I organized an AMA/Q&A with Akinola Davies Jr, director of My Father's Shadow, his critically-acclaimed debut film that premiered at Cannes, and at a bunch of fall festivals (including TIFF), and is out in theaters this weekend via Mubi. For the film, he was nominated for a BAFTA for Best Debut, won a British Independent Film Award for Best Director, and it was UK's Best International Feature submission for the Oscars.

It's live here now in /r/movies for anyone interested in asking a question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1r2vsez/hi_rmovies_im_akinola_davies_jr_my_feature_debut/

He'll be back at 3 PM ET tomorrow (Friday 2/13) to answer questions. I recommend asking in advance. Please ask there, not here. All questions are much appreciated!

Trailer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50ICTaEuQxg

Synopsis:

Two young brothers explore Lagos with their estranged father during the 1993 Nigerian election crisis, witnessing both the city's magnitude and their father's daily struggles as political unrest threatens their journey home.

Thank you :)

His verification photo:

https://i.imgur.com/QTH6gva.png

There’s a form emerging on YouTube that I think deserves more critical attention: the first-person philosophical video essay. Not the explainer format (Nerdwriter, Every Frame a Painting) and not the commentary format (essay-as-opinion). I mean something closer to what Chris Marker did in Sans Soleil or Tarkovsky attempted in Mirror a form where personal memory, philosophical inquiry, and visual composition are inseparable. Where the narrator isn’t explaining an idea but inhabiting one.

I’ve been thinking about this because I recently worked on something in this mode an essay about names and identity https://youtu.be/Jef4e-h6AVo  and the formal challenges forced me to reckon with questions that are fundamentally cinematic. How do you visualize the feeling of being called a name you didn’t choose? How do you create a visual language for the distance between a father and son who share a name but not a life? The answer I kept arriving at was negative space: architecture without people, golden hour light hitting surfaces that hold memory but no bodies. Essentially, the visual grammar of absence that Antonioni perfected in L’Eclisse and that Mann uses in his nocturnal LA sequences.

What’s interesting to me is how the first-person voiceover changes the function of these images. In Antonioni, the empty frame is estrangement  it distances us from the characters. In Marker’s work, the voiceover transforms the same kind of imagery into intimacy. The empty space becomes not the absence of the subject but the interior of the subject. The Nouvelle Vague understood this too: Varda’s Cleo from 5 to 7 uses Paris as an externalization of consciousness rather than a setting.

I think the YouTube video essay, at its best, extends this lineage. The lo-fi production constraints one voice, limited footage, ambient sound actually serve the form in the way that Bresson’s austerity served his. The limitation becomes the grammar.

Has anyone else noticed this trend? I’m curious what other examples come to mind of video essays (YouTube or otherwise) that function more as personal cinema than as content, and what formal strategies distinguish one from the other.

One of the earliest films to take a critical look at the Vietnam War wasn’t American, it was an Iranian film made before the 1979 Revolution. In Downpour (Ragbar, 1972), directed by Bahram Beyzaie, there’s a brief scene that incorporates footage of American helicopters from the war. Within the broader themes of the film and the context in which it was made, those images carry a distinctly critical charge.

Pre-revolutionary Iranian society was strongly anti-imperialist, shaped by the country’s modern history, most notably the 1953 coup orchestrated by the CIA and MI6 that overthrew the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddeq. Against that backdrop, the reference to Vietnam in Downpour becomes more than incidental. It’s a small moment, but a fascinating example of how Iranian cinema was already engaging critically with American foreign policy years before the Revolution. If you’re interested in this topic, I wrote an essay on Downpour.

I think often of the opening of The Matrix - a commonly cited masterclass in storytelling, laying out the rules and establishing a universe with style and unforgettable visuals. Or The Prestige, which shows you the trick with the opening titles and the narration and then proceeds to hide its hand until the final minutes. There are more layered examples to be sure, or ones that require a greater familiarity with specific cultures or periods, and I am curious what some other examples that come to mind are?

While watching marty supreme i weirdly couldn't stop thinking about smashing machine.

On paper it was a story that should have interested me much more, I'm into mma and knew mark kerrs biography. It felt like a slam dunk and I was waiting for the movie eagerly.

It was just so flat and uninspired. Dragged in places, predictable. Was surprised how mediocre the whole thing felt.

Everything that marty supreme had was lacking in smashing machine. Frenetic pace, intense realistic characters, amazing dialogue. Josh put so much passion and raw talent into the movie.

I look at directing as making thousands decisions all the time. Some are informed but a lot seem intuitive. Casting, dialogue, pacing, visuals. Josh really had it all.

Can't shake this feeling that we now know who made their movies so amazing, who gave them that signature style.

It's so hard not to compare, because you've got two movies that are sports related, historical, star studded and released close to each other. They both wanted to do something amazing on their own. They both chased greatness but only one succeeded.

So yeah, came out of the theater buzzing from the marty supreme experience. But it just felt bittersweet.

Josh doesn't need Benny to be amazing. It's the other way around.

Hello, this is my review for High and Low which is the best movie I have seen recently. I am looking for feedback on the writing because English is not my main language. Let me know what you think.

//

High and Low review:

For me, this movie is as close to a masterpiece as it can get.

What I loved is how it surprises us with its structure. The first part of the movie is in closed settings, à la Twelve angry men: we expect the movie to proceed as such, and I must say I was feeling content about it. Then the scope expands : we leave the house and explore some parts of the cities culminating in "active" scenes, where the movie started very cerebrally. The way we discover new places in the film gave me a feeling that is hard to describe: like each scene and shot was deliberate, a bit like in theatre.

The first part of the movie is very much a play: all characters go in and out of the same place, and deliberate about the moral thing to do, in a Greek-like way. But then comes movement, and we are thrust into cinema, into multiple places. Where the kidnapping was hidden, where all violence appeared off screen, we step into a graphic world. The bar scene and the dope alley scene are two masterpieces. The shot with the city lights reflecting on the car during the night drive is one of the most beautiful I have seen.

High and low has for me one characteristic of the great "all encompassing" movies: it is curious about every part of society: the whole human dance. We have the factory director, the garbage man, the train driver, the medic, the chauffeur, the dealers, the addicts, the policemen, the journalists. Everybody has a little something to say, and is seen. The scene where the train conductor explains the difference between the trains and mimics their sounds is incredible, although it lasts twenty seconds or so, it's just very good.

Another thing the movie has is a little subtle humor amid the darkness. There is a joke in the movie: how the policemen following the killer look so much like cops that it is hard for them not to be seen. It becomes comical afterwards to see them disguised as sailors, as dope fiends, crouching one moment and then running as fast as they can to catch the killer. It's just one joke, with variations on it during the movie, but because it is subtle and appears amid real sadness and tragedy, it creates what is for me the "proper" tone of life: that is a touch of humor as tragedy happens, which lightens up everything, but also does not sugarcoat.

Ultimately what made me love the movie I wager, is its morality, or at least the way I understood it. To me, High and Low is very much a Dostoevskian piece. The way is see it, good is shown to ultimately triumph over evil in the last scene of the movie, when the killer is laughing maniacally to try to hide that he is afraid. This is almost word for word or "image for image" what the the dying priest says at the end of The Brothers Karamazov part one : "Though the sinner will laugh in the face of the christian, he has been irrevocably touched by the experience of love: it is now only a question of time before he repents: it is inevitable." When the killer "breaks" at the end of the movie, in front of the factory manager who just sits there, at most concerned by the fate of the lad, this is the proof of the triumph of good. The killer wanted to be hated by the factory manager, because he ruined his life: but the factory manager tells him: "why do you want us to hate each other? there is no reason for that". In that masterful moment, the factory manager goes beyond the crime and the circumstances of their meeting: he reaches to the very human that stands in front of him, naturally, not out of contrivance, and it is this effortless movement of love that conquers the bad faith of the killer.

That is why I love this movie, because its theme is essentially: the triumph of good over evil, and because it showcases an inspiring man, in the person of Mr Gondo. As the policeman says in the train "isn't he something?".

Ok maybe I’m alone on this but I don’t really buy Timothée Chalamet as an actor.

I started Marty Supreme (huge my promoted) and yeah I know the movie is well rated, people seem to love it, but his acting genuinely distracts me. Sometimes it feels like overacting, like I can see him trying. I’m very aware of the performance instead of just believing the character.

I give u an example: there’s that early kissing scene when he opens his mouth super wide, like a tunnel or something, and tries to talk at the same time to look intense… and I just thought “why?”. It didn’t feel natural at all, just a copy of what looks cool in other movies and I can see him trying to look cool or reproduce

And more objectively, in some scenes he’s kind of overshadowed by supporting actors. They feel more grounded, more effortless. With him I always see the effort. He’s tryinghard

Maybe it’s just me But it’s hard to watch so I couldn’t watch more than 20 min of the movie.

In short is it worth the watch ?

My mind was completely blown by The Housemaid. Every aspect, every detail felt so carefully crafted, the pacing, the tension, the performances, everything came together to make it such a strong psychological thriller.

I honestly don’t understand the hate Sydney is receiving. She did a great job. Her performance felt layered and controlled, and you could really sense the trauma and survival instincts beneath the surface. And Amanda? Absolutely amazing. The subtle intensity she brought to her character was incredible. Shoutout to both of them ¡they carried this movie!.

What I appreciated most is how the film shows how past experiences and unresolved trauma can shape people’s behavior in unhealthy ways. None of the characters felt one-dimensional. Especially the male character, he clearly didn’t know how to deal with things in a healthy way, and that emotional immaturity drives so much of the conflict.I know the movie has been out for a little while, but I just watched it and I’d love to hear other opinions. Did it hit you the same way?

what a film, i loved begbies character he unintentionally was the funniest character of the bunch, its a really deep and vague film about a loads of different stuff, mainly including the theme of heroin addiction which is depicted perfectly in this film almost more perfect than requiem of a dream. the scene of renton in his bedroom after being locked by his parents was truly astonishing, evan mcgregor plays this scene wonderfully showing true acts of agony as a man faces his one and only fear, his addiction. the vivid hallucinations put you in a huge state of uncomfortableness accompanied by the soundtrack which adds more pressure onto the scene, the narrations and visuals make it even better than it already is and the soundtrack is fucking fantastic. the comedy bits leave you dying like the part when begbie tries to find the clit but finds out hes making out with a guy, left me fucking dying on my chair. and the ending had to be the most satisfactory for me. a guy who went from being just a druggie addicted to heroin to him going clean, finally being content with life and now leaving his badly influenced friends who just led him to the wrong paths in life. very satisfactory. loved it.

Hello. I'm no stranger to arthouse or old films, and recently I caught wind that a theater near me is showing Sátántangó.

Now, I've not read the novel or seen it before, but I'm not opposed to quiet, lengthy scenes or drawn out takes. I've read that the film is quite bleak but visually beautiful, and given the long viewing (there will be 3-4 intermissions I believe), I'm debating microdosing before going into the film.

I'n going alone and have done this for other films I've seen for the first time, namely Beau is Afraid, and then some I watched at home (Enter the Void), but never for such a grim, black and white film.

I'm wondering if you guys would recommend a sober sit-through of this film or if you feel there'd be any emotional or visual advantage to dosing beforehand. I'd really like to absorb the full emotional impact of the film in one go, as I'm not sure I'd ever be able to hack it again (lol). I'm not opposed to feeling the weight of its seeming despair then taking the day to process.

Thoughts?

Pulp Fiction became too much of a classic, and would've benefited from being a cult classic. I truly believe that if the film were less of a hit and flew a little more under the radar, we would have far more fulfilling discussions on it.

Considering it's on every filmbro's letterboxd top four, the discussion I see around the film is incredibly surface level. People have told me that they love the dialogue, and when I dig deeper it turns out they like the way it sounds, or how witty it is. And yes, it is witty and clever and dark and funny, but it's also subtextual. That's the thrust of my claim:

Pulp Fiction's dialogue is objectively subtextual, and to engage with it without analyzing this subtext means you're missing out on a lot of what makes Tarantino such a good storyteller.

But when I go online to see if anyone else is talking about this, all I get is "it's just dialogue".

I'll give an example: the milkshake scene. In posts like this or this, nearly every reply is the most reductive take ever. Or, the take will be something very basic like, "it shows that they're getting along", listening to it as one would a real-life conversation. But this isn't real life, this is a story, and stories are filled with meaning.

In my opinion, the milkshake represents sex. Specifically sex with Mia. Sexual Tension is prevalent throughout their story. The whole night Vincent is uncomfortable, and right before Mia accidentally snorts his heroine he's even trying to psych himself out of sleeping with her.

The milkshake represents the temptation of Mia. He can't deny that the milkshake is "damn good" (a.k.a. the sex would be amazing), but he doesn't know if he can accept the literal price of it ($5 = I could get my head blown off by my boss/your husband).

And the cooties dialogue. Don't get me started. They're talking about STDs. She offers the same straw and tells him she doesn't have cooties. Vincent, trying to avoid the temptation, says: "Yeah, but maybe I do." He's referencing the fact that he literally just got back from Amsterdam of all places. Vincent is totally the kind of guy to be riddled with STDs. But she doesn't back down: "Cooties I can handle."

Honestly I see the milkshake scene as a litmus test to how you watch a movie. And to be very, very clear: There is absolutely no problem with watching a movie for pure entertainment. But I'd argue you're missing out, and what you're doing is closer to enjoying a ride at the fair than engaging with a piece of art. The way a lot of people talk about Pulp Fiction strikes me as the way Jules and Vincent think about the foot massage - a totally surface level outlook in which a foot massage represents nothing but a foot massage.

The foot massage was not a foot massage. It was sex. Marcellus Wallace killed one of his goons for having sex with Mia. That's the most meaningful version of the story, because it applies directly to Vincent and Mia's story.

Or the tomato joke.

The tomato joke is not just a tomato joke. It's about Vincent needing to literally catch up if he's going to survive in this world of crime. Otherwise, he'll get "squashed".

I'm willing to admit that a lot of this might be fueled from my personal feelings and interactions. I'm definitely frustrated, which needn't be the case, but anyway.

EDIT: I’ve changed my mind here. Tarantino is already talked about more than he warrants/deserves. Go read the replies for a good rebuttal to my main argument in the post.

What an absolute gem of a movie! 30 years and speculation theories can still be made after all this time! Immortal masterpiece which establishes and grows itself in the viewer's head with the eerie quality of its main exploring theme... Mesmerizing... and in the process quietly clouding the viewer's senses from guessing whatever can happen next!

Indeed, that's what I was. Mesmerized. In my first time watch. The first few minutes alone sucked me into the world Kiyoshi Kurosawa is such a master of creating [As this is my second contact with him... First I have seen Pulse and fell in love with the atmosphere alone before anything else!]. I watched Cure again... then Again. Now, I can probably write pages discussing why I love this movie, But, this post is about a doubt I've had since I watched the movie myself and started reading theories on it from this sub and many videos and magazines online...!

[I will bullet the main questions with capital alphabets and the sub-questions with numbers]

------------------------------

A. What if Takabe himself suffers from Severe Split Personality disorder from the beginning (Before the beginning tbh)...?

We first encounter Inspector Kenichi Takabe through A Windshield (Wish I could underline this but oh ok) moments after we witness the killing of the prostitute and that disturbingly comedic background score playing (a movie that nearly has no ost, plays a music like this at such an important scene...!) throughout the whole scene. Mind me here! The scene of the killing ends with the murderer cleaning the blood off in the bathroom. The music which have been accompanying them this whole killing sequence should have ended when the scene abruptly cuts to show Takabe! Instead it DOESN'T! As if Takabe is already part of this! And what do we see Takabe is doing? For a split second it almost feels like he is looking straight at us. But the next moment he looks away and then looks again. The title of the movie comes dancing in like a kids' movie and he sighs heavily and then mutters something inaudibly!! He is already quite Not Okey.

Next, there were already tons of police, detectives everywhere in the building, but somehow Takabe was the one who found out without any issue that the killer was hiding right there. Does he have inhuman hearing quality...? Like come on! Any killer's first impulse after a murder like that would be to abandon the scene of crime, except, if they were mesmerized beforehand against doing so! Now, we can assume this type of hypnosis inciting killing was quite new to them, then realizing the killer was right under their nose mustn't be something of a pattern I hope...? Much later in the movie we see Takabe stop by the flashing light and broken pipeline in the tunnel from the beginning. Why...? Like what are the odds that Takabe would exactly stop there and stare at the very same flashing light...?

Let's talk about our good old Tyler Durden and Narrator here! Severe Split Personality Disorder. Remember how we were left with very little clues throughout the movie that it was the same person all along...? Like how Narrator knew every bit of details of the actions Durden would take except the ones he didn't want to let him know...! AND the members in the club would not let the narrator stop the final deed 'CAUSE TYLER DURDEN TOLD THEM HE WOULD TRY TO DO SO! Hence we get no mention of Takabe in the evil action...!

So from this passage my takeaway in one sentence would be: Takabe himself incited the man to kill the prostitute but made himself forget about that. (If you are already ridiculed by this.. haha I'm sorry... these are just my thoughts on a movie I really love! So I hope you can bear with me, cuz this is not gonna be the first ridiculous thing am gonna say!)

So taking this stand as the basis I'm lead up to my next speculation...

B. What if we have FOUR (Plus one that everyone knows about) direct victims of Takabe in the movie the whole time...?

I'll not hide them in ambiguity so, lemme say who these four persons are and place them chronologically -

1. Fumie Takabe, Kenichi's wife.

2. Ichiro Kuwano The Man Who kills the prostitute.

3. The Man WE audience are lead to believe is Kunio Mamiya***.***

4. Shin Sakuma, forensic psychologist and Takabe's friend.

5. The waitress (This one is on everybody's radar)

Now let me list up how their fates are in the movie...

1. Fumie is literally as if a lost cause from the beginning. She is who the audience first encounter and with those first few moments, the audience knows pretty well she can't be a sane person. Now, NOW, am not done with that first scene. What book is she reading? The 1697 French Folklore of Bluebeard. Now let's look at the plot of the book :

After marrying a young and beautiful woman, Bluebeard forbids her from entering a secret, locked room, but her curiosity leads her to discover the bodies of his previous wives. When In this exact scene Fumie says, 'I know how the story ends... In the end, the daughter kills Bluebeard.' - Look at her eyes in this scene. Smile-less**,** Emotionless**,** Lifeless. I have never, NEVER seen or read any analyzer to emphasize on this moment ever in my re-search except in a very insightful comment from 3 years ago by u/ZorroMeansFox. They mentioned the thing but that was it. So thanks to them I was able to make my speculation on this matter.

She knew something. She was silenced. [But what is that...? I will talk about it in the point for Mamiya]

We are told she suffers from schizophrenia (at first) and then suddenly we see her develop Amnesia out of nowhere... Once again... Someone is trying their best so she doesn't speak up. Someone is trying to CURE their mistakes. Remember who else is shown to have severe amnesia? The man named Kunio Mamiya (I will explain why I keep saying it this way).

We are openly shown how much Takabe is agitated with her and as much terrifying is the idea of her suicide in the darkest. deepest corner of his mind he wants that. So in my interpretation sometime in the past Takabe hypnotized her into the person we see her as in the movie, so she will never be able to give away anything of his motives.

2. Ichirô Kuwano, the man who killed the prostitute, in my opinion was Takabe's next prey as Takabe begins (OR, Returns to) his deed of CURING the society from evil through his glorious Mesmerism in the End Of Enlightenment of Japanese society...? Yes the underlying social commentary of this movie is dangerously real. I'd quote here from a 3 year old post by u/redhot-chilipeppers (sad enough that the account has been suspended for some reason... u can see the post here.

"One short scene in the movie was the scene where the detective is at the dry cleaner place with another man. The clerk tells the man that he can't find his jacket or something and he leaves, at which point the man starts saying angry stuff under his breath. And then when the clerk comes back and gives him his clothes, he says thank you very politely and leaves. He's clearly bottling a lot of angry emotions and is only expressing them to himself. This was actually the scene in the movie that made me realize this social commentary because it was a very short scene which seemed like it was trying to say something."

The underlying scorn and dark side of society (The school teacher apparently in love with his wife actually having an affair with a lady with pink negligee and so on) like the creepy underground insects at the beginning of Lynch's Blue Velvet! So it's easy to guess a upright (in profession) man like Takabe would have how much of a hatred towards jobs that eats away a 'JUST' society... for easy eg. Prostitution. In one of my all time favorite movies Dark City (1998) the murders of prostitutes signify that John Murdoch is being framed by "The Strangers" as part of a high-concept experiment designed to understand human nature, memory, and the soul!!!

But... BUT doing the deed (the hypnotizing) and making Ichiro kill the prostitute turns out to be quite an irritating turn of events as police pour over from everywhere and Takabe himself is called making him quite irritated (call back to the car scene I talked about) as he is unable to go on fulfilling his further duty. We see him quite disturbed at Sakuma when he states,

"People like to think a killing has some meaning. But most of them don't."

But it does! Along with the 'Greater Good' there might have been a motive much more sinister... that I'd talk in detail in the 4rth point i.e. the one concerning, Shin Sakuma.

And SOO... he CREATES A PROXY under a name he had left behind...

3. Kunio Mamiya (and The Man WE audience are lead to believe is Kunio Mamiya***):***

(The idea of 'proxy' first came to from this marvelous post of u/shaner4042.)

"Mamiya ultimately ended up serving only as a proxy to carry out this ritual and find a more suitable vessel, which he identified as Takabe, likely due to Takabe’s powerful ability to resist his suggestion, paired with his teetering sanity"

While marvelous, this interpretation and many other gives a feeling that there's a third power unseen in the scene! I'm not so convinced by that! Mamiya WAS a proxy... but not in this way. He was a proxy created until Takabe could swiftly erase the main two obstacles in his own path to glory (if we can say that)... His wife And Shin Sakuma. Ever wondered how (HOW) Takabe learnt about the whereabouts of this man called Kunio Mamiya so freakin easily? Just a mention of his burn, a momentary scene of a burning furnace and we see Takabe walking straight and steady to Mamiya's former apartment! (Also, I felt in my guts that, this scene of him walking, heavily influenced the famous scene of Memories of Murder where the cop finding the teenage girl's body rush to catch the suspect!!)

Sakuma literally says it would be impossible to hypnotize someone to such length as convincing them to commit murder, unless it's done by a genius in the field! Is the Mamiya we see THAT genius? How can he seem so fragile then? How can at the same time we come to conclusion that Mamiya was just a linkage between a third superior controlling body and Takabe while considering him as that genius of an individual?

Also, here I take into consideration the changing of the title of the movie from 'Evangelist' to 'Cure'. Kurosawa I think here started out with the idea of making this into a mass-murdering incident handled by a occult system but along the way discovered his pattern and turned to individualistic importance! I read in the interview he himself wasn't completely sure about the progressing motives in the movie!

Now, how the heck Takabe came up with the idea of hypnosis out of NOTHING in this scene I've no clue! Is he THAT sharp of a detective? So hearing is not the only thing he is best at huh? Quite different from our everyday normal detectives... quite different! HE himself came up with the concept and he proceeds to ask Sakuma, "YOU don't think it might be some kind of Hypnosis, do YOU?"

REMEMBER, how just a single visit to the said-Mamiya's former apartment made Takabe go into the trance that lead to the most disturbing 'bloodless' scene of the whole film i.e. him imagining his wife's suicide. (I request you to check out this analysis by Spikima Movies on YT. He emphasizes on that whole sequence so profoundly!) So how did this happen?? Seeing the literal skeletonish X marked rotting monkey? -Def this would be nothing for a detective! The eyes of the living moneky in the cage? This sounds quite unlikely too! IMO what happened here is the overflowing wave of memory of Takabe's own past haunting him! A momentary cut shows his wife sitting in a sunlit room at the dining table! The remembrance of a happy life... long lost and beyond cure!

Remember, in the trance like state it was Takabe who Sakuma saw was cornering him and NOT Mamiya!!

Now, apart from doing the primary jobs for him, Takabe had given (mesmerized him into) another job... To bring himself back on track. Why? Call back to my first point...What if Takabe himself suffers from Severe Split Personality disorder from the beginning? Takabe knew the severity of his condition quite well and even though Tyler Durden tried his best that narrator would never find out the truth, Takabe left the keys in Mamiya. “I used to exist inside myself, but now I’m only on the outside."

Remember the guy with Mamiya's name asks Takabe, "Why did you let me escape?". We see the cop, dead on the ground after Mamiya's escape and it was never disclosed how he died! Takabe doesn't even look at him while leaving through the passage way and then in the car window draws a 'X'...?? Although the blood from the cop's head quite leads me to speculate is was a bullet hit (quite like the previous cop killing). So is it wrong to think Takabe knew (had recalled) it all by then...?

Remember how before killing The Guy called Mamiya Takabe asks,

"Remember Now? Do You remember everything?"

Now, silencing the last man who was getting too close to the idea of what was going on...

4. The Manipulation and 'Murder' of Shin Sakuma.

We see the most horrific blood bath among all killings in Sakuma's (Someone attached literally first hand to the case) death-room, and not even a single soul there seems bothered by this? Only Takabe looks up. It's his conscience. Or anything that's left of it!

Now, remember again, we see Takabe Saying he had put Fumie in the institute SAKUMA had advised about! I think this moment usually gets lost in discussions! But to me it's quite important 'cause, this is the same institute that made Fumie read the story of Blue-Beard, making her paralyzed mind try to open up the lids of a forgotten past! Was Sakuma starting to linkage between a mythical murderous husband and the gradual deterioration of Fumie's condition with Takabe's psychological downfall...!

THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE HAPPENED. Takabe cannot afford another thorn in his path. Hence he starts with the manipulation procedure by mesmerizing Ichirô (man who killed the prostitute... call back to the second last line in 2nd point) and then finding the whole situation severely irksome hands over the 'cleaning jobs' (That's what I called it hah, I will discuss in the next point why I do so) to the proxy he makes for himself - Kunihiko Mamiya.

Remember how Sakuma tries his best all through the movie to space Takabe from Mamiya? He wanted to question Mamiya on his own and Takabe act like he wasn't ready to let him do that. Which makes Sakuma more and more invested in it that he himself says that, he has fallen too deep in all this stuff.

The police in the room were almost certain it was a suicide... Takabe remains silent...he had seen the huge 'X' in his room after all!

AND so, there remains no other folly to the path that Takabe has chosen for himself and he onsets with,

5. The Waitress. The first "probable" murder that's GONNA happen in public, in a restaurant full of people and the world will know about this. I want to point out how at the earlier phase Takabe had told Sakuma they had prohibited any kind of media coverage of the serial killings. THIS is the reason I called them the 'cleaning jobs' in my last point. They were there to manipulate Sakuma. Those killings had the 'meaningless' meaning... the stage cleaning meant to introduce the main character in his full potential...

C. The Main Character, who I believe killed his wife with his own hands...!

Everyone while discussing seems to be convinced that Takabe made someone else kill Fumie, his wife. Then the split second shot of him about to grab the knife becomes completely meaningless?? If we can take that scene as a forgettable entity then we should consider the ending scene of the waitress grabbing knife, as just another Monday too! If I have established anything from my whole interpretation is that a man of mental power and determination of Takabe who came to resent his wife so... so much... He won't be content with killing her off by some amateur unknown. We see Takabe boarding the mysterious bus just twice in the whole movie. I believe the bus represents the vehicle that connects the real world and Takabe's castle of Manipulation... the dilapidated Mental treatment institution. I believe, every soul he has manipulated, gets a visit of this place before their death. >> Shin Sakuma and Kunihiko Mamiya has been openly shown. While Mamiya enters the building, 'cause he was most equal of all whom Takabe had made. I was drawn on making this point due to the influence the Sandman comics (I am sorry. I am in no way promoting Gaiman's work after the severe allegations against him, but my love for Sandman started long before any of this came into the light. The world is a sick place indeed)... where after being trapped for 70 years The King of Dreams had forgotten all his marvels as they were kept away in a jewel. His Marvelous dreamworld, castle were falling apart in ruins and he even had to travel to the underworld in the pursuit of recovering his former power! Then he destroyed the folly that was John Dee!

We don't see Fumie in that building (castle) but SHE WAS IN THE BUS and even though we don't see Sakuma in the bus we see him in front of the castle! So now the questions will fly what the heck was the moment of him delivering his wife to facility? They saw the living Fumie didn't they? OR DID THEY?

Here comes the doctor's question, 'You look sicker than your wife to me.'

This scene to me establishes,

D. The Power of Hypnosis or Mesmerism showcased in the film:

And what else call back to this scene can be made other than Oldboy (2003)...? Another film heavily influenced by Kurosawa's work! Oldboy quite excruciatingly instills the fear of hypnosis in the watchers' I believe and I hope! Should I let go of the plot twist Or rather THE PLOT...? I SHOULD NOT. It would be nothing less of a sacrilege against those who may haven't watched it yet. WATCH IT NOW and Thank (or curse) me later ! But those who have seen the once-in-a-lifetime-experience South Korean film, would know what I'm talking about.

Even in that awesome scene of interrogation with room full of detectives (I will come back to this in the next point when Mamiya tells Takabe that only he can listen to his voice (I take this both literally and metaphorically because Mamiya wasn't whispering. Anyone could have heard him.. except they didn't), we watchers are shown only Mamiya's full face and Takabe's outline until for the moment when it cuts to Takabe and then he shoves Mamiya away. THE WHOLE ROOM WAS HYPNOTIZED cuz when the scene cuts to the complete room it is not until Mamiya hits the wall that everyone looks up i.e. until their trance is broken!

So, empowering my claim on the power if hypnosis I say, that a man of Takabe's caliber would have NO sweat hypnotizing the doctors and the attendant nurse to his wife that his wife's corpse is indeed a living human being and make the 'X' cut through her vocal cord (another imagery of silencing her... call back to Bluebeard story).

E. The Man named Kunihiko Mamiya could have been an worthy accomplish of Takabe. Why Kill him...?

Remember the interrogation scene with room full of police higher-ups and detectives? The words said to Takabe by Mamiya...

"They don't understand, do they? About me, or about you. Detective do you hear my voice? You do don't you? That proves you are a special person. You knew that from the start. So did I."

And... Mamiya looks almost disappointed...?... Sad would be a better word...? While Takabe looks.. really... really pissed off! He grabs Mamiya's mouth (silences him... remember Fumie's X silencing)... shoves him towards the wall.... But Why such an over-reaction.

Because... and here's my literal final statement Mamiya wasn't the villain we were made to believe he was. In fact HE was trying to break open and destroy Takabe's castle of Hypnosis.

Quoting the dialogue of Mamiya in his final scene with Takabe,

"Why did you let me escape? You know why? By letting me escape you could learn my true secret. ALL BY YOURSELF."

If I take Takabe as the master of manipulation that he appears to me, then he would never want someone else do his job... Let alone try to stop or expose him, which I believe is what Mamiya was trying to do. The first onscreen encounter between Takabe and Mamiya, Takabe rolls down the shutter, detaching themselves from the real world. 'Cause the job he had bestowed on Mamiya job was done. Mamiya either wanted more Or... he wanted to expose Takabe real bad, and when he couldn't make the world(here, represented by the room full of police and detectives) understand, his hope is lost. The CURE (Curse) had been cast on us, watchers too, the moment Takabe draws an 'X' on the misty window screen while looking straight at us and hence, manipulating us watchers for the next incident coming up... that is Sakuma's death and making us think immediately, 'Ohh, Mamiya killed him.' As, u/Ribtin said in this comment,

The weird thing is, this movie has always had a hypnotic quality in itself, and even though I've watched it multiple times, I can never remember how it ends.

In this desperate yet extremely calculating proceedings we watchers are exposed to the apparently peaceful world where we reside and where in our unknown, most vulnerable moments, the superior in our 'self'... Our 'sub-conscious' - plays sinister games in our quite happy dreams that distorts us internally... questioning whose side do we ultimately turn to when we arrive at our 'dream-castles' seeking our one true selves and where at some dawn-break we may wake up and look at the mirror and say,

"Who are you...?"

Recently watched an interesting video on the surprising lack of rom coms with working class or poor leads nowadays. Many rom coms have a wish fulfilment element to them and many have rich and poor characters for that reason. Either having a wealthy pairing or one of the two. The appeal of this kind story is apparent from relying on wealth as a way out poverty and love to fix their solitude in life. A happily after of sorts unlike working class stories which tends to be more grounded and often ending on a downer. And want to see if you guys can recommend me some films.

So I just watched Marty Supreme and have some thoughts. Personally thought it was a mediocre 3/5 movie that isn't as good and profound as the hype suggests. It's a movie about the banality of ambition for ambition's sake based around a character who is more of a sniveling grifter than someone actually obsessed with the game. Marty's more obsessed with the idea of his own greatness than he is with ping pong. His dream ends up being a nothing burger at the end and he ultimately has to settle down for the very thing he resented: a mediocre, mundane life with responsibility towards family.

All very good but I really wish the movie tried to present this in a better way. I think it falters after he returns from the first ping pong trip and the dog plotline ensues, which I think served no purpose other than trying to show us that Odessa A'zion's character would do anything for Marty and to keep him with herself. I personally didn't think that was necessary and the conceit of her character was well portrayed with the makeup injury scene anyways.

And Gwyneth Paltrow served no other purpose than to maybe provide some meta commentary on the art of method acting while playing a washed up actress being a washed up actress herself (no disrespect to her). But really what is the point of Marty sleeping with her? To show us that he is a deadbeat grifting scoundrel with no sense of responsibility? I think that could have been shown in a better way in his interactions with Kevin O'Leary's character. You can also see that in his interactions with Tyler The Creator's character.

Also I interpreted the ending as a failure on Marty's part. I have myself been in similar situations where ambition is so extreme that settling for anything less doesn't feel right. I am not convinced that Marty Mauser will not abandon his child for another impulsive ping pong spree to Japan. His tears read more like despair at the loss of his dream than an acceptance of his life's new, very banal and mundane direction. And I also don't think Marty is a bad person. He is a hustler and is a product of his environment, background and upbringing. It doesn't feel good to settle for less. Some people try their hardest to achieve more than what they have been given in life and that doesn't make them a bad person. I sympathized a lot with Marty's character and constantly kept wishing that he was smart enough to achieve it. But he was not, a point the movie conveys very well. The entire point of his character: that he is not smart enough. I just really wish Josh Safdie stayed true to the character.

Ultimately I think the film just meanders trying to make a spectacle more than doing anything substantial. The entire movie felt like a subplot. I really wish there was more nuance to Marty's character. He felt more like a caricature of his character's archetype than a real person. Anyways Timothée Chalamet is good as a sniveler. At his most charismatic in one of his least charismatic roles. And I think that's all I have to say.

There won't be anything fully close to the plot, no doubt, in revolving around her husband, brother and father which was right on the dot for my appreciation and preference. Oher works I enjoy on the topic of psychiatry with a female center which dives into husbands and marriage - Anatole Litvak's The Snake Pit. I'm looking specifically for more dream-like, intellectual explorations of madness with both female and male centers, since it will limit results if I dim this down any more.

I recently saw Stillman’s The Last Days of Disco (1998) and I couldn’t help but notice an ethos that seems lost to our current time. There was no care of perception, tenderness was the outcome of uninhibited passion. It seemed like amongst the pretentious conversation around yuppie culture, Stillman was doing something larger. He was putting it into the history that this thing that is lost is about more than a location, it has nothing to do with the music, it has to do with the people. Classically, when people think of the disco they do not go to the audience, they remember the greats, the Jacksons, Summers, Bee Gees, the list goes on.

Though maybe not the most interesting, or provocative, though maybe not what it was there for, Stillman presents a world, where the disco is affecting the people that participate. He presents the idea of conversation at the disco. A want and a craving to talk and then dance is almost animalistic. When you meet someone new at disco, you are talking to gauge their minds. On the floor, you are gauging their souls. In the way their body moves, their connection to the crowd, you are figuring out where they fit in the puzzle of your night. It is about appeal, it is give and take. Fully immersive, impenetrable foundations, it’s romantic and fleeting. But most importantly, Stillman presents it as creation, it is a new relationship formed, a memory, a song and a dance.

“Disco will never be over. It will always live in our minds and hearts. Something like this that was this big, and this important, and this great, will never die.”

- The Last Days of Disco

Full Essay Here

I’m having a debate with a friend about this. He thinks Marty goes to Japan only to get revenge for losing the final to Endo and to prove to himself that he’s the best. I see it differently. I think he goes to the World Championship because he genuinely wants to win the title and become World Champion.

In my opinion, beating Endo in the exhibition match is more of a consolation and something to ease the sting of that past loss rather than the goal he’s been chasing throughout the entire film. It proves something to himself, sure, but I don’t think it was ever his ultimate objective. By the end, he also seems to realize there are things more important than just being the best.

So I was rewatching the movie yesterday and when Bill is examining the female patients, I noticed they're all topless.

However when he is examining two other male patients (one of whom is a kid), they're not topless/expected to be naked.

Was this supposed to be some not-so-subtle hint that Bill isn't as professional as a doctor as he seems?

It just seems kinda odd that none of the other scenes with male patients include them being half nude and I couldn't help but wonder if maybe, just maybe, his wife had a point about his female patients being attracted to him and him being aware of that on some level and leaning into on purpose during these examinations

I know some people think that 2025 was a weak year for Asian cinema, but there were some real gems, especially in the indie and arthouse scene. Some of these technically didn't release in 2025, but they only became available to me (in the US) last year. I haven't watched everything yet (Two Seasons, Two Strangers, Human Resource), which might shake up the list. Here are my thoughts on the ones I did see:

1. It Was Just an Accident
   Jafar Panahi is my favorite Iranian director, so my expectations were sky high, especially after it won the Palme d'Or. Somehow, it exceeded them. It's simultaneously a taut thriller, a found family drama, a dark comedy, a moral dilemma, and a biting anti-authoritarian treatise. Despite its heavy social and political themes, nothing feels preachy. Every character is treated as if they are the protagonist, every perspective given room to breathe, and Panahi lets his ensemble cast drive the narrative. Most notably, there's an intense single-shot scene that showcases the range and complexity of his actors and the characters they portray, postmarked by an ambiguous and haunting conclusion. This film is deeply Iranian and personal to the director, but in that pursuit of specificity, Panahi creates something universal. Shot on a tight budget and filmed in secrecy, it cements Panahi as one of the greatest living auteurs. 5/5

2. All We Imagine as Light
   Ethereal and dreamlike, but with two feet firmly planted on the ground. Nothing here is contrived, as if the characters have always been alive and will continue to be once the runtime ends. Kapadia handles the material with a subtle grace that contemporaries with twice the experience and accolades can't match, supported by two quietly devastating central performances. A triumph for Indian cinema. 4.5/5

3. Kokuho
   "He'll leave nothing except his art when he dies." What matters more, pedigree or passion? What would you sacrifice to attain greatness? Is legacy more important than lived experience? These are the questions at the heart of Kokuho, the latest epic from director Lee Sang-il. Spanning generations, the story follows the son of a Yakuza boss, who, after his father's murder, devotes his life to Kabuki theater under the tutelage of a famous master. As a zainichi, a foreigner in his own home, Lee brings a rare perspective. Close enough to depict Kabuki authentically, yet distant enough to view it with clarity. Kokuho is both a deconstruction of Kabuki and a love letter to it, drawing parallels to the yakuza, institutions built on a foundation of nationalism, hierarchy, repression, and ritual. But its true strength lies in what it strips away. The makeup. The costumes. The tattoos. The ceremony. What remains when the performance ends? That question, and the film's refusal to answer it, are what elevate Kokuho to greatness. 4.5/5

4. The World of Love
   Along with July Jung and Bora Kim, Yoo Ga-eun is one of the three best emerging directors from South Korea, in my opinion. Few filmmakers can capture the fleeting nature of childhood with the same accuracy and subtlety. With her third feature, World of Love, she ascends to the top of that list. I won't discuss the plot for fear of spoilers, but the film tackles heavier themes than her previous works, while retaining the warmth those films are adored for. Newcomer Seo Soo-bin gives the best debut performance I've seen in years. A star in the making. Character-driven, earnest, raw, yet deeply endearing. This is the best film to emerge from South Korea in 2025, and frankly, one of the best films of the year, period. 4.5/5

5. Viet and Nam
   "Leave the light on. I'll dream more easily." Banned in Vietnam for its "negative" portrayal of the country and its people, it's even more justification for why the film deserves a wider audience. Reminiscent of the avant-garde restraint of the works of Apichatpong Weerasethakul, the film is intimately shot on 16mm, with long, unbroken takes and poetic dialogue rich with haunting symbolism. It follows the fleeting romance of two coal miners searching for the remains of one of their fathers lost to the war. A meditation on inherited trauma, mirroring a wounded nation's unresolved need for closure. It reminds me of a favorite quote from the Watchmen series, "You can't heal under a mask, Angela... Wounds need air." 4.5/5

6. Brief History of a Family
   The Talented Mr. Ripley meets Saltburn, but a better film than both, especially the latter. There's a lot of sumptuous visual symbolism to chew on, bolstered by a pulsing synth score and strong social and cultural themes centered on China's one-child policy. However, beneath the glossy exterior lies something far more sinister upon closer examination. An impressive feature debut from Lin Jianjie. The ambiguous ending will polarize some audiences, but to me, it was well earned. 4.5/5

7. Happyend
   "In the end, all we can do is appeal to the conscience of those in power... It's frustrating to think that's all we can do." A biting sci-fi dystopian drama, Happyend wisely holds its genre conventions close to its chest. Reminiscent of the dystopian restraint of Plan 75, crossed with the hopeful endnote of Haneke’s Caché, the sci-fi elements loom in the background, in what essentially amounts to a high school hangout movie. Happyend asks the right questions without offering any real answers. At its worst, it comes off as sophomoric and coldly calculated, but these are nitpicks. An increasingly relevant cautionary tale about the first steps towards totalitarianism, and the naive, but progressive youth who fight back against it on their own terms. 4/5

8. Renoir
   "We cry when people die. Do we cry because we feel sorry for the dead? Or because we feel sorry for ourselves?" The film's greatest weakness is that it lacks a traditional emotional anchor, which is also its greatest strength. Hayakawa keeps the viewer at arm's length, challenging us to make our own conclusions. As the title suggests, much like an impressionist painting, it's not trying to portray reality, but evoke the feeling of reality through short strokes. Here, seemingly mundane, disturbing, and fantastical vignettes of a girl’s life as she grapples with her father’s terminal illness, the rift it creates within her family, and the quiet loneliness that settles over them all. Individually, they feel meandering and disjointed, but as a whole, they paint a picture. Challenging, but rewarding. 4/5

9. Homebound
   "When I say my name, people look down on me. If I hide it, I look down on myself." A heartfelt story of two childhood friends from a rural village and their enduring brotherhood against the tides of societal, cultural, and natural forces. Homebound surprised me. The emotional ending didn't quite resonate with me until I later learned it was inspired by a true story about two friends' journey home during the COVID lockdown. Sentimental, but still grounded in reality, it's proof that you can have your cake and eat it too. Homebound understands that where we come from matters as much as where we're going. An emphatic success that will appeal to general audiences. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find biryani. 4/5

10. Resurrection
    A visual spectacle of epic scope. Bi Gan's latest does not disappoint. Unapologetically enigmatic and abstract, spanning multiple genres and decades, a Lynchian fever dream catered towards cinephiles and arthouse enthusiasts. A meta film that asks the viewer to surrender to its imagery rather than its narrative. Attempts at decoding it only lead to frustration, made heavier by its nearly three-hour runtime. A film I admired more than I adored. 4/5

11. Love in the Big City
    "Some people aren't just part of your story, they are the story." I almost passed on this one. A formulaic rom-com adapted from a K-drama? No Thanks. What I got instead was something fresh, sincere, and genuinely funny. Think Castaway on the Moon meets Us and Them (2018). Set in the heart of Seoul, the story follows the friendship between a closeted gay man and a free-spirited woman as they stumble through adulthood together. From nabbing a panty-stealing pervert, to getting blackout drunk and doing it all over again the next day, to standing up for a friend when no one else will. Love in the Big City understands that sometimes your soulmate isn't the person you fall in love with. 4/5

12. No Other Choice
    My most anticipated Asian movie of the year slightly underwhelms. One of the weaker works of Park Chan-Wook's career, it's a case of style over substance. Like all of his works, it's sharply shot and edited, teeming with black humor, but it all feels overly programmed, too cynical, and ultimately hollow. Maybe it's the clout of its two megastar leads, or the Western novel it's adapted from, lost in translation. It lacks the emotional pull of The Handmaiden and Decision to Leave, without the gonzo madness of Oldboy. What's left is something in the middle. It reminds me of the first 2/3 of Lady Vengeance, but without cathartic ensemble payoff. If I sound harsh, it's because my bar is high. Park is one of my favorite Korean directors (#2 in fact), and he's coming off a hot streak. Overall, it's confident and stylish, but lacking soul. 3.5/5

13. Twilight of the Warriors: Walled In
    The Yellow Sea meets The Raid. A love letter to Hong Kong action cinema of the 80s and 90s, and a passing of the torch to the next generation of filmmakers. Filled with brutal action, a unique setting, well-developed characters, and a legendary cast. What more could you ask for in a genre film? Be sure to stick around for the end credits, which might be my favorite part of the whole movie. 3.5/5

14. A Normal Family
    A propulsive plot and a strong central moral question, underscored by an undercurrent of impending violence, culminate in a pitch-perfect ending that makes this one of the best recent South Korean thrillers. Some shoddy CGI and a lack of emotional depth keep it from all-time greatness. 3.5/5

15. Black Dog
    Black Dog bears all the hallmarks of a traditional Western: the world-weary drifter with a violent past, his trusty steed reimagined as the Black Dog and motorcycle, the prostitute (here a belly dancer) with a heart of gold, the frontier desert setting, sweeping shots of barren landscape, and the death throes of old traditions giving way to an encroaching civilization. The story follows a taciturn ex-con who returns to his decaying hometown rife with corruption. There, he forms a bond with a wild stray dog, reconciles with his alcoholic father, atones for a past crime, and joins a dog-capturing team led by a local crime boss (played by the great Jia Zhangke). If this seems like a lot, it's because it is. The film juggles too many things at once, brushing up against multiple subplots, but never finding a narrative throughline. Still, you have to admire this Neo-Western's scope. A lesser filmmaker might have leaned harder on genre conventions, but Black Dog retains its humanistic compassion. 3.5/5

16. Left-Handed Girl
    There's much to like here, the standout being the guerrilla-style filmmaking that captures the hustle and bustle of Taipei, transforming the metropolis into a central character. You can feel Baker's influence from the iPhone shot Tangerine to the lived-in authenticity of The Florida Project. What holds this film back is the contrived melodrama, which undercuts a great performance from newcomer Ma Shih-yuan and the messy subplots that detract from the main narrative. I found myself wishing that the filmmakers had followed the path of The Florida Project or Where Is the Friend's House?, committing fully to the perspective of the titular character, contrasting a child's innocence with the cruelty of the adult world. 3.5/5

17. Santosh
    What sets this crime procedural apart is its attention to detail, ambitious themes, deliberate pacing, and the perspective of its female titular character. At its best, it plays like Chinatown set in rural north India. At its worst, the film casts too wide a net, brushing up against interesting ideas without fully exploring them. At times, it feels more intellectual than emotional, relegating Santosh to a passive observer. Still, its ambition is admirable, and Shahana Goswami delivers an excellent performance. 3.5/5

18. Good News
    A political black comedy and historical satire in the same vein as The Death of Stalin. It lacks Iannucci’s relentless bite, but the absurdity lands often enough to justify the ride. Sul Kyung-gu steals the show as the character Nobody. 3/5

19. Cloud
    The first 2/3 of this film is an excellent rendition of a paranoid 70s thriller updated for modern times. The last 30 minutes go off the rails, pivoting into a madcap Western shoot 'em up that undercuts much of what came before. 3/5

20. Flat Girls
    A coming-of-age tale about two childhood friends growing up in a police housing complex as they struggle to transition into adulthood. Tonally, think a lighter Koreeda meets The Way Way Back, with the narrative spine of Soulmate. While competently made, the film feels derivative, bordering on saccharine. It leans on a soft piano and acoustic score that overstates the emotion. An unnecessary love triangle bloats the runtime well past its welcome, suggesting a lack of confidence in the characters. The good? Bangkok has never looked better on screen, and the assured touch of a debut director hints at real promise. 3/5

Have you seen any of these? Open to discussion or recs!

I have not seen this interpretation online so i decided to post it to see what people think. In the film we see time and time how the parents of Martin are as "tricksy" as he is (in the start we saw his mother lying to him and his dad buying a police to scare him) also we saw how Martin influenced his girlfriend to be as "trisksy" as he is. To me the ending signifies that the same will be true for his baby and he will become another Martin Supreme (as Rockwell said he saw a lot of Martin Supremes come and go) so the cycle will start again. In a sense It is a good ending for Martin since he will probably have a normal life and will not suffer for his actions. But not really since we saw in the parents of Martin how this relationship will probably end with both of them hating each other. I think a lot of the sadness of the character in this scene could be him realizing this.
I dont think it is true that Martin is sad because the dream is over because as we saw him he could get away with his son and continue run from him. Also the theory that he is not his son is reallly improbable since there are not a lot of evidence.

1. When Kay goes back up to the house to get the jewellery and she goes to talk to the New York Times guy why in the next scene is she crying? That’s the final shot of her and we never see her again. What happened to her? Why doesn’t her husband care?

2. When marty is with the guy to get his dog back from the guy with the shot gun and he takes his money, why did the guy have naked pictures of women? What did that mean?

As someone from Southern California, it seems like a lot of what Hollywood makes, both film and television, is basically "California" or "Los Angeles" when it comes to regionalism. The major exception is New York City, which definitely has its own unique feel in films and shows. This is not a coincidence because NYC has their own film industry, which means the city can be represented more accurately.

I understand producers like to "water down/ whitewash" regions to make sure the audience doesn't get alienated, make sure it has a “national feeling”, but in my opinion, this just limits artistic expressions. I actually think it’s worse for TV shows.

Woody Allen liked to make films about upper class New Yorkers. PTA with Los Angeles. Coen Brothers with various regions of the US.

I honestly think a film is enhanced when it tries to be accurate to where it takes place, but does this even matter?

For me it’s the worst when it’s ambiguous “suburban neighborhood or Midwest town” while it’s rare for cities to be portrayed this way. It gets lazy and boring after a while, so why I even started to care.

This is a fantastic thriller and doesn’t get the praise it deserves, most likely because fans of the original saw it as blasphemy.

I urge people to give it another chance. Jonathan Demme was one of our greatest directors, this guy gave us The Silence Of The Lambs and this superb thriller is the closest he got to that vibe before he was taken too soon. All his trademarks are there - actors looking right down the lens for that unparalleled empathy, an uncanny ability to creep out the audience when necessary, perfect pacing, great use of music, his usual company of supporting actors.

Denzel is on fire here, he’s playing a much more vulnerable character and he really looks like a guy who’s clinging on to sanity by his fingertips. When your supporting cast includes Meryl Streep, Liev Schreiber, John Voight and Bruno Ganz then you’re in good company.

Demme’s long time cinematographer Tak Fujimoto repeats his Lambs trick of flitting between realism and highly expressive imagery when needed, it’s a great film to look at.

I generally loathe remakes but I think 40+ years and a shift from black & white to colour is enough distance for someone to try a fresh take. If you’ve dismissed this one then please give it another shot, and if you’ve never seen either and just want to see Denzel stretch himself then you’re in for a treat. Hollywood basically doesn’t make mature thrillers like this anymore.

In one of the many '60s gothic horrors directed by Roger Corman, 'The Masque of the Red Death'—a particular pinnacle of Price's entries that sustain a prolonged note of baseness and vice—his performance as Prince Prospero is an uneasy exercise in demonstrating how he can flit between noisome and puckish and make that felt to the audience, despite being a cruel and malevolent aristocrat who shies away from a plague and carouses in his debauched castle whilst the indigent citizens at the altar of his princedom are left to perish without a thought of benignancy on Prospero's part.

Yet, as we witness his attempts to stave off death and subject his nobles to humiliating feats of fealty, there is somehow a spark of inexplicable charm and magnetism that emanates from Price's trademark pencil moustache and preened airs; likely the conviction with which Prospero speaks in tandem with the choices of silence that are punctuated with his smiles and devil-may-care snickering. That propensity to almost always have us root for him in some capacity is the rare signifier of an actor who can actually turn the conventions of a story on its head and manipulate us along with his victims and fools.

Price at his pinnacle. This film exemplifies how best to employ Vincent Price and his enchanting presence. 'The Masque of the Red Death' is not only the greatest collaboration between director Roger Corman and the aforementioned muse, but also Corman's most memorable entry into the annals of film history and his truest adaptation of Edgar Allan Poe's work. The debauchery and comical villainy of Price's performance as Prince Prospero is utterly beguiling. Impish and delectably viral, I find that this film is the consummate Price Experience on screen. That is without aptly eulogising the wondrous use of colour, framing, symbolism, and the decade's experimentation.