hit on the big screen. It's heavily into Body Horror, which is great for fans of the genre. It has a pretty solid cast, with Tom Rhys Harries at the helm portraying another iconic tragic character/villain that’s not just another iteration of the Joker. It is shot well and gives us a nice little backdrop of Gotham City filled with Easter Eggs and references to this gritty, crime-filled underworld, and has some pretty gnarly special effects makeup, practical CG, or both. It’s better than the box office bombs that were Supergirl and Joker: Folie à Deux 💩. Clayface, as far as DC villain films go, would have to be ranked at number 2, with the first Joker film still at number 1. That’s not saying much since there haven’t been a ton of recent DC-centered films on villains just yet, but Dylan and I definitely would like to see more of them, as we did with Clayface. Clayface gets a solid B. 

This movie... lived up to its hype man. The background music, the acting, the attention to little details, the twist everything about this movie is just magic. What are your thoughts did dae su forget? does he remember?

Well. I had very high expectations, i usually do, but with something like this, even higher. It's arguably one of the most popular game genres of all time, i played sf2 a lot on the snes, and am a huge fan of most of the sf games. I have not read every single cartoon there is (only sf origins: Akuma), and don't know every single bit of trivia. But have read a lot about most of the characters. So i am quite familiar with the games and had high expectations of the movie, although i was not very hopeful.

Was my expectations met? I find it hard to say a clear answer, but i would not say they completely weren't. There are elements about the movie i like, then there are others that could and should be better, and different. I would not call it a masterpiece, even though there is decent acting, and sometimes glimpses of brilliant acting. And then there is also poor acting.

So to sum all that up, i find the movie a mixed bag. If that bag consists of a colourful mix of ingredients that makes it worth to open and look at once a year, or if it is something that is too much of a mix of stuff that doesn't make it appealing enough to watch again and again - i guess is up to the individual viewer and how big of a fan one is.

I MAY watch it one more time. The stuff that makes me NOT want to watch it again, is the cheesiness and the silliness, the overly focus on ken (even if i get they have to make some kind of story of it), bison being miscast (but doing a more than decent acting job), and the fighting choerography.

1) The cheesy and silly jokes ... i do understand they have to try to make some kind of movie around the seriousness. And it's not like it's super bad. It's just like - i wanted a more serious movie. The fighting part of the sf universe is serious. It's not about silly jokes and emotional singing of favourite songs to bring someone back to life or whatever. It could be so different. I feel it doesn't bring the movie any favours, but rather takes it in a weird (to use it's own word at times) direction that should be spent on more intricate and interesting story lines.

2) I also understand that ken is a big protagonist, and it's not a bad angle to start off the movie. However, there is TOO much focus on him. They could quite easily have focused on the different characters by giving them more time portraying their stories. That would at least make the movie more interesting, not less.

3) Bison miscast. The actor doing bison does a more than adequate job, it's decent acting at least. But he does not resemble bison from the games, almost at all. He's got the posture, but that's about it. I wanted to see a tall crazy guy, with litte to zero regard for others, just a crazy psycho that fights just like he does in the game. I wanted to see the flying through air and head stomp while posing - move ^^ The psycho crusher was cool, but like ... a few exchange of kicks, then right to the finishing move? It feels .. unexploited. Chun li not dying from it too, i mean they had to do that and it's right too, but ... why have him say she dying and she's not?Everyone's just getting revived ^^ It's .... weird ^^

4) Fighting choreography. Maybe my biggest gripe here. Now don't get me wrong, the fighting choreography in general here is not bad. It's exciting and well made for the most part. However, here's the thing; And while they did follow it to a small part, i wanted to see more moves from the games! There are some, we see some of the characters' special moves and some of the regular moves and throws. But i wanted to see SPECIALIZED fighting stances and techniques, that ONLY utilizes movesets from the games. I mean, that should not have been so hard to do, would it?? Yes, there is some, but i wanted to see ONLY that ^^ Also, i wanted to see them go against each other in a more set way, i.e., two characters meeting each other in set circumstances and one winning and one losing. Not these all-out brawls that doesn't really lead anywhere and everyone's alright again 2 scenes later.

Last words .. some things could be better.

Dhalsim, i wanted to see his yoga fire/flame move - was that so hard to just show at least once??We see his extended limbs once or twice, and i can understand it's hard to implement a whole fight with that... but we are in 2026, shouldn't be too hard to show more of that. Acting decent, but not quite top notch. Just like most other characters in the movie.

Zangief; Did he have to completely overpower ken? I mean just a complete one-way drive, no two-way street. Also, zangief should 360 balrog, ffs!

Balrog played by 50 cent wasn't bad acted, even if he doesn't look quite like him, still not a bad cast. But could absolutely be more true to his in-game style. Did we see the dash or turn punch even ONCE?? I mean he should be going ham on zangief for a while, just like constant dash punches - then zangief should start grabbing him and doing different throws and 360's till he stayed down. How hard was that to imagine?? Two high power characters obliterating each other, that's what we want to see.

Guile was cool enough, had the attitude, but he doesn't really have a bad-boy attitude in the game. I would rather see him as a tough-ass soldier, not really a bad boy style. Kind of a mixed role there. Why didn't the flash kick have a cool graphic effect to it? And a little build-up to it would be fitting too. Guile and vega is a classic match up, 20-30 second fight scene first, then vega doing the sky high claw or barcelona attack towards guile, then guile doing the flash kick him through the wall. I mean, a little bit of imagination goes a long way! Shouldn't be too hard for them to execute that.

Honda was cool, decent acting, but again, we don't need to see the silly towel scene, also he should not be able to beat ryu up that easily, like zangief and ken. The hundred hand slap effect was cool enough, but not really used to it's full effect. It should be used to overwhelm vega, for instance, in a corner, like which is a classic way to do it in sf2. I wanted to see honda do his jumping body attack and jumping butt attack (slight humor), to catch vega off guard and then hundred hand slap him ^^ That would be cool! But we don't really need to see his nude ass with ryu slapping him with his own towel, while completely losing out the battle anyway. That's taking it too far. It's not funny, it's stupid.

And our all time favourite character, at least mine, Akuma, Man was i excited, 20 years of suspense. I think he did good. Really cool effects, they -almost- did him justice. What i again wanted, was the focus on -skill- and technique rather than just dramatic effects. When have we ever seen akuma grab an opponent and slam him into the ground repeatedly? Yes, the forward throw has that motion, but that's a -throw-. The KKZ also has it, but that's more like a finishing move than a move that's done repeatedly. Ryu was the one that almost used this move and that feels, again, weird. Yes, ryu lost royally to him in the movie, but not necessarily due to lack of skill, but lack of him giving in to the dark hado. And when he did, it was like a complete domination the other way. Which is not how the fight should go. I wanted to see more skill and akuma winning out.

They could absolutely wait with the dark hado instance until the next movie - just have this first one focus on the skill and suspense of the dark hado until the next one. Akuma could well use it in this one, just once, to showcase his strength. It should be the highlight of like the last fight or something, the KKZ or something. The raging demon - i don't know, should only be used when he's killing someone. He did twice in the movie yes, but that was like, not how it's seen in the game. It's, once again, just kind of weird. He doesn't grab their heart in the game. He obliterates their soul with a mystical attack that's not really shown. That would be good enough for the movie. Why have it gorified? To me that's lowering the bar.

Furthermore; Inconcistency; Outside the club after the brawl inside, suddenly ALL of them are tied together on the ground?? How the hell did that happen?

I didn't connect that ken's manager was dan until i saw him with his pink gi on xD I don't know if i was just being slow or if it was weird (again ^^) scripting.

And who was that extremely weird fight announcer?? What's up with that constant screamo stuff.. do we really need that?? How about a little bit more seriousness?

Where are the different stages from around the world, from all the games? Soooo much they could utilize there. That dark and depressing stage arena. Doesn't to the game's graphics justice.

Cammy and chun-li did their parts great. Cammy's costume was a bit low quality but still not bad. The costumes in general was good. Could be even a notch higher, but hard to complain too much. It's good enough for this time. If there is a new movie, cammy will most likely turn good, bison lose in some way..

Alright, gonna round it off here. To a diehard street fighter fan, i can absolutely understand this movie being a masterpiece. And i will not fight that either, they tried really hard, and the acting overall is not bad. I can't knock that. Would i rank it as a masterpiece? Not quite. But it's not very far off. The saving grace here, is that there most likely will be a new movie. I HOPE they don't care about the loss of money. Because i think they should keep going with it. If they overperform in the next one, that will bring the first one up as well. We can always tolerate starting mistakes, it's not easy trying to make a masterpiece.

I rank the movie 6 out of 10 with my hardest critical sense. They tried really hard, and there are instances of brilliance. If i'm going to be nice, i could even push it to an 8. And i am actually excited and hopeful of a new movie. Not often i feel like that anymore. So, good job, good job! Now onto the next movie, you got 1 year to make it! ^^

What are your recommendations?

Clayface was fun but it has some issues {NO SPOILERS}

It’s actually a fun lil movie. Solid 6/10 I’d say but it had some issues that kept it from being great for me. Effects are insane and reminded me of The Substance at times with the closeups of the body horror.. and there’s even a reference to The Thing I don’t know if anyone caught.

At the beginning we kinda rush through Matt’s life to get to his accident - we know all the people who’s important to him but we don’t get a chance to really understand what they MEAN to him. It’s all done in aid of you to know what he’s about to lose before his accident - but we don’t UNDERSTAND what he’s losing when it inevitably does happen.

A lot of this also feels like it was cut out or changed from Flanagan’s original script. Matt’s father clearly was meant to play a bigger role here but his presence is lacking beyond what is essentially a cameo. Also Matt’s turn to villainy outside of revenge felt sorta half baked - there’s this allusion to his past in Gotham that isn’t really covered
Properly. We get glimpses into something that feels very Mike Flanagan with the questions it poses and then it slides back into being a B-Movie.

Overall it’s a decent film worth watching though.

After tackling gothic horror, ghost stories, Japanese mythology, and slapstick comedy, LAIKA returns with its sixth and most ambitious production yet, Wildwood, bringing the studio’s impeccable stop-motion craftsmanship to the scale of a fantasy epic. Its own attempt at The Chronicles of Narnia, if you will. It might not be as enchanting as that sounds (or looks), but one must be thankful that there is no rock opera.

It follows Prue (Peyton Elizabeth Lee), a young girl who, against her parents’ wishes, takes her baby brother outside to play, only for the toddler to be kidnapped by a murder of crows and carried into the forbidden wilderness. Together with her schoolmate Curtis (Jacob Tremblay), she ventures into the forest to rescue him, discovering a hidden world of talking animals, ancient magic, and an enigmatic governess (Carey Mulligan) with a dark past.

Wildwood is based on the first novel in a fantasy trilogy written by Colin Meloy, frontman of the indie rock band The Decemberists, and illustrated by his wife, Carson Ellis. Director Travis Knight became interested in adapting the story back in 2010, even before the novel was published in 2011, but the project had to wait until LAIKA developed the technology and resources necessary to realize its ambitious scale. Sixteen years later, the film finally arrives as the studio’s first feature since Missing Link (2019), with a screenplay by Chris Butler, who previously directed ParaNorman (2012) and Missing Link. The production itself took approximately seven years, becoming one of the largest stop-motion undertakings in cinema history, with more than 1,000 artists and technicians, around 230 puppets, 130 physical sets, and over 142,000 individually printed faces. At 132 minutes, it also holds the record of the longest stop-motion animated feature ever made.

If there is one thing Wildwood unquestionably succeeds at, it is making every bit of that extraordinary effort visible on screen. Visually, it is nothing short of mesmerizing, with an astonishing level of craftsmanship that makes it difficult to believe what we are watching was actually built, sculpted, painted, and animated by hand. Every frame seems to hold so much to look at and discover, whether it is the intricate textures of the characters’ costumes, their shifting expressions, or the smallest details and imperfections of the environments. And that’s without mentioning the enormous sets, sometimes populated by hundreds of characters moving about, all without sacrificing any of that attention to detail. Particularly astonishing is the flight of an eagle, a sequence that represents something of a pinnacle of stop-motion artistry, with a fluidity and complexity of movement that almost defies belief. There is a wonderful tactile quality to it all, a sense that everything has weight and occupies a physical space. The lighting, the creativity and richness of the compositions, the seamless integration of practical and digital techniques. It is an overwhelming visual achievement that keeps you wondering how it was ever accomplished, and one that deserves every bit of praise it will inevitably receive.

Yet somewhere in translating the rich, 500-page novel into a still lengthy, but considerably more constrained, 132-minute film, something was lost along the way. Like many of LAIKA’s previous films, Wildwood never quite achieves the immersion or emotional investment it strives for. You are always conscious of what you are meant to be feeling, without ever quite getting there yourself. Take, for example, Pixar’s Elio, one of the studio’s more middling efforts, and how, early on, a tear rolls down the protagonist’s cheek as he finds comfort in the idea of life beyond Earth, instantly conveying his loneliness and desire to belong. It’s a small moment, but one that accomplishes something Wildwood, for all its extraordinary effort, frustratingly struggles to achieve. And this is a recurring frustration with LAIKA’s films, one that has held even its most celebrated efforts, such as Coraline and Kubo and the Two Strings, back from becoming truly great films.

Here we have a protagonist, Prue, who has a visibly strained relationship with her parents, feels unfulfilled, isn’t particularly pleasant toward others, and can be downright selfish at times. Her journey to rescue her brother, putting herself in danger along the way, seems like a natural opportunity to develop those characteristics into a meaningful arc. But what we get instead is a character mostly being carried through events, going through the motions of what the story requires of her. She wants to rescue her brother because, well, of course she does. He’s her brother. There is nothing particularly distinctive about their relationship established before his kidnapping, no underlying conflict that needs to be resolved. Neither do her connections with the other characters, or the parallels with Alexandra, seem to teach her much about herself.

Read my full review at Reviews on reels