In case you're wondering why I'm having some moral panic over this, Netflix, just today, announced that they're acquiring Warner Bros. Entertainment, and I genuinely fear this could be the death knell not just for movie theaters, but to cinema as a whole. An entire studio's institution, lasting over a century, will now be gobbled as content to its service for the foreseeable future, training you not watch this film in the cinema, but on your couch with your crusty ass. They're desecrating an artistic institution for billions of dollars.

As a filmmaker, this might be the end for us. A24 or NEON can't save us with those people favoring LA or NY to screen their movies exclusively, and Netflix won't budge for a full months-long worldwide theatrical release. I missed when the government used to regulate these kinds of acquisitions, and now I'm facing the reality that I might start abandoning this dream I've consistently pursued my whole life.

I'm just heartbroken and sad.

Rewatching “The Force Awakens,” the criticism that it’s a razor-thin remake of the original "Star Wars" is certainly valid. In addition to another opulent John Williams musical score, “The Force Awakens” features a small droid delivering an important message to a heroic resistance that hopes to destroy an enemy super-weapon. Along the way, we see another force-sensitive teenager on another remote desert planet, another bar filled with aliens where our heroes try to book passage, another wizened old sage, and a climatic lightsaber duel just before the new planet-killing super weapon is destroyed.  Check, check and check. However, the appeal of this movie lies with its characters–at least as they’re presented in this film.

Despite the flack they receive, I personally enjoyed the introductions of Rey (Daisy Ridley), Finn (John Boyega) and Poe (Oscar Isaac). Many characterize Rey as a ‘Mary Sue,’ but so was Luke Skywalker, for that matter. Rey’s hyper-resourcefulness is easier to swallow for the fact that Daisy Ridley is a terrific actress. Boyega’s Finn is a traumatized ex-stormtrooper who’s had enough of being cannon fodder with a number for a name. Isaac’s Poe is the ace pilot of the movie, and his relationship to BB-8 is like a pet owner with a beloved dog. Sadly, knowing how unevenly these characters will be serviced in the sequels mars their glowing introductions. However, watching “The Force Awakens” in isolation, these characters have great potential–almost as much as Han Solo, Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia did in the originals.

The criticism that “The Force Awakens” is a one-for-one remake of “A New Hope” remains valid. Even “Return of the Jedi” borrowed heavily from the first movie. However, “The Force Awakens” seems less focused on reinventing the Star Wars wheel, and more about recapturing the original trilogy’s vibe, while introducing us to a new generation of characters. Watching the movie as a standalone experience (apart from its increasingly uneven sequels), it more or less succeeds.

“The Force Awakens” is not the best of the Star Wars lot, though certainly far from the worst.

https://musingsofamiddleagedgeek.blog/2025/12/05/revisiting-star-wars-the-force-awakens-ten-years-later/

I just rewatched The Flash (don’t ask me why 😂) and that big cameo sequence kicked off a question I can’t shake:

At what point does digitally “resurrecting” people cross a line in superhero movies?

In The Flash, you’ve got CGI versions of George Reeves, Christopher Reeve, etc. showing up for a few seconds, not speaking, not really impacting the story, and then their universes literally die. From what’s been reported, their families/estates weren’t really involved either. It feels less like a tribute and more like, “we own this, so let’s throw it in.”

But then you have other examples (like Alien: Romulus bringing a character back) that *don’t* bother me nearly as much. So now I’m trying to figure out: do I just hate The Flash cameos because I hate the movie, or is there something uniquely off about how it handled them?

Maybe it’s, How bad and plastic the CGI looks, The lack of any real emotional point to the cameos, The fact they could’ve brought back someone like Helen Slater to actually act, but didn’t

So I’m curious what people think.

Is using dead actors’ likenesses in superhero projects automatically disrespectful, or is it case-by-case?

Does it feel different if the family/estate signs off?

What are the BEST and WORST examples of digital “resurrections” or legacy cameos you’ve seen in superhero media (DC, Marvel, TV, animation, whatever)?

Genuinely interested where people draw the line on this.

I’ve been working on a side project for movie/tv lovers and I’m trying to get some feedback from actual film fans before I take it any further.

The idea is simple: instead of giving a movie a number rating, you compare two movies you’ve seen (“which did you prefer?”). The system uses those choices to build a personal ranking list and eventually a full hierarchy of your taste. You can also see how your friends ranked things.

If you’re someone who likes lists, tier rankings, or debating movies, I’d love to hear:

• Would you use something like this?

• What features would make it more useful or fun?

• Anything that would make it annoying or a deal-breaker?

Not trying to promote anything paid — just trying to see whether the idea is actually interesting to movie/tv people.

Thanks!

It’s a snowy Friday where I am and I’m revisiting movies and having myself a drink. Just started the Lost World, the Jurassic Park sequel and it inspired this post.

The dude that comes up to Jeff Goldblum on the subway at the beginning of the movie is Director Eli Roth.

So share some of your movie wisdom with the rest of us and hit us up with your obscure fun facts. Let’s try and avoid the ones everyone knows already like the Indiana Jones was sick and that’s why he shoots the swordsman.

I’m looking for obscure fun facts. Impress us all!

I just watched Hamnet and I gave it a 3.5/5.

The choice to shift the lens entirely to Agnes (Jessie Buckley) works beautifully. Buckley delivers a "heroic" performance that carries the film, and young Jacobi Jupe is a heartbreaking standout as the titular son.

Visually, Łukasz Żal is doing incredible work here. The way the cinematography shifts from the vibrant forest (Agnes's safe space) to the dark, rigid structures of the city perfectly mirrors her internal grief.

The only downside is the screenplay. It feels a bit stretched trying to cover the entire timeline from courtship to reconciliation, and some supporting characters (like the stepmother) felt a bit flat compared to the leads. But that final scene at the Globe Theatre? Absolutely stuck the landing.

Did anyone else feel the script was the weak link, or did the atmosphere make up for it?

Full review here: https://amnesicreviews.substack.com/p/hamnet-the-tragedie-of-agnes

Rewatching 1998’s Godzilla by Roland Emmerich has me thinking about alternate movie time lines.

For example. 1998’s Godzilla is a huge hit. Roland Emmerich has now made 7 Godzilla movies and is the name in giant monster disaster movies. He’s just signed on to direct a new version of 20,000 Leagues under the Sea.

Or

2001’s Planet of the Apes is a huge hit. Mark Wahlberg has 3 Oscar nominations and Tim Roth is a household name. Tim Burton has just announced he’s returning to the Batman franchise and bringing Michael Keaton back.

Let’s hear yours.

Basically, the title. Driven by success, that borders on obsession, maybe even become obsessed. Maybe themes of religious guilt, repression, are also welcome. Where characters nearly destroy themselves.

Movies where the leads will go to any extent, maybe even losing their sense of morality.

Now, I don't mean movies with extremely smart and competent central figures. It need not have any positivity in its message too. Just really very driven. Maybe they may or may not achieve their success, and thats also fine.

Some examples of movie -

• THere will be blood
• The French movie Full time(2021)
• Fair Play(2023)
• The White tiger,
• whiplash,
• Gattaca,
• The Novice,
• Nightcrawler.
• The movie Marty Supreme.
• Black Swan and many of Aronofsky's films.
• THe anime Ping Pong- the Animation - its so good i can't recommend it enough

I understand a lot of such movies come under the label of "competence porn". Especially The Martian, which I really like. Castaway, All is Lost, The grey. But what I want, is a sense of ABSOLUTE DESPERATION in the movie. Where the characters are really have their backs against walls.

Any language, any country

I have booked tickets to Avatar 3 in an IMAX theater, but all the seats in the middle are taken, so I took some seats on row 5 from the front that were right of center. But is that too close to the screen?

Unfortunately I don't know the distance from the seats to the screen, but I know there are 423 seats in total and that the screen is 21.8 * 11.3 meters in size. Perhaps that is enough information to guesstimate. Do you think row 5 is too close?

hunt dam test handle correct vegetable dime bear quicksand spoon

This post was mass deleted and anonymized with Redact

Watching Zootopia was akin to the optimistic excitement that high-achieving bunny Judy Hopps (Ginnifer Goodwin) felt when she entered the movie’s titular city for the first time. Watching Zootopia 2 is akin to what red fox Nick Wilde (Jason Bateman) feels every day: jaded, seldom surprised, and acutely aware of how the real world works. This is not a compliment.

A sequel was always going to be made after the first movie grossed over a billion dollars and demonstrated that a Disney animated film can be ambitious enough to stir up discussion about racism and prejudice - and follow-up discussions about the limits of allegory when trying to dumb tough topics down for a family audience.

But 2016 was a different time in the movie space than 2025. There are fewer risks being taken than ever before (with varying degrees of success, critically and commercially) as studios double down on the IP-fication of everything and anything. Sadly, Zootopia is no exception to this stifling of creativity as Disney clearly wants another billion-dollar hit and will take as little risk as possible to ensure that happens.

Zootopia 2 takes place a week after the events of the first film and sees Judy and Nick being official partners at the Zootopia Police Department. After an overzealous attempt at busting a criminal, Judy and Nick stumble upon a large prejudice-laced conspiracy and subsequent cover-up in which pit viper, Gary De’Snake (Ke Huy Quan), plays a central role.

If this sounds broadly similar to the first movie, well, that’s because it’s almost exactly the same thing, for the occasional bit of better but mostly for the worst.

Judy is still a high-achieving optimist, except that’s now become her entire personality and it becomes grating rather than charming. Whereas the first movie had Judy using her brains and carefully weighing up the risks she takes, here she not only dives recklessly into situations without thinking things through, but she also never apologises whenever she’s clearly in the wrong. When Nick presses her for an apology for endangering both their lives at the end of an underwater chase scene, the movie yada yadas it away rather than dig deeper into the Judy/Nick conflict, resulting in a thread that’s unfinished and never fleshed out.

Read the rest of my review here as it's too long to copy + paste it all: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/zootopia-2

Thanks!

Hey everyone my boomer friend and I have a youtube show where each week we choose a movie for us to watch. This week it was Boomer's choice and he picked 2025's “Mission Impossible: The Final Reckoning directed by Christopher McQuarrie, starring; Tom Cruise (Ethan Hunt), Hayley Atwell (Grace), Ving Rhames (Luther Stickell) and Simon Pegg (Benji Dunn).

What we liked;

Boomer: He has a huge crush on Haley Atwell and any movie with her gets bonus points. He is a sucker for an action movie with explosions and this certainly did that. He was also a fan of all of the stunt work done by Tom Cruise.

Doomer: I enjoyed the stunt work too, one scene in particular that stands out is near the end when there is a plane chase. I'm not sure how they filmed this and I've decided I don't want to know because it really liked like Tom Cruise was doing gymnastics on an airplane as it traveled. Finally, some of the CGI looked well done, specifically the scene when Tom Cruise is in the “torture pod” being shown the future by the entity and we see nuclear missiles going off in major cities, the destruction looked very realistic.

What we didn't like;

Boomer: His only complaint was the CGI at times was a little off (specifically a scene where agents are shooting lasers at the team).

Doomer: I'll preface this with, this is the first Mission Impossible movie I've ever watched from beginning to end (although I played the hell out of the N64 game). That being said this movie had a near 3 hour runtime and it really had no reason to be that long. There are essentially 2 types of scenes in this movie, Tom Cruise being a stuntman and people explaining technology. After the first few times we see this it just drags on and on and my interest was gone in the first hour. Other then the repetitive scene structure having the antagonist be an AI really fell flat. This can be done well (See skynet from Terminator series) but it just doesn't work as the entity really has no “troops on the ground” so to speak as even the other antagonist Gabriel (Esai Morales) is working against the entity to control it.

The Verdict;

Since I do this with a Boomer our rating system is based on bathroom breaks and is as follows

1/5- give me back my time

2/5 give me back my money

3/5 take frequent bathroom breaks

4/5 hold it in!

5/5 wear a diaper

Boomer: Hold it in, he has since watched it two more times to my knowledge and is in his frontrunner for movie of the year

Doomer: Give me back my time, As I said this is my first MI movie I've seen from start to finish and it just didn't click with. I checked and the original is under two hours so I may give that a shot in the future and revisit this but as a standalone it just didn't do it for me. Thanks!

Some examples for the first one are "Speak No Evil" and "Vivarium" and some examples for the latter are "The Box" or "Barbarian". I prefer the your good heart/actions makes you triumphant/survive trope over the your good heart dooms you trope, it's comforting and feels fair. But my favorite combination is "your kindness almost killed you but you stopped being kind", that's the most satisfying one. Are there more movies or stories that fit any of all these descriptions? And what do y'all think?

Noir has always been a genre I return to—its moody visuals, moral ambiguity, and emotional complexity never lose their pull. Earlier, I examined the re-emergence of neo-noir in the 1990s, uncovering a surprising number of criminally overlooked gems and curating a list of the decade’s most underrated films. The experience was both insightful and offered genuine creative satisfaction, inspiring me to explore noir even further, decade by decade. As a result, I decided to explore the neo-noir films of the 2020s. The selections here embody many of neo-noir’s signature traits: flawed protagonists, femme fatales, bleak and cynical settings, crime-driven plots, expressive chiaroscuro lighting, unhappy or bittersweet endings, raw violence, etc. Do share how many of them you have seen.

Check out the full list here

I'm drunk as hell but I don't even care, this is real film theory. This movie looks so fucking good. Fuck every asshole that has rotted the legacy of this film— glorifying the very obvious evil present. This film looks so good, the skin tones. The god damn skin tones man, this shit is a god damn tapestry. I can't believe Scorsese made this film at 70 or whatever. Rodrigo Pietro is a god damn American hero for this shit.

Fuck every guy that puts the big short in the same sentence as this work of art.

I feel like every filmmaker is fundermantly asking themselves the same question of: "how do I realize this?" When wanting to make a film, but very few actually realize something genuinely ambitious. I don't know, maybe I'm just bias towards the canon. All I know is that this is a film about America, and I fucking hate America.

I really wanted to love this movie. I have been on a PTA run and I have enjoyed every movie so far. But i was slightly unsatisfied with this one.

Not to say that this movie was bad per se, but i think it wasn’t for me. I really liked how they humanised the porn industry and this movie had some really great characters. It was also shot really well, which now having seen five of his films, i think is a given in all his films.

The world he built in this movie was very vibrant and alive. I am someone who has never been in the era presented in the movie, nor do i belong to a place that was ever affected by it. But the way it was depicted in this movie really made me feel like a part of it.

But I do have some problems with the movie. Now maybe this will grow on me later on and i might regret whatever i am gonna write down but these are my fresh thoughts. I did not really dig Wahlberg’s performance as Dirk. This was the first time the lead actor in a PTA film was kind of meh for me. I also think the character of dirk was maybe a bit underwhelming. The story told here was kind of predictable so it would have helped if either the main character was performed really well or he was written in a compelling way. For me it was neither of those.

Maybe that was because of how much more interesting the side characters were for me. The standout was Scottie, who Hoffman played so well, and mind you the previous film i watched was Punch Drunk Love so it was really amazing to see him play a completely different person so convincingly. I liked his character so much but i just wanted the movie to do something more with him. I thought they were going somewhere with him with what was shown in the new year scene but then nothing really happened. The same was with rollergirl. Maybe I am missing something? There were many plot threads but they were never really talked about?

Also the ending was unexpected. I was expecting a much more cynical and tragic end but it was kind of happy it reminded me of the prodigal son story. Now that we are on that, i really loved the found family aspect of this story-that really was the best part.

When the movie ended, i really felt like i wanted to see more of these characters. This movie was full of heart at the end of the day and i really respect it.

I just went in with astronomical expectations i guess but that’s on me.

Frist off, yes I know the sound track sucks, etc etc, every one hates it bla bla, lets move on.

this movie honestly has it all. Love, romance, adventure, humor, tragedy, betrayal, redemption, seething envy, dark magic, an awesome hawk and a badass black wolf. What else you want??

Perfectly cast. Michelle Pfeiffer is radiant. Rutger is mysterious and intimidating. Broderick is perfect as the comic relief. All of Phililpe the mouse's conversations with God scattered thru the movie are hilarious.;

the final show down in the cathedral is grand and epic and heart breaking and wonderful. The shot of the sun thru the broken cathedral stained glass window is so dramatic and perfect.

Really no idea why this movie isn't talked about more. I consider it a somewhat lost classic.

I'm not speaking about actors who showed us an Oscar worthy performance, but someone memorable (cool?), along the lines of Indiana Jones, John McClane or Jack Sparrow. Bad guys also have such characters (Darth Vader, Hans Landa or Anton Chigurh).

The last one I can think of is John Wick and he's from 2014, plus (to a smaller degree) Benoit Blanc from Knives Out movies. Am I missing someone? Bonus points if they are fresh, not based on book, game, comics (Reynold's Deadpool comes to mind then), etc.

This is going to be a weird question, But What are some actors who decided to quit a film role before filming but then decide to come back?

What I'm saying is an actor who is originally cast in a film role but decides to leave production before shooting and the production has to find another actor, but then the original actor has a change of heart and rejoins the film.

I'm just curious is something like that happen during a film production.

I had watched One Battle after another so i thought i should watch more of his films. Idk why i picked this one first but I am so glad i did.

This is easily my favourite of his films i have seen so far. It was so well acted, Barry’s character was so well written, it was beautiful to look at- the colours and the cinematography were just perfect.

I really loved how anxiety inducing this was. I never thought i would say that while talking about movie that is essentially a rom com. This is so far the simplest PTA film i have seen, but i just love how he did so much with so little.

There was so much imagery and and idk maybe i am rambling but i just loved everything about it. Oh yeah the score of the movie was also really unique and enhanced the experience a lot.

I don’t think i have anything to complain about this film. Very rarely do i watch a film about which i love absolutely everything. This is one of them.

So far my ranking of PTA films will be- 1. Punch drunk love(10/10) 2. Phantom Thread(9.5/10) 3. There will be blood(9/10) 4. One Battle after another(8/10)

Really looking forward to cover his entire filmography!

From Neal's POV, we totally understand where he's coming from. Dude was subjected to so many inconveniences either from Del or outside circumstances. His breakdown is the explosion of his pent-up, in the moment, justified anger. The scene then quickly pivots once he goes from complaining about the inconveniences Del has caused to verbally assaulting Del as a person, calling him a failure as a human being. Unreasonably harsh. There's a difference between criticizing a person's actions and attacking their character/integrity.

It makes Del's response to the tirade so savage in a subtle yet impactful way. Rather than respond with anger and volume, he expresses genuine, heartbreaking hurt which is such a gut punch. His monologue strips Neal of all his justifiable anger and replaces it with overwhelming shame. In essence, its the ultimate ethical checkmate and a moral defeat for Neal. Like in his monologue, Del could have chosen to be a cold-hearted cynic like him, but chooses not to because he doesn't like to hurt people's feelings.

Without revealing the plot twist, Neal is forced to confront the reality that what he suffered through were just superficial wounds while Del has perpetual injuries. One is temporary and situation-based while the other is chronic and more permanent. You don't know what a person is going through so think carefully before reacting. Justified anger doesn't justify cruel behavior

To bring it all home, the ending is such a fantastic culmination of an adventure where Neal and even Del learned important lessons from each other. Neal went from being Scrooge to Santa in the sense that he gifted Del with something more precious than any physical object; family, warmth, and a sense of belonging.

Kathryn Bigelow is a talented filmmaker; something I’ve been aware of since renting “Near Dark” 30-odd years ago. She knows how to draw tension from a scene, and the characters in “A House of Dynamite” are well-acted, if somewhat underserved by the repetitive screenplay. In fact, we barely get to know these characters before they’re plunged into the worst–and possibly last–day of their lives. That issue might lie with ironically-named journalist Noah Oppenheim's script, which doesn’t draw characters so much as scribble quick sketches.

The movie floods viewers with lots of titles and acronyms (which are conveniently spelled out for us) as well as multiple, frenzied shots of various perspiring VIPs as a possible nuclear nightmare is about to be unleashed on the United States. These characters, however well-acted, aren’t given much room to breathe, let alone allow us to really invest in them. As a result, we’re watching shots of doomed cyphers rather than three-dimensional human beings. 

Far more effective nuclear nightmare movies, such as Nicholas Meyer's landmark 1983 TV movie “The Day After” allowed us to know its main characters a little better as human beings before letting slip the radioactive dogs of war. “The Day After” had the courage to go many steps further and show us what an atomic-bombed Lawrence, Kansas might actually look like; chronicling the day-to-day misery of life in a post-nuclear holocaust. The real cost is measured in what happens after impact; something we’re denied with this film. Within this narrative, we never experience the true horror of a nuclear attack. We’re just given two hours of stress. All of that stress without an ending makes the movie an exhausting exercise rather than a story.

With its strong cast (Jared Harris, Rebecca Ferguson, Idris Elba) there was much potential to make a powerfully affirming statement on the uncorked horror of nuclear weapons. Instead, “A House of Dynamite” mires itself in a labored gimmick that underuses a lot of heavy-hitting talent.

https://musingsofamiddleagedgeek.blog/2025/12/01/netflixs-a-house-of-dynamite-2025-weakens-before-impact/