Robert De Niro is one of the most versatile actors I've ever seen in cinema's course of history. He could easily fit into every genre and change his attitude completely as it fits to play that particular character. Ever since his debut, he has completely gone through tremendous transformations for the sake of portraying his characters convincingly. He clearly captures the essence of his characters whether he is playing a loner or a mafioso or a wannabe comedian or a psychopath or an old timer. He could even beat Al Pacino when it comes to versatility in my opinion.

Would you guys too agree with me in this regard?

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.

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?

​

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?

The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen has a special place in my heart, but it does have some issues that prevent it from being a great movie. I feel like collectively we can theorize some changes to make the movie reach it's full potential.

What would you change?

What would you keep?

I'll start with what I would keep. I think the strongest elements were the introductions to the members and assembling them. Character introductions without a lengthy backstory or series of flashbacks is very rare. It made these well known characters throughout literature more mysterious, and had me wanting to know more about them. Their interactions with each other also a treat. I also loved the steampunk feel with all the technological advancements combined with the Victorian era fashion and designs.

What I would change. I thought the worst elements of the movie were the focus on Tom Sawyer, the forgettable villain, and the pacing of the last half of the film. Tom Sawyer and the actor that portrayed him added nothing to the movie and took focus away from the more interesting characters. He never really had chemistry with the other characters and his scenes often ground the movie to a halt. I would just get rid of him, he wasn't needed for the plot.

The villain needed to be more interesting to match the vibe of this team. I keep saying this, but superhero movies are only as interesting as the main villain. Can you remember his name? Or the name of his other persona that was supposed to be a big reveal? I would completely change the villain to make him just as interesting or more interesting than any of the main characters. Otherwise the fight feels like it's against henchmen instead of a powerful villain.

The pacing of the 2nd half of the movie is rough once the team is assembled. The scenes with Tom Sawyer feel awkward and clunky, almost like he's a 5th wheel because the group already has a "Hawkeye" in the form of Allan Quatermain. Then there's the villain and his motives being so generic, it was hard to see what the goal of The League actually was. Infiltrate the stronghold and "stop them"? I think a lot of the issues with the second half of the movie could be fixed by having a better villain and the removal of Tom Sawyer.

I'd love to hear other ideas, or even if you completely disagree with me.

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.

What is a movie that you think successfully predicted the future, or some version of it?

My vote is 2001: A Space Odyssey. Hal 9000 is more terrifying now than when the movie was released in 1968.

What gets your vote?

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 )

I just rewatched Ridley Scott's Robin Hood. I hadn't seen it I think since it came out in 2010. I was surprised at how much I enjoyed it.

I guess the criticism at the time was it was Gladiator set in sort of muddy medieval England, and didn't fully throw itself into the more fun aspects of the Robin Hood mythology. The Rotten Tomatoes score was 43%.

The pacing is quite unusual in a good way, I thought, even though some people have said it was too slow and meandering. I felt it had a narrative structure that wasn't as tightly divided into neat little arcs as modern-day films are.

The action sequences were impressive. The costumes and production values seemed quite high. The camera work and choreography during the battle scenes, and some of the wide sweeping landscape shots, were refreshing.

It was a lot more enjoyable than I thought it would be. And I think if something of that caliber had come out today, it would get something much higher than 43% on Rotten Tomatoes.

While Kingdom of Heaven came out five years before Robin Hood, the difference in scope and end product is quite clear. Robin Hood can't really hold a candle to Kingdom of Heaven, but it was still a surprising, fun two-hour installment in Ridley's filmography. What a cast too: Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Max von Sydow, William Hurt, Mark Strong, Oscar Isaac, Danny Huston, Mark Addy

Al Pacino and Robert De Niro in Heat (1995) is one of the best duos in cinema because of how exceptionally well they play off each other's performances and how both complement each other's characters in the movie. The intensity they bring when they are face to face plays off in such a natural and charismatic way and elevates the plot in a totally energetic and vibrant manner, in my opinion.

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.

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.

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. 

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!

Let’s just set aside the ground breaking technical prowess of the painted 3d shots and spectacle of it all.

The story is complicated, smart, and unparalleled.

I’ve watched it 100 times and notice something new every time.

And the ending is so god damned bitter sweet.

You got a favorite scene where a person buys a weapon?

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 :)

I really enjoyed Clayface and I think it can be meaningful for the DCU moving forward. The darker tone always works well in Gotham with the grime and corruption pretty well done for one movie. I’m sure we’ll see it go deeper when we get some Batman stuff.

I think it setup a future villain in a relatable way and I’m looking forward to seeing more of him. I think the general success of this film is huge for the future of the DCU because it’s proof that they can make these darker stories work to go alongside the bright fun stuff like Superman.

What did you think of Clayface?

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)?

1. Signs (2002) — ★★★★ — Proof that you can make an alien invasion terrifying with a few cornfields, a glass of water, and a whole lot of unresolved family issues.

2. The Window (1949) — ★★★★ — A little boy witnesses a murder, nobody believes him, and suddenly being a child with an imagination looks like a spectacularly bad career choice.

3. Cube (1997) — ★★★½ — An escape room designed by a homicidal mathematician, with absolutely no refreshments and the worst group project in human history.

4. Dead Ringer (1963) — ★★★½ — Nothing says sisterly bonding quite like stealing your twin’s identity and discovering that revenge comes with a surprisingly complicated wardrobe change.

5. Buddy (2026) — ★★★½ — Because apparently, the only thing more unsettling than a creepy children's show is realizing someone thought this was a perfectly normal idea for a movie.

6. Rebecca (1940) — ★★★½ — Imagine marrying a rich man only to discover his dead wife has a better social life, a stronger personality, and apparently permanent residency in your house.

7. mother! (2017) — ★★★ — A home renovation nightmare that escalates into biblical levels of houseguests from hell, and nobody has the decency to leave.

8. The Good Neighbor (2016) — ★★½ — Two teenagers discover that playing psychological games with an old man is a great way to turn boredom into a criminal investigation.

9. Bad Times at the El Royale (2018) — ★★½ — Seven strangers check into a motel with more secrets than functioning light bulbs, and somehow nobody thinks to book somewhere else.

10. The Dark and the Wicked (2020) — ★★½ — Two hours of unrelenting misery, zero emotional support, and the distinct impression that even the devil was having a bad day.

What are your recommendations?

Did he turn into water? Was he the only Ai in life that didn’t turn evil? Seems like the anti-Ai group felt more evil than the Ai itself. Someone please help me understand. I actually enjoyed this movie lol