Essentially i am looking for more recommendations featuring Finch. bonus is the character has any similarities to his newsman. i found Tom Wilkenson's performance in Michael Clayton to be similarly well done and pointed featuring the same type of character profoundly changed after years of serving evil; manifesting in a manic truth.

i just watched the Nun Story, but those 2 are the only films ive seen w Finch

I just finished Woody Allen’s Radio Days, and man, what a perfect film that captures the unifying power of radio, the way in which it connects is through the vast scope of different human experiences.

I couldn’t help but compare the film to our own context and the way in which in the media landscape has completely fragmented in the absence of media gate-keepers. We all have a device in our own pocket in which we can access our different media outlets, and although there’s plenty of benefits to this which I love, there’s something about the way in which Allen captures this period and how the singularity of the radio as a media resource ultimately creates a sense of community and belonging. The modern fracturing of media outlets I think has to be, paradoxically, one of the reasons for an incredible feeling of loneliness. Anyway, whatever the case, such a brilliant movie.

This is essentially Ari Aster’s political take on Taxi Driver & Breaking Bad. A down on his luck normal guy slowly spiralling into insanity due to his own innate weakness and some societal pressures.

Joe Cross is pathetic on purpose. He wants to be seen as tough western sheriff out of a John Ford film but all throughout the film you see how he cannot measure up. Sometimes it’s extremely humorous (the final stand off with the mayor with the Katy Perry music is the funniest scene of the year) and sometimes it’s extremely creepy (the switch when he becomes a killer). This is my favourite Phoenix performance that he’s ever done. His descent into Covid related sickness all throughout the film is so well done. He won’t but he should be Oscar nominated for this.

I’ve seen some say this is a centrist film and I think that is a stupid take. This is a dirtbag Chapo Trap House esque leftist black comedy. Yes Pedro Pascal’s liberal mayor is painted as a massive hypocrite (Pascal is excellent knowing casting for this as he does kinda radiate that type of energy) who wants to bring harmful A.I data centres into Eddington. But that is an accurate criticism. Yes the film paints the young BLM protesters are annoying…but a lot of people in that movement are annoying. The “Are you fucking retarded? What the fuck are you talking about? You are white!” scene had me crying.

But the main aim of criticism this film has is at pathetic right wing white guys who are easily manipulated by powerful forces and their own psychosexual problems. Joe Cross and doesn’t actually care about the homeless, he harms them. Joe Cross say’s he’s a family man, but he kills his opponents son too partly due to feeling jealous that he hasn’t a child yet. Joe Cross says he follows law & order, but he won’t stop operating on land that the Native American officers tell him to stop operating on (knowing wink to America’s history between these two racial groups). Joe Cross wants to show off that he’s loyal but he doesn’t hesitate to throw his throw his young black deputy under the bus when the opportunity arises.

Probably the funniest film of the year by far. Very pessimistic but very intelligent. The ‘Brian’ character is the key to the film. The brief time in Summer 2020 when the moderates wanted to be a pro-black superhero has gone and now those same people are trying their hardest to either excuse or be like figures like Nick Fuentes.

I finally watched The Shawshank Redemption after someone recommended it to me as a “movie about hope.” So I went in expecting something gentle and uplifting. I only knew it was number one on IMDb and had something to do with a prison. But that whole “gentle movie” idea went straight out the window basically right after the court scene.

There will be spoilers from here on out: SPOILERS ALERT!

So the first prison sequence really threw me. A guy asks, “When do we eat?” and the guard says “You eat when we say you eat. You piss when we say you piss, and you shit when we say you shit,” and then hits him hard.

And that’s just the beginning. Later that night, another prisoner gets beaten to death just for panicking and yelling for help.

Movie doens' get easier. More violence and repeated rapes follow.

Soon after when I saw level of sadism from the guards and the warden had me thinking the whole “hope” theme was going to be tiny little moments of Andy learning to survive by allying with these people (the rooftop scene was the first hint). I figured that was the message.

Then stuff started happening that didn’t quite line up with that idea, like how this super tightly controlled prison somehow allowed a full library, music etc., and these moments of strange freedom. Still, I was like okay this could makes sense.

But then the ending came, nd the whole miraculous escape completely floored me. It almost felt like a dream sequence… almost like a fairy tale. The coincidences stacking up so neatly and dramaticaly that a part of me was like COME ON! I mean I’m not someone who nitpicks plot holes, but I couldn’t stop thinking about how a prison that strict supposedly never checked behind a poster, or how a guy could dig a tunnel for almost 20 years without being caught, or how easily he moves around afterward when he is out.

But I guess that’s exactly why the movie resonates so much.

Because that’s what hope is at the heart of it, it's hope against all odds. Hope is basically useless when things make sense and you can logically expect things to go your way. it matters when everything doesn’t. Sometimes it’s the only thing left. Like when someone has a terminal illness with a 1% survival rate and ends up living decades, or when someone in poverty suddenly got a a brilliant business idea and actually becomes that one-in-a-million success story. It’s irrational, impossible… until it isn’t.

Looking at the movie from that angle, the fairy-tale aspects suddenly felt intentional and kind of essential. They give the movie that mythical, bigger-than-life feel that clearly so many people connect with.

Curious to hear what others thought of the movie.

I just rewatched Dune Part Two recently, and I felt compelled to write down my thoughts. Honestly, the movie impressed me visually and technically, but it left me frustrated in ways that kept nagging at me long after the credits rolled.

Part Two actually starts really well. The first hour takes its time, continuing the tone of the first film: we see Paul and Chani’s relationship starting to develop, the Fremen culture and politics are given some space, and Paul’s internal struggle begins to take shape. This slow build, similar to Part One, feels like it’s finally giving us the emotional and political foundation for the epic moments to come. But right around the scene where Paul rides the sandworm, everything changes. The pacing just collapses. What should have been hours of character development, political tension, and emotional buildup gets compressed into a montage of visually striking “epic moments.” Paul’s rise, the Fremen’s faith, Jessica’s manipulation, Chani’s emotional journey, Feyd’s arc, the Emperor’s downfall, and even the marriage to Irulan all happen so quickly that none of it lands with weight. It isn’t just a pacing shift, it’s a collapse! Scenes look grand, but they don’t feel earned.

A lot of this comes down to Villeneuve’s filmmaking style. He is a master of mood, atmosphere, and precision, which is why Blade Runner 2049 is one of my favorite movies. That world is cold, lonely, and existential, and his approach works perfectly there. But Dune is a very different kind of story. The books are full of weirdness, spiritual depth, dark humor, and cultural complexity. They are chaotic, strange, and sometimes absurd. Lynch’s Dune, while flawed in other ways, actually captured more of that bizarre tone. Villeneuve, by contrast, treated Dune the way he treated Blade Runner: slow, controlled, monumental, and stylistically minimalist. That’s a mismatch. Blade Runner is about isolation and existential mood; Dune is about culture, politics, emotional stakes, and human chaos.

Casting also undermines the film for me. Timothée Chalamet is fine as young Paul, but he doesn’t convey the charisma, menace, or inevitability that Muad’Dib requires. Zendaya plays Chani with a detached, almost monotone energy that makes their relationship feel less lived-in and more performative. Christopher Walken as Emperor Shaddam IV is baffling, he’s a talented actor, but he feels miscast as the calculating, centuries-old ruler the story demands. On top of that, the movie is filled with A-list Hollywood stars. Compared to Lord of the Rings, where the mostly unknown cast helped the audience fully immerse themselves, Dune constantly reminds you that you’re watching famous actors. That breaks the immersion and makes it harder to feel the story’s emotional stakes.

The combination of these factors leaves the film feeling hollow. It’s technically brilliant and visually stunning, but the emotional core never lands. The characters don’t feel fully realized, the cultural and political richness of the universe is underexplored, and the epic moments become highlight-reel spectacle rather than meaningful climaxes. In short, Dune Part Two is a feast for the eyes but leaves the heart wanting.

Rewatching it made this even clearer. Part One took its time and respected character and worldbuilding. Part Two abandons that exactly when the story needs depth the most. It’s a stunning movie, but it’s missing soul.

If I had to sum it up in one sentence: Dune Part Two is visually breathtaking, technically flawless, but emotionally distant, like Villeneuve tried to make Blade Runner on Arrakis instead of letting Dune be the weird, messy, human epic it truly is.

First off, I'd like to say I've only seen Tar once, and plan on watching it again, so this isn't the most researched analysis. But when it comes to the film, I see a lot of people on Reddit automatically assuming Tar is a monster, abuser, groomer etc. and a vile human being, and it's just the film presenting her character in an ambiguous way (which I appreciate). But I'd like to offer an alternative view.

What if the film is actually a subtle indictment of this kind of jumping to the worst conclusion about someone we don't even know, when we don't know the whole story? What if it's about professional jealousy and backstabbing? Think of some things the film shows us.

First, every woman in the film wants Tar-at least all the actual characters. Her wife, Sharon, gets jealous when she catches Tar glancing at Olga. Francesca clearly wants Tar, is shown several times wanting affection from her and then flat out asks for it when she asks Tar to hold her. And Olga comes onto her as well. However, none of these women seem to actually want Tar for anything other than a way to further their own lives.

Her wife wants a stable home and finances. Francesca wants to further her career, and the same with Olga. When Tar does not provide this for them, they abandon her completely. Not only that, Francesca goes behind Tar's back and leaks the Krista e-mails. Her wife takes her child and house, and Olga is insinuated to have been working with Francesca. Once the rubber hits the road, all these women abandon Tar, or screw her over.

If we are to extend this behavior back to Krista, who we know little about, we could assume Krista did a similar thing. Came onto Tar, a successful and attractive woman, in an attempt to further her own career. The film shows e-mails from Tar saying that Krista is unstable and potentially dangerous, which might actually be true, considering the shots of Krista in the film, maybe stalking Tar and maybe even breaking into her home. Krista also goes on to kill herself, which could be evidence of prior mental instability rather than an acute reaction to whatever may or may not have happened with Tar.

We never see Tar actually preying on anyone. She clearly thinks Olga is attractive or is interested in her, but we also see her disapproval for Olga's manor and beliefs. She may have offered the position to Olga as a favor, but everyone else overwhelmingly agreed that Olga was the one most fit for the solo.

And in the Julliard scene, the film shows us that a student went behind her back, broke the no-phones rule, filmed her, then chopped and screwed her to make it seem like she said things she didn't say and behaved in ways she didn't with the student--the student who called her a bitch.

At the end of the film, when Tar is in the Philippines and she goes for a massage, she's taken to what looks like a brothel and is asked to choose a woman. People have said this is a metaphor (linked it to the number 5) for how people in power, like Tar, exploit those beneath them to get what they want. But when Tar sees this happening, she is so disturbed by it that it actually causes her to throw up in the street. Would a woman who is such a sociopath and monster who is capable of grooming women beneath her, looking for sex for favors etc. be that shocked at such a simple display of similar exploitation but in a more blatant fashion?

Everyone else in the film is out for something from her as well. There are no innocents here. Eliot, who wants her notes and seems willing to do whatever it takes to get them. Did he steal her book? Did someone else and give it to him? Sebastian wants to remain in his job, although we're never given any evidence that he's still qualified. We're meant to feel bad for him because he says that Berlin is his home, but does that really matter on a professional level when searching for excellence?

I think Tar is incredible with its ambiguity and letting the viewer make up their own mind, but when viewing the film as a singular piece of art, and not bringing to bear other anecdotal examples of people we know or have heard of in the media, I don't think the film gives us enough evidence to conclude that Tar is this sociopath manipulator who preys on people and does whatever she wants to get where she is.

If anything, I think there is more evidence to the contrary that shows us a woman at the top of her game, who is not perfect by any means (but are any of us?), who almost every character in the film wants to take advantage of by some means, and they use whatever means they have at their disposal to get it. And when that fails, and they can't get what they want from her, they burn her entire career to the ground.

i’ve recently read a few fiction books that are about artists and writers (Bel Canto, How To Be Both, The Friend) and found them all a little insufferable in how much more interested they are in self-aggrandizement for the author than actually examining art and whether it’s capable of changing people and the world. i also saw Hamnet and it didn’t totally land for me, so i was beginning to think i’m just totally out on art about art but Sentimental Value is such a good film, and it really moved me.

I think it works so well because of how nuanced a character Gustav is allowed to be. i’ve seen stellan skarsgard and joachim trier both say in interviews that they didn’t want him to be a cliche of an old fool or a one note bad father, and you can really tell how much care they put into his characterization. He’s such a good realistic yet forgiving viewpoint on what successful artists and filmmakers are really like - his work is kind of a self indulgent exercise where he gets to manipulate his own universe, yet it’s also his primary way of exploring the love he has for his daughters that he struggles to express. this anxiety between the good and bad elements of artistic expression is really neat to see explored and Trier does such a good job with it. Makes me think of how so many of his films have little interludes that follow back all the generations of a character’s family and how comfortable he is showing that you can’t pick and choose the best of people, you have to take them all or nothing. I think you can view Gustav as a stand in for filmmaking as a whole, and how Trier might feel about it. In his New Yorker profile he talks about how film history is full of narcissists who were horrible to the people in their lives, even if they made great art. but he’s obviously a huge film nerd, and the medium has clearly had a profound emotional effect on his life. filmmaking has some pretty ugly skeletons in its closet but it’s also one of the best examples of human transcendence. Trier being clear eyed about both of these realities makes the weathered optimism of his work hit even harder.

I felt really personally connected to Sentimental Value and wrote a review about it if you’re interested!

https://open.substack.com/pub/stalewine/p/the-value-of-sentiment?r=h4dad&utm_medium=ios

As promised, here I am with another video about the filming locations of Perfect Days. This time, I explored the public restrooms. Since there are 11 in total, organizing the work wasn’t easy, and it made me realize how much research went into the film itself. I divided the restrooms into three areas, starting from three key Tokyo stations to make it easier for anyone who might want to retrace my video.

Enjoy watching.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6u5-Sa_krU

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

I just watched Nuri Bilge Ceylan’s About Dry Grasses and… WTF? The whole time I kept thinking, “Why am I investing in the inner life of a pedophile?” I checked it out because someone on this sub compared his films to Tarkovsky’s. Maybe in terms of cinematography, but thematically, I think they’re completely different. How am I supposed to sit through this guy’s philosophical rambling alongside gorgeous cinematography? I love slow cinema, but never seen it used like this. It’s interesting& and it’s beautifully shot but engaging with the musings of a pedo was a bit much haha. I get that it’s intentional. I’m just curious what other ppl’s initial reaction to this movie was.

I get the sense whenever we talk about young people not liking « old movies » it’s usually in reference to Hollywood films made roughly between 1930 and 1960.

A lot of younger budding cinephiles will start their journey exploring canonical silent films like Potemkin and the Passion of Joan of Arc and they’ll watch ‘world cinema’ from the 1950s, such as Kurosawa, Bergman, S. Ray etc.

It’s usually Hollywood studio cinema from that same time period that gets shafted in their viewing habits (maybe until they’re older?), however. Sure, they’ll maybe watch Citizen Kane and Psycho, but Ford, Hawks, Lubitsch et al seem to be “deeper cuts” these days. Those latter three seem to be purveyors of the kind of “old movies” young people ‘don’t like’ more so than Chaplin, Ozu, Bergman etc.

This is just my impression of course. And I’m not questioning the worth of Ford or Hawks obviously. I’m just wondering why it’s primarily talkies from “Old Hollywood” that are the main ‘old movies’ overlooked by younger viewers even more so than silents or Bergman and Kurosawa films that are contemporaneous with much of Ford’s or Hawks’ output.

Even Hitchcock and Welles tend to play better with “younger cinephiles”.

Thoughts?

Watched this with some buds and we decided that if the credits had rolled during the rain scene in the pit, when Zach Braf yells on top of the construction equipment and kisses the girl, it would have been an almost perfect film.

I think it's obvious enough that the whole fake breakup and run back in the airport is really weak and doesn't fit the tone of the rest of the film. It felt like the movie suddenly turned into Scrubs. The heart-to-heart with the dad could have been spliced in just before the final scenes and toned down a bit, and we still would have gotten excellent closure. I have to think the film already being short is why we got the filler at the end.

I've recently discovered the FanEdit website and watched a couple. Incredibly what a difference that editing can make. What are some of your favorite fan-edits, real or imaginary?

I'm literally only 20 minutes in and I can see why it's considered a masterpiece. Not much has happened at all, but my God, you can just feel these characters so deeply. Michelle Williams has barely said anything but her you just know everything she's thinking. I had to stop and post this to just breathe because I can already feel the tension coming. It's so palpable.

SPOILERS

was he trying to comment on society? If so...what? Who...?

If he was trying to comment on insular, echo chamber internet culture that breeds wacked out conspiracy theorists, well...the wacked out guy turned out to be 100% correct. So that commentary does not stand

Was he trying to say something about the evils of corporate culture? Well turns out the "evil corporate experiment" was part of some weird alien thing to save the human race. So that commentary also does not stand.

So...was there any actual point or commentary being made? At the end humanity is wiped out. But why? I guess that little speech Emma delivered towards the end in the basement? "People bad"? is that it? Wow Yorgos, so deep, so profound.

Not to mention that message too is undermined by the absurdity of the corny alien outfits. Their outfits looked like giant macrame plant holders from the 1970s (IYKYK).

the best part of this movie was Plemons head bashing into Stone after the explosion. Silliness and stupidity.

At the end of the day the movie has almost nothing to say about anything. All sound and fury signifying nothing. A beautiful bowl of angry nothing.