So one documentary that I had on my watchlist on Tubi for a while that I finally got around to seeing was the 2015 documentary Drunk Stoned Brilliant Dead. This told the history of National Lampoon, which started out as a magazine, similar to mad magazine and then transitioned into a radio show and movies.

Going into this movie, the only thing I knew about National Lampoon was from the movies. I thought this was a very good documentary. You were able to hear a lot of people that worked for the magazine and their experiences but also some of the more famous people like Chevy Chase and Kevin Bacon and how they got involved with the brand. Also, I just found it entertaining.

Overall, I didn’t know what to expect going into this movie, but I’m glad I watched it because it was a good surprise

Rating-4/5

Found this on dvd not so long ago, and finally gave it a watch. What a great movie. Not that it surprised me, but I had to see it for myself. I enjoyed it a lot. Great acting from all the cast. Even saw Old Man Marley from Home Alone.

The movie was well directed, and doesn't try to complicate things. Straight forward story telling. And it doesn't feel dated at all.

Actually I just rewatched this. And I reaffirmed to myself that it’s one of my top five films of all time.

If you haven’t seen The Wicker Man, a police officer investigates a disappearance on a remote British island… and that’s all I’ll say because the plot twist is unbelievable here.

Edward Woodward and Christopher Lee are amazing in this iconic film which is equal parts gripping, suspenseful, and terrifying.

There wasn’t a single minute in this film where I wasn’t wondering what’s going to happen next.

So going into the 2022 movie Daliland, I knew very little about the movie. I didn’t see any trailers or hear any reviews.

This was a movie I had had on my watchlist since it came out and just never got around to it. I thought the plot was intriguing when it came out. The main reason I watched it is because it was leaving Hulu so it gave me a chance to finally see it.

This is a meh movie. Ben Kingsley gives the best performance, but overall nothing in the movie really stood out. Is the execution of the plot was mediocre, and it also seemed to drag on a lot.

Rating-1.5/5

Describing your movie as ‘a comedy of catastrophic proportions’ is basically inviting failure, like revealing the punchline before the joke has been told. Not that director Alejandro González Iñárritu squeezes many punchlines into Digger. Or many actual jokes for that matter. Any laughs came in spite of what was happening onscreen. Maybe that’s the point of this whole endeavour.

On paper, Iñárritu and Tom Cruise are a perfect match for each other. Both are intensely driven by vision and ego, with Cruise manifesting it through death-defying stunts as externalised spectacle for the masses, while Iñárritu filters it through a demanding filmmaking process in pursuit of perfection that alienates most who work with him. The line between art and artist has blurred for both men in recent times - particularly Cruise’s obvious rebrand to ‘Mr. Movies’ - giving rise to the idea that they’re only able to understand the world, themselves, and what other people think of them through cinematic storytelling. It truly is ‘men will risk everything to make movies rather than go to therapy’.

It’s no surprise then that Digger swings incredibly hard with its ambitious, high-concept satire - in disregard of what everyone else thinks - because it’s basically all Iñárritu and Cruise know. Most telling is how both seemingly understand comedy theoretically, but are unable to properly convey it on a relatable human level.

Nothing in the sweaty script (co-written by Iñárritu, Alexander Dinelaris, Nicolás Giacobone, and Sabina Berman) goes directly or cleanly from A to B. Subtlety is dropped in favour of grandiose preaching in a similar environmentally conscious lane as Adam McKay’s Don’t Look Up. This is a director who clearly cares about climate change and absolutely hates how all the greedy capitalist billionaires are destroying our planet in the pursuit of wealth.

But whereas McKay is didactic, Iñárritu flip-flops between self-delusion and resentment, like he’s got a massive axe (or shovel) to grind. ‘It’s stupid, it’s funny, and it makes no goddamn sense,’ rages Kenny (Jesse Plemons) midway through. This is just one of many attempts from Iñárritu to pre-emptively defend Digger from the expected polarised responses (as the marketing did), and it ends up taking up more space than any actual comedy. What’s ironically funny is the supreme confidence Iñárritu brings to every technical aspect of the movie.

Seemingly high on his own supply, Iñárritu doubles down on the showmanship that defined The Revenant and Birdman, pulling out all his directorial tricks that make the most out of every beautiful frame. Wide-angle shots capture the rich sets and wacky props in full detail - Digger’s house of hideous paintings and animal trophies is a visual highlight - and long takes are in abundance as every actor is given ample time to put extra mustard on their performances. Riz Ahmed and Michael Stuhlbarg do a particularly funny running bit with a malfunctioning coffee machine.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/digger

Thanks!

Actually I only saw the last three quarters of it, but it was enough for me to form an opinion.

1. I cared for the characters.
   
2. I thought the ending was perfect.
   
3. Robert Pattinson is a great actor.

So even though I am a kid of the 90s, I never got around to seeing the 1995 family movie Casper. It somehow escaped me. Going into this movie, I was not sure how it would be received because I watched the movie Hocus Pocus as an adult and I did not like that viewing.

After seeing it, I thought it was a very good movie. I liked the story and I liked the bond between cat and Casper. It felt wholesome. Also, overall, I thought the performances all around were very good.

The one negative I have is just didn’t have enough of a spark for me. That could be because I didn’t see it as a kid so I don’t have that nostalgia for it. Also, the effects are little dated only because I didn’t grow up with the movie. Other than that, it was a very good watch.

Rating-4/5

Kinda disappointed tbh.

The first half of the movie is deeply compassionate towards its main characters while also having an eerie edge where you just know something is really wrong.

Then it turns into a kind of ridiculous shoot out for about 20 minutes and then it turns into another ridiculous shootout for 20 minutes.

I'm not saying the violent sequences aren't well done -- John Woo would be proud -- just saying it feels like two entirely different movies set in the same town.

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2026/09/unabomber-2026-movie-review.html

Unabomber tries to weave together two stories to create a compelling backstory for Ted Kaczynski. Unfortunately, the two never really gel. The result is a half-baked mess with both timelines feeling disjointed and unsatisfying despite the film's highly fictionalized take on real-life events. It's hard to pin down exactly what Unabomber turns out to be but it certainly feels like a film that banks on being controversial and provocative rather than being genuinely compelling.

In the 1990s, the FBI is conducting a years-long manhunt for a serial bomber with little to show for it. They only know the perpetrator as the Unabomber. Agent Joanne Miller (Shailene Woodley) believes their profile is wrong and begins questioning the investigation. Meanwhile, back in 1958, 16-year-old mathematics prodigy Ted Kaczynski (Jacob Tremblay) enters Harvard University. While studying there, Ted joins a club where a series of psychological experiments are conducted by Professor Henry Murray (Russell Crowe). Through these sessions, Ted slowly changes from a timid individual into a more aggressive one eventually leading toward the man who would become the Unabomber.

We wanted Unabomber to be interesting but we just couldn't find ourselves getting into it. The film constantly jumps between the 1990s and 1958, and in our opinion, these shifts are too frequent and jarring. Neither timeline gets enough room to breathe making it difficult to settle into either timeline, become invested in its characters, and even understand why these two narratives need to be told together. Eventually, these timelines do converge but because they feel so isolated from each other for most of the film, there's very little buildup toward that moment. When the pieces finally come together, the payoff feels lackluster, unfulfilling, and forced.

More importantly, you expect the film to show how Ted Kaczynski transformed from a mathematical genius into a serial bomber. Instead, much of that transformation remains speculative and the film never convincingly bridges the gap between the psychological experiments and the monster he would eventually become. The fictionalization could have made for a fascinating exploration of his radicalization from his teenage years to adulthood but its stuck in a particular small portion of Kaczynski's life. The one saving grace is how surprisingly atmospheric the film can be. There are moments that are genuinely tense and even unsettling, creating flashes of the thriller that Unabomber could have been.

Other than that, though, there's little to love here. If you want to scratch that true-crime itch, you're probably better off watching a YouTube video or documentary about Ted Kaczynski instead.

Rating: 1 out of 5

It wasn't all that amazing and I don't think I'd recommend it. I know I would not watch it a second time. It felt like someone just downloaded AfterEffects and decided they wanted to try out allllll the visual fx they could. Beyond that, the story was not that great. There were no stakes because plot points were eliminated immediately or forgotten. You could also tell they ran out of steam at the end, so they just faded to black, and did a cheeky coda that takes place 6 months later.

It reminded me of that Gorge movie with Anya Taylor Joy (all special effects and no story) but the VFX was not as good.

If you want to produce a VFX heavy action piece, awesome. But you're telling me there is no better un-produced script in Hollywood, languishing in a slush pile some place? THIS is the one you chose?

So going into the 1994 movie With Honors, all I knew about the movie was the plot and the poster so I knew some of the big names that were in the movie. I thought the movie sounded kind of interesting so I decided to check it out.

I thought this was a great movie. First off the story is amazing and it really tugs at your heart strings. Along with that, you get two very good performances from Brendan Fraser and Joe Pesci. My only negative would be that some of the supporting performances, including Patrick Dempsey were good, but they weren’t as strong.

Other than that, I was greatly surprised by this movie and I thought it was a fantastic watch

Rating-4.5/5

I’m not a Pixar regular, I saw the first film as a kid and don’t remember much but this movie made me emotional.

Genuinely good movie and realistic portrayal of aging and training new talent.

Lightning and Cruz were genuinely cute together. Storm was a solid villain.

The movie was sometimes so mature with its themes it felt like it was made more for adults.

One of the best animated movies I’ve ever seen. It might be my new favorite

A rugged star actor with doey blue eyes chooses to take his long-suffering dog Odin on a suicidal, one-man camping mission in the heartland of Alaska - the beast of the title.

As the character acknowledges himself at the end, the dog showed him nothing but loyalty and trust, while the owner only showed him war and violence. Poor Odin, who never had a choice in where he had to go and what he had to do in order to be fed and loved.

Have you heard the joke- America attacks countries and then makes movies about how sad it makes their soldiers? This is one of those movies- about how the American war machine chews up and spits out broken men and dogs alike, except the dogs are even more innocent than the men.

The exchange around Odin’s missing leg and teeth is especially infuriating. Odin attacked an enemy, who fought back with a brick- a brick- getting his teeth. The man- he’s called Brad or James or something- shoots the enemy in the head. And then does the same to the enemy who got Odin in the leg. They’re just assholes, see. They deserved to be shot in the head for trying to fight Odin off with a brick. That’s a good thing, that James did, shooting the enemy (they’re just called “the enemy” by the way) in the head.

Except it’s really not, and everyone knows it.

Anyway, Mother Earth, as symbolized by a warm smiley heavily-made up Indigenous woman will heal.

The wrongs of these terrible men will be righted. And Odin won’t have to fight anymore.

This certainly held my attention, but I'm not sure what to make of it. Phenomenal acting. Very disappointed with the ending, although I'm not sure what would have been better.

3 out of 5.

Resident Evil (2026) is actually better than the previous Resident Evil movies. This time, it feels less like a straightforward action movie and more like an adventure-horror, which I really enjoyed.

The main character is pretty ordinary, which makes him interesting in a different way. He’s just a delivery guy who gets caught up in everything, rather than the usual highly skilled action hero. It makes the story feel more grounded, and surprisingly, the character works well for this kind of story.

The effects are good, the action is entertaining, and the overall plot is solid. I also really liked the game-inspired POV and how the movie feels closer to the experience of actually playing a Resident Evil game. That was probably one of my favorite things about it.

It’s also kind of weird seeing a Resident Evil movie without Alice. After being such a huge part of the previous movies, her absence definitely feels noticeable. At the same time, I think having a completely different main character helped make this movie feel fresh.

My biggest issue is that there aren’t really any major plot twists. A lot of the time, I already knew what was going to happen next. Some scenes felt predictable, so the story lost a bit of its suspense.

Still, it’s a fun adventure with good visuals, a simple but effective main character, and a nice connection to the games.

So to start off with, I’m not the biggest fan of Superman, the character, but I’m always willing to watch the movies to see if it changes. I decided to go to an original which is the 1978 Superman the movie with Christopher Reeve.

I thought this was a very good movie. I liked the performances of Christopher Reeve and Gene Hackman. I also liked the bond between Reeve and Margo Kidder as Lois Lane. It felt genuine

As far as negatives, I thought some of the other performances were lacking. Also there was more of a connection between Clark and the Kents. Also I thought the story was good but not great. It also felt like it could have been shortened.

Overall, I didn’t know what I was getting into when I started this movie but I quite enjoyed it and currently it is my favorite standalone Superman movie

Rating-4/5

Source: https://www.reeladvice.net/2026/09/gitling-hyphen-2023-movie-review.html

Gitling (Hyphen) is a slow and meticulous film centered on language, communication, and the different ways people connect with one another. It's an interesting premise that works particularly well with its characters who find ways to understand each other despite a significant language barrier. Admittedly, even with its deep themes, the narrative can feel simple and superficial at times, leaving us wanting more from the ideas it introduces.

An award-winning Japanese director (Ken Yamamura) travels to the Philippines as a guest of honor at a film festival where his movie is being screened. Jamie (Gabby Padilla) is his young Filipina translator, who is also tasked with creating the subtitles for his film. As the only two people who can communicate comfortably with each other, the two develop a friendship that gradually turns into something more.

Taken scene by scene, Gitling is a beautiful film. The cinematography is striking while the tension and chemistry between the two leads give the film an emotional pulse. This isolated manner is where the film works best. It finds subtle and relatable ways to portray the different languages of love even when words aren't used. The silence between the characters is just as expressive as their conversations and the film captures those moments particularly well.

The problem is that Gitling sometimes forgets to build a more cohesive story around those moments. It becomes so focused on what it wants to portray that it doesn't always give enough attention to the backstories and supporting elements that could have made the relationship feel more believable and the narrative more connected. The biggest issue for us is how quickly the relationship between the translator and director develops. One day, they're strangers meeting for the first time and the next, they're already beginning a budding relationship. If a longer passage of time is meant to have passed, the film doesn't communicate that progression effectively enough. As a result, the emotional development can feel rushed.

The supporting cast also proves to be a slight detriment to the film's atmosphere. While the two leads deliver muted and relatable performances that fit the film's tone, some of the supporting characters come across as artificial and over-the-top. Fortunately, these moments only happen occasionally and don't significantly disrupt the film's overall vibe. While not perfect, Gitling is moving at its best moments. Its greatest strength is how it finds intimacy in the smallest details, in words, gestures, glances, and even silence. It may not fully develop all of the ideas it introduces but it offers an unconventional look at how people connect even when language gets in the way.

Rating: 4 out of 5

So one movie that has interested me in watching and was recently on a list of best neo noir movies is the 1974 movie The Conversation with Gene Hackman.

I thought this movie was average. I thought Gene Hackman was the best part of the movie and he gave a great performance. I was also intrigued at the beginning of what the main story was. Unfortunately, I found this movie to be too slow. Also, I was wanting more of a thrill and I just didn’t get that. It just did not keep my attention.

Rating-3/5

I just watched "This Must Be the Place" directed by Paolo Sorrentino and loved it!

It was super entertaining, and the cinematography was stunning. Not to mention the acting from Sean Penn, I can't imagine how he managed not to break character.

Does anyone have good recommendations for similar movies?

Or if you also enjoy this film a lot, I’d also love to hear about your other favorites!

https://youtu.be/z6j4BuCZVEM?si=rGyJ0sFyY2WqGRaj

If I had a dollar for every time I’ve watched Brad Pitt play a retired army guy who hangs out with an adorable big dog, I’d have two dollars. Which isn’t a lot, but it’s weird that it’s happened twice. What’s less weird is that unlike Once Upon a Time In Hollywood, Heart of the Beast has nothing interesting to say while having no conviction in its storytelling.

Any time a cute animal is deployed (pun somewhat intended) in a movie, there’s a high probability of emotional manipulation being weaponised in lieu of earned pay-offs, the worst offender being James Gunn’s god-awful Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3. Director David Ayer dispels that notion right away in Heart of the Beast as we immediately learn that Odin, the titular beast and goodest boy, survives the movie. That’s about the extent to which Ayer gets any modicum of credit. The rest of the journey is a brutal slog where the movie is less of a story and more of a series of events strung together, starting with Pitt’s James and Odin going on a camping trip in remote Alaska and eventually getting stranded.

Working off a minimalist script by Cameron Alexander, Ayer is clearly trying to infuse his trademark hyper-masculine energy with the gruelling physical character journey of All Is Lost or Into The Wild. But whereas those latter two films blended visual storytelling with the journey, Heart of the Beast gives us next to nothing about who James is and where his arc is headed. Sure he has a love of boujee Belgian brown ale and draws great sketches for fun, but his competence and survival experience sap away any tension or intrigue. He isn’t in Alaska because he got stranded. He chose to go there. Odin’s carbon fibre leg and titanium teeth carry more character intrigue than he does. What is intended as stoicism comes off as pure blandness, and a not-insignificant part of that is Pitt’s inability to be a convincing leading man.

For all his star power (and horrendous reputational problems), Pitt has always worked best as a foil or comedic counterpart to the headline act. He is a character actor with leading man looks, and he’s at his most interesting when his movie-star persona isn’t relied upon to shoulder the dramatic load. It’s why Troy and F1 feels phoned in while Ocean’s Eleven and Once Upon a Time In Hollywood feel like the best utilisation of his weirdo energy. It’s a shame Heart of the Beast limits the supporting cast to just two minutes of J. K. Simmons because he upstages Pitt so convincingly that I became more interested in his character’s journey than James’s.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/heart-of-the-beast-barely-a-dogs

Thanks!

So because it is a house at this year’s Halloween horror nights, I decided to finally check out the 1987 horror movie Hellraiser

Overall, this was an OK movie but it’s just not for me. Some of the creatures look interesting but it’s just too gory for my taste. Also, maybe it’s not supposed to be like this, but the acting wasn’t good.

I can now say that I’ve seen the movie, but I have no interest in seeing any of the other movies in the franchise

Rating-2/5

This will probably go in the category of ‘loved it, but will probably never watch it again’ for me.

It’s about two kinda kindred spirits with nothing and nobody until they meet each other. They seem to come into each other’s lives at the right times but for all the wrong reasons.

I really felt the ending was pretty messed up, but it was a good movie, and Nick Cage and Elisabeth Shue are both brilliant.

8.5/10 for me

So going into the 1979 thriller The China Syndrome, I’ve heard of the movie, but I didn’t know anything about it. After reading the plot, I wasn’t sure how much I would get into it.

I will say that this is a very good movie. It has those thrilling aspects, but it also has great performances. The three main standouts are Jane Fonda, Michael Douglas, and Jack Lemmon.

The only small negative I have is terminology. I could understand a little bit of what was going on, but it was technical in terms of what really was going on so it was hard to follow at times.

Overall, this was a great movie that exceeded my expectations

Rating-4/5

So I just finished watching the 1979 courtroom drama And Justice For All. I washed it mainly because it had gotten some positive praise from some friends of mine. Also it stars Al Pacino and he’s a very good actor.

I thought the movie was good. You have a very good performance from Al Pacino and I think it’s an interesting premise. There are some really powerful scenes in the movie, especially with Pacino. My big negative is that I wasn’t sold on the main story. It never kept me interested. Also I just wish the execution for the entire movie was a little better. I do think the movie was a little overhyped and it just did not meet my expectations as much as I thought it would.

I have now seen five movies directed by Norman Jewison and this is clearly at the bottom (The other 4: Rollerball,Moonstruck, The Hurricane, and In The Heat Of The Night)

Rating-3/5

So I just finished watching the 1978 movie The Driver with Ryan O’Neal and Bruce Dern. I thought it was a good movie. I liked O’Neal and the car chases along with the score. I thought the rest of the movie it’s OK. I don’t think the chemistry worked with any pairing my opinion and I thought the story was solid, but didn’t really do enough for me.

Rating-3/5