The dual perspective technique is ground-breaking here. Watching the earliest films chronologically is so special because you can almost experience the innovation as they would have contemporarily. Such a small thing we don't think twice about today, but absolutely integral to cinematic storytelling. Also, for some reason I never considered Edwardian era fire trucks would in fact be horse drawn carriages, but it is so delightful!

I'm absolutely floored. This is so much darker than anything I could have ever expected. Terrifying, even. I will not lie I spent every minute worried Bruce would croak it from old age alone to give Terry a character development moment. Speaking of Terry, him mocking the Joker was top 10 moments of all time.

Man, I almost forgot how much films for cartoons in the 90s and early 2000s loved that weird 3D rendering effect. To me this is a better version of that one Doctor Who Christmas special. Something something human greed is the biggest evil of them all, with Dr. Belsom coming across as far more reprehensible than Mr. Freeze, whose motivations make him incredibly sympathetic and tragic, helped by his kindly behaviour towards Koonak with no ulterior motive. I'm not saying he deserves a get-out-of-jail-free card, but villains with ostensibly well-meaning intentions are always the most compelling. Pretty decent, though it felt like less of a movie in the vein of Mask of the Phantasm, and more of a longer episode.

Please do yourself a favour and watch this with the original narration.

At his core, Méliès was a magician, and saw film as another medium to inspire awe in his audiences with dazzling tricks and special effects. Even 123 years later, he succeeds.

The film follows a group of astronomers, who look more like wizards (specifically wizards from a holographic foiled picture-book I owned as a child and can find no evidence of on the internet), as they decide to take a trip to the moon. They commission a capsule in the shape of a bullet, which is shot towards the moon. The moon watches the capsule approach with its human face. I am fascinated by the face of the moon, as it looks near-identical to the malevolent being I often envisioned on the full moon's surface as a child. I wonder if Méliès tapped into a universal vision born from the human tendency of pattern-recognition, or whether I unconsciously absorbed his enduring iconography. The capsule hits the moon in the eye, which though played for laughs, is incredibly violent, and the now-famous frame would not be out of place among anti-imperialist political cartoons.

These bumbling wizard-scientists with names like Omega, Micromegas, Nostradamus and Paragaragaramus, and the act of shooting a capsule into space are supposed to be ridiculous, but is not far off from actual space travel, this imagery conceived even before the invention of the airplane. It is the greatest tragedy that those who worked on the film likely did not live to see the moon landing.

Regardless, the astronomers disembark, having swapped their wizard hats and robes for a more archetypal colonial "explorer" outfit, watch the earth rise, and proceed to fall asleep. This displeases the beautiful Phoebe, perched upon a crescent, and her celestial companions, so she awakens them with a burst of snowfall. The astronomers seek shelter in a cave, which happens to be full of mushrooms. The hand-painted and textured sets depicting the moon are beautiful, not only creating a fantastical feel to the film, but also emphasising the unfamiliarity of the moon. The theatrical staging and camera position, as well as exaggerated movements of the actors add to this effect.

An insect-like native Selenite emerges, approaching the astronomers with curiosity. They kill it easily by hitting it with an umbrella, and it disintegrates into a puff of smoke — just one example of the marvellous practical effects pioneered by Méliès. More Selenites appear, and this time, they capture the astronomers and march them to their king. Notably, the Selenites have not been depicted as engaging in a single act of violence. The astronomers easily overpower the Selenites, genociding them with umbrellas before rushing back to their capsule.

One of the Selenites manages to cling onto the vessel (the birth of a trope superhero films will overuse forevermore) as it hurtles back to earth, landing in the sea. This is shot in a glass aquarium full of tadpoles and other multimedia elements, something so beautiful in contrast to contemporary film's obsession with verisimilitude. The astronomers are pulled ashore by a ship, where they are met with celebration. A statue is erected in their honour, depicting a wizard stepping on the face of the moon, and the Selenite is paraded around like a freakshow.

Art has always been political, and this remains true of film.

This is everything Batman Begins should have been holy shit. I did not have high expectations, films for TV shows are rarely anything but a non-serial money grab, but wow. The selling point for me is the incredible characterisation. Bruce and Batman are clearly shown to be a singular person with elements of each bleeding into both. It's perhaps the only one that strikes the balance just right. The dudebro live actions are often so afraid of making superheroes effeminate that they forget to make them human, and completely butcher characters. None of that here, but I expected no different considering how much I adore the animated series. Bruce's motivations (as well as the The Phantasm's) and lingering grief are so much more believable than in Batman Begins, without even showing the Waynes' murder. I'm so pleasantly surprised that they went down the route of examining his trauma in such a complex way. Though it's only 76 minutes long, it doesn't at all feel bloated either, the pacing is near-perfect, which is pretty uncommon for superhero films. Sorry to keep bringing it up but genuinely this did more for me than the entirety of the Dark Knight trilogy. Especially because it knows how to handle a female character. Andrea is not just a plot point, she is equally as fleshed out as Bruce, and equally as compelling. Alfred is delightful, as ever, and the animation is gorgeous. I did not expect at all the explicit references to death and the *gasp* depictions of blood (albeit merely in a nosebleed), but these elements really work to emphasise the stakes at hand, and why Gotham needs the Dark Knight. While watching the cartoons, it's easy to dismiss any potential danger because you're aware the TV gods won't ever let anyone die, but Mask of the Phantasm yanks Batman into reality. This could make an incredible live action, but why mess with perfection? Kevin Conroy really is the only Batman.

LMAO I know my friends are SICK of seeing me log this film once a month. Gets better and more relevant every time I watch it, which says a lot about how disturbing the societal descent into hypercapitalism is, but I always find a new facet to appreciate. I started giggling to myself during the business card scene imagining replacing cards with kpop PCs or like... Labubus and honestly it would hold up just the same. Absolutely stunning cinematography throughout that really serves the narrative and was a relief after the visual clutter of Superman. On my last watch, I was focusing a lot on the critique of neoliberalism (even wrote an essay on it that was pretty good if I say so myself) but this time more on Patrick's identity and emptiness, which is scarily relatable and I can unfortunately understand why so many young men take him as a role model. I've never noticed before how Patrick's exchange with Jean about future aspirations and fulfilment impacts him so much that it bleeds into his "review" of Whitney Huston. I was struck with something almost like pity for him. Christian Bale is so incredible. Mad respect but I'm also terrified of that man. Favourite comedy of all time 5eva.

TDK trilogy found dead in a ditch. This is everything about superhero movies done right. I complain a lot about superhero movies caring more abought fighting bad guys than saving people, but it's not the case here at all. The spirit of the comic book source format is imbued throughout, making it feel cartoony in a good way, and more importantly the political messaging and what Superman stands for is boldly explicit. The themes and motivations present are extremely culturally relevant, and while not the most radical or sophisticated, do not shy away from being condemnatory in a way I never would have expected from a Hollywood blockbuster. I mean, they literally kill Netanyahu by dropping him out of the sky in what I'm assuming will be one of the biggest films of the year. That being said, it's quite messy and overstuffed at times, and I wish Clark's personal life preceding the events of the film was better fleshed out, as well as his relationships. The film does a good job humanising him elsewhere, but still it lacks this grounding. I used to watch Krypto the Superdog as a kid on Boomerang, so the inclusion of him was a delight, though unfortunately repetitive. It did, at times, feel a little ugly cinematically though and Eve Teschmacher's entire character was such a horribly cruel and misogynistic piece of writing.

Do I just hate romance and men? Excruciatingly hard watch. Everyone is insufferable and it is neither romantic nor comedic. For a romance to work either I have to be attracted to the lead or root for him to get with the girl, and neither was the case. There is absolutely no chemistry or build-up with either of the men, and I don't much care for Bridget either. Her only personality trait is "awkward", and she's not fleshed out beyond that at all. One star only because I spent the whole film hoping Daniel Cleaver would get punched in the face and he did. That fight scene might be the only redeemable part of the entire film. I also thought Colin Firth playing Mr. Darcy again was funny, but that doesn't excuse how awful this was.

I can't believe we finally discovered the root of the Jimin/Jeongyeon beef in 2025. I kid, but Jeongyeon provides a singing voice for Huntrix and I have it on good authority "Baby" Saja is based on Park Jimin... I can't discount it as completely unintentional considering how many references there are to real-world groups throughout the film. Quite tastefully done, I'd like to add. Several K-Pop songs such as VIXX's Turn Around and Look At Me and EXO's Love Me Right are used (they fully just used my playlist it seems), and there are posters of groups such as TWICE present throughout. At one point, Huntrix trends over TWICE in the charts which is hilarious because TWICE literally voices their song. Another ficional group on the charts, as if to emphasise how ridiculous KPop group names are, is called "SPF 100." A song called Delight, ostensibly by Baekhyun is also present. Even the original music borrows from recent KPop acts, with much of Huntrix' music sounding like BLACKPINK's, especially through lyrics such as "fit check for my napalm era." Rumi is also styled pretty similarly to Jennie in the Kill This Love era, though her braid looks a lot more scorpion-eque, which is a fun bit of foreshadowing. Golden too sounds like a blend of Sunmi and IVE. Mira hearing the discordant clanging of a demon against metal and concrete and deciding that is the beat for their new song is entirely reminiscent of NCT, and even Cha Eunwoo doesn't escape unscathed through Jinu, who is extremely good-looking but ultimately kind of bland. It's not just the music, KPop culture is at the heart of the film. The fight scenes are lit by lightsticks and shot like music videos, and there is an incredible accurate portrayaof Kpop fanculture without leaning into "cringe" or being meanspirited. "He's so hot!" exclaims a fan upon seeing the very hot Jinu. "And respectful!" drools her friend, though he has done the bare minimum. In fact, KPop Demon Hunters is a love letter to Korean entertainment culture as a whole. Jinu and Rumi's meeting is chock full of Kdrama cliches, with them bumping into each other in slow-motion as the Business Proposal OST plays. Despite all the dark demonic shit taking place, the film presents a pretty idealised version of the industry. Early on, the girls stuff themselves with junk food prior to performing, which is hilariously ironic if you know anything about Kpop, but I really appreciate that detail considering the young audience who is sure to be watching. The amount of creative control given to the girls is hilarious, as is their work ethic, where they willingly sacrifice an incredibly short hiatus for the sake of their fans. No rest for overworked idols here, a smiling fandom is more than enough. Speaking of fandom, their quickness to ship Huntrix and Saja Boys members together is entertaining, but we all know how that would really play out. Boycott trucks and handwritten apologies galore. Dispatch doesn't even report on Rumi and Jinu's early morning meeting, which is far more than I can suspend my disbelief for. Your boyband is actually full of demons? Yeah why not, many such cases. But no sasaengs??? Now you're pushing it. The animation is beautiful and you can tell a lot of care has been given to every little detail. I was particularly struck by the scene where the girls are vulnerable and honest with each other for the first time post-revelation, and makeup-free. The style itself also reminds me of KDA and early naevis, which ties in the culture even more. The messaging of the film overall is a little cheesy and the foundations are a bit shaky, without as much characterisation as I would have liked. I did not walk away caring about a single character, with even Rumi not being fleshed out as much as she could have been. Which is a shame, because everyone is so distinct and had so much potential. But it was a enough watch, so I'm not too mad. Its biggest crime is not referencing the donut hoodie in my opinion.

The movement, the colour! She looks like an orchid!

Oh my go dhe fuckki;;ng atee him... Really fun to see people figuring out the interesting things that can be done with camera angles and editing.

Something quite beautiful about one of the earliest pieces of cinema capturing the lives of the working class. I'm touched by the preservation of such a mundane part of life and the foresight to record it. Humans truly never change.

Once more, a charming snapshot of daily life. Vlogging before vlogging.

An early example of editing, how delightful! I found myself smiling the entire time, and found the skeleton bit hilarious. How it must have felt to see such effects for the first time, and how far we have come. Of course, contemporary audiences must have seen the cuts as clearly as we can now, but still it must have thrilled.

How salacious! This is so deeply intimate and real, even if May Irwin does keep glancing towards the camera. Beautiful.

Mid, should have been Tesla. I've only just realised this is my first time seeing Thomas Edison's face outside of Poptropica, so Nikola really did win in the end.

Was expecting to be incredibly bored or hate this, but ended up pleasantly surprised. Loved the use of the camera in filling in the things Travis left unsaid, though I do wish they'd left all his victims as Black. (I agree with Quentin Tarantino on this point, and that pains me more than words can describe.) Everyone talks about Travis' loneliness, but the portrayal of racism is far more interesting to me, and considering it's such a driving force for him I'm surprised it's not a bigger topic of discussion. I am incredibly weary of people (men) who like this film without understanding that facet of Travis' identity, because it invites a level of sympathy that can be dangerous. Oddly, didn't blow me away over all, but still achieves what Joker attempts to with so much more sophistication. Soundtrack was also great, especially the jazz towards the end.

Euphoria if it was realistic. Honestly, this was sort of boring and I didn't much like the pacing. Just feels pointless. No real direction, message, or sophisticated analysis of eating disorders. Bit of a shame it sucks because you don't see much about fat people struggling with restrictive eating disorders. At least the casting was decent?

Average internet grooming experience. Fun cinematography and honestly a little terrifying. Wish it was a bit more nuanced in its portrayal of parasocial relationships. If you're already including a relationship with a preteen, you might as well go all out. The comparisons to Kamikaze Girls , the reason I picked it up in the first place (alongside being a blogger myself) are completely misleading though, they are nothing alike.

Been putting this one off for years because of Tom Felton. Honestly, not bad, if not a little boring. A refreshing take on mental illness with very little romanticisation and the central conceit is very interesting, both in terms of grief and the subsequent eating disorder, though it could have gone much deeper. Twincest galore. Troian Bellisario and Tom Felton are not at all convincing as high school students, but the slimy quality the latter brings to the film honestly sells it as a horror. They watch The Craft in the psych ward which is hilarious to me for some reason.

You're shooting yourself in the foot a little bit by titling a blaxploitation film Blacula and removing any humour from it. Makes maybe one or two surface level points about race before dropping the matter entirely, but William Marshall's performance was great in keeping Mamuwalde sympathetic despite all the murders and the soundtrack was so fun.

I need things that aren't Carmilla to stop pretending they're Carmilla. Awful as an adaptation, and not much stronger as a stand-alone piece. There is absolutely no depth to the characters, and somehow one of the most fascinating stories in Gothic literature with sooooo much subtext to work with is reduced to this boring nothingness. And the lighting/colour-grading... at times it feels like they just forgot to edit the raw footage. I hate to say it but even the sexploitation "adaptations" of Carmilla work better for me than this. Also as a left-handed person, all of that was so unnecessary? It's a lot easier than you think to learn to use your non-dominant hand, especially for tasks other than writing.

I fear I'm a bit too much of a feminist for this film. The McLovin' B-plot and the momentary centring of Jules and Becca's agency at the party is the only thing that sort of salvaged it for me but it's still overall unfunny and gross and I cannot fathom anyone but a dumb 12 year old boy actually enjoying this. Lives up to the title. Bottoms did it better.

A little difficult to get through because of how infuriating Hank Quinlan was, but so wonderfully shot. Unfortunately brought down a little by sometimes weak storytelling, but I was in awe of the camera angles and shadows the whole time. Peak noir thriller. A really interesting subversion of the god cop/bad cop dynamic too. The ending, where it's revealed the kid was guilty all along, really stands out to me. It recontextualises some of the story and adds another layer of tragedy to Quinlan's moral corruption, but ultimately does not redeem him. Gritty.

I've seen maybe 400 films in my entire life and this maybe the best one to date. I'm in awe. Rarely have I been as moved by the power of cinema as I am after watching 12 Angry Men. A new favourite and I don't even care that it fails the Bechedel test. I will not soon forget the scene where they all stand in protest of Juror 10's racist diatribe. I also found it poignant that the Accused's innocence was not at the heart of the conflict, rather reasonable doubt and the flaws of the justice system, especially in regards to marginalised communities, while also being very hopeful about it. Unfortunately a film that will always be timeless so long as the culture of white supremacy remains. Boldly explicit in its claims compared to what else I've seen of mainstream Old Hollywood films, so it's really no wonder Lumet went on to direct a film about a radical anti-war socialist family in the 80s. The acting and cinematography are incredible and really add to the atmosphere (funnily, I remember thinking some of the framing choices reminded me of Running on Empty and wrote it off as recency bias, only to discover they shared a director.) Some of the best dialogue I've seen in film too, and an incredibly real dissection of human decision-making. Kept my attention throughout and developed the views and relationships of the jurors very masterfully.

God, River Phoenix... Something about the way his roles align with the values he promoted in real life just gets to me, he could have done so much more if his life hadn't been so tragically cut short. Nobody embodies with such nuance the quiet, gentle nature of his characters, and I have to believe it's partially drawn from his own person. I wish I'd seen this in high school, but at the same time it would have probably broken me. By all means a really cheesy movie, but I'll be damned if it doesn't have heart to it. It would be a lie to say I didn't only pick it up because of my fondness for River Phoenix despite the plot sounding mediocre and boring for my personal tastes. While it could have very easily gone down the route of a dull lifetime movie, the cast really turned it into something special. I didn't really care much about the romance, but fuck the portrayal of family dynamics is so heart wrenchingly beautiful. A quieter teenage angst than the dramatic outbursts often shown on film, but very very relatable.

Great stuff all around visually. Love how the camerawork forces you to feel as small as Clarice in the male-dominated sphere, mirroring Jodie Foster's physical stature in comparison to the male agents. Anthony Hopkins embodies Hannibal's quietly intimidating (I mean... quiet until he eats your face) nature really well, and is somehow not as off-putting as Mads Mikkelsen's Hannibal. The character I mean, not the portrayal. The relationship between the two is built up perfectly thanks to a mix of cinematic techniques and script, just so much complexity and nuance, especially when juxtaposed with the patriarchal struggles Clarice faces outside the prison. The pacing is also great, with every shot having a purpose. I can't believe I found this boring as a kid.

One of the strongest examples I've seen of creating mood and atmosphere, I was gripped with suspense and dread throughout, despite catching the reveal quite early. I'm not sure why, but watching Perfect Blue got me thinking of Selena Quintanilla, to the point I had to pause to refresh my memory on her tragedy. I didn't realise how young she was. Funnily enough, I didn't associate Rumi with Yolanda at all, but Me-Mania (I had mixed up her case with Christina Grimmie's and thought Selena was shot at a fan meeting.) I was bound to enjoy Perfect Blue as someone who is very interested in themes of obsession, parasocial relationships, self-perception and the perceptions of others, and Kon really delivers. You can really see the influences on Black Swan here. I love the surrealism and refusal to give a clear answer, though the Double Bind scenes may seem like a red herring, they could just as easily be the truth. The ending feels incredibly ambiguous to me too, and there is no reason to accept it as objective. The animation is also beautiful, and it feels like very scene has some form of symbolism or deeper meaning that I'm only realising upon reflection, and I'm sure I will catch much more on a rewatch. And I wouldn't know where to begin talking about everything, so I'll just say I loved the use of mirrors, glass and transitions, specifically the scene where the truck headlights transform into the blinding lights from a stage.

I was sooo worried this would be another Don't Worry Darling situation but I am very very pleasantly surprised. So fun???? Really reminds me of The Stepford Wives and nails on the head men's expectations and desires from women. Big fan of the decision to not sexualise the sex bot which many would have been temped to do, and Iris' (Is that supposed to be Siri backwards?) design. Also love the cutesy retro 60s thing she's got going on and also how that ties into the sort of Madonna-whore complex a lot of men have. It's nothing too groundbreaking or even unique overall but it's so so soooo fun (I like slashers go figure) and rewatchable that I love it anyway. And of course the character played by Harvey Guillén "fall for a guy dressed as a vampire." Also love Jack Quaid typecast as villainous loser.

Soooo subversive and feminist of Emerald Fennel to show Cassie being slowly and painfully suffocated but not a single rapist dying. Makes a big deal about how the system failed Nina, only to put justice into the hands of the police. Promising Young Woman almost got it right, the cops don't take her case seriously and Ryan immediately lying to protect himself and his classmates, but still Fennel allows for police cars to "save the day." I don't necessarily think there needed to be a "happy ending", but pretending it's a moment of catharsis with Cassie interfering from the dead undermines the tragedy of it. The death scene was clearly for shock value and was not build up in a way that says anything particularly meaningful. Also for a film about rape, it sure skirts around it. Yes, part of that can be attributed to the stigma around talking about it, but not even Cassie mentions it in any real depth. That paired with Nina being a faceless, identityless character really puts a bad taste in my mouth. Plus both the characters' experiences with sexual assault directly leading to death is an awful message for a film supposedly about empowerment. So much for survivors learning to heal. A lot of the script is also awful, like "student film from person who's only learned about social movements and morality from Tumblr" awful. Tropey, cliche, stilted and hollow. I will say though, I loved the casting and character of Ryan, not a stereotypical uncomfortable "nice guy," (like the Reddit fedora guy archetype who is for some reason an actual character in this film?????) but seemingly kind and charming, really representative of the fact anyone can be complicit and participant in rape culture. Carey Mulligan's performance was also great for the material she was given. Honestly just the epitome of white liberal "activism," where violence is bad so the only way to get the "bad people" to change their misguided ways is to talk to them, and if that fails, leave everything in the capable hands of the justice system!!!

I can't believe I spent most of the film going "Aww it's so nice for the old man in an old Hollywood film to have a platonic relationship with the female lead for once." I felt Waldo was purposely queer-coded and so did not expect his motivations at all, though I obviously didn't cast him aside as a suspect. Love stuff about our projections of people and how they measure up to the real thing. Also very clear influences on Twin Peaks. I like that you can never quite pinpoint whether McPherson is following up on something for the case or as a result of his own personal interest, but Dana Andrews unfortunately doesn't really sell me as having this fixation on Laura. Would never have thought he was falling for her if not for Waldo commenting on it. His character really did dampen the enjoyment for me, and there's not really the same build up of tension and intrigue I enjoy in other noirs. Can imagine this being incredible as a stage play though.

Blue Velvet captures a dreamlike state with the most accuracy I've ever seen, and also the feeling of being in over your head thrust into a world you don't understand but won't make any exceptions for you. The beautiful cinematography and colours work well to contrast the dark hidden underbelly of the town. The mirrored shots at the beginning and end of the film completely change meaning, and the faux optimistic ending reminds me of The Nightmare on Elm Street. After everything Jeffrey has learned, too bright, too artificial.

Allow me to be shallow briefly; I have never understood the appeal of any of those Old Hollywood men (and most contemporary ones) until seeing young Marlon Brando on screen in English class years ago. He's almost as beautiful as Vivien Leigh here, and casting him as such a despicable character is genius. Turning Stanley into someone who men aspired to be and women to be with perfectly complicates the narrative and emphasises the nuances found in Tennessee Williams' original play. Plus it doesn't hurt to have a nice face to look at until Stanley starts being Stanley. I could go on for a while, but a) I'd rather not contribute even indirectly to the romanticisation of Stanley and b) nobody needs to hear me talk about that one scene for hours on end. I could also write at length about the story itself and all the symbolism and ~themes~, but I've spent plenty of time doing that already in high school, so instead I'll just focus on the film itself. The very deliberate use of lighting and both diegetic and non-diegetic sounds is immediately noticeable, and I can't help but appreciate how true to text the lighting is, though the sound is slightly more polished and cut down. Blanche's face falling in dark shadows as she locomotives roar when she recalls Alan is really highlighs how much different mediums can impact storytelling. The light finally cast on Blanche's face as Mitch confronts her harshly highlighting the signs of age on her face is also masterfully done. Of course, the nature of black and white film forces the omission of Williams' use of colour, losing the impact of the Van Gogh painting and poker shirts, but that can't be helped. I do wish, however, that the sounds and music described in the play, such as the Varsouviana, were given the same significance to really emphasise Blanche's internal chaos. The acting itself is strong on all fronts, Leigh plays the role of a woman wearing a mask so well, and you can see whenever Blanche lets it slip. She's also just the perfect choice on a metatextual level, having once played a Southern Belle in Gone with the Wind like used to be. Despite all the theatricality, Leigh manages to make Blanche sympathetic and relatable in a very raw portrayal of mental illness. Brando too is great, you can really feel the predatory fear and weariness Stanley instils in especially Stella and Blanche, although the toned down nature of the film prevents him from what could have been an even more incredible performance. He's quietly terrifying in the scene where he gets back from the hospital. The two different styles of acting at play also enriches the characters deeply, with Brando's more realistic style suiting Stanley's "common" sensibilities, valuing honesty. In contrast, Leigh's performance is quite obviously a performance, purposefully unnatural and self conscious. Almost like Blanche is trying to be Scarlett O'Hara. The film is also surprisingly hilarious at points? Stanley pushing Mitch back down into his seat as he told Blanche nobody would get up to greet her and throwing out his boys out of the bathroom one by one elicited more than a smile from me. Despite the merits of this adaptation, I do find it weakened somewhat as a result of the censorship. Any references to Alan's homosexuality are removed with the new explanation of him simply being "sensitive" diminishing Blanche's guilt, desire to be desired, and themes of sexual repression. Many more allusions to sexuality and specifically virginity are removed too, such as Blanche commenting on the "Madonna blue" of her dress or telling Stanley about her astrological sign — Virgo, the virgin. The rape scene in particular suffers from this censorship with the terrifying build-up from the play sanitised and not truly highlighting Stanley's cruelty or forcing the audience to condemn him in the same way. As I understand, the ending too was only changed so the film could be shown, but it undermines the whole story. A Streetcar Named Desire is not only about Blanche's delusions, but delusion in general, and so it is important that Stella stay with Stanley regardless of her doubts. For this reason I choose to interpret her resolve as temporary, just like when she first runs to Eunice, but inevitably returns to Stanley.

The star-studded cast paired with the celebrities they played made every frame feel like a Marvel post-credits scene. Needed more Cliff x Rick, they are lovers to me. Also there's no way Mikey Madison's role and specifically death scene here didn't influence her character in Scream at least a little bit. Also also Quentin Tarantino feet shots are the film equivalent of Stake ads on Twitter dear Lord. As for the film itself, it wasn't for me. Gratuitous violence against women and young girls just isn't fun, and Tarantino doesn't even try to justify it by demonising the cult. Of course the male death nowhere near borders on this sadism. In fact, the "Manson Family" portrayed here is just a stereotype of the "woke" subsection of society that would dare criticise Tarantino and the industry. He seems to forget the slightly more deplorable facets of the cult, like you know.... the fact they were white supremacists. This does nothing to honour Sharon Tate at all, who is hollowed out and exploited for this film. But that's too be expected from Tarantino, who has woven in a disgusting admiration of Polanski throughout the narrative. Not surprising considering it's a film made by an abuser, about an abuser, starring an abuser, inspired by abusers. All that aside, Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood is also boringggg which is just as unforgivable. If I wanted childish, self-indulgent fanfiction, I'd reactivate my Wattpad account.

Kind of meh with a ridiculous ending. Somehow I even preferred She-Hulk to this, but I did enjoy the framing of the final shot. Lou Sr.'s hair is certainly something to behold though. Also they knew exactly what they were doing putting that one Pam Grier song on at the gym.

Better than the entirety of Suits. Sir Wilfrid is one of the most loveable onscreen lawyers to date and while I had a pretty good idea of what was happening, the final twist took me completely by surprise. Equally amusing and captivating. Every little detail one questions ties together perfectly at the end.

Coppola really makes you feel Priscilla's suffocation and loneliness with a cloying puff of pink powder and Chanel N°5. I love the way in which Priscilla's costuming specifically adds to the narrative too, signalling both a passage of time and mental state. Despite this, Priscilla still feels a little emotionally void. You barely get to know the eponymous character, and yes part of it can be attributed to her inability to form an identity for herself trapped in such a relationship, but some of her internal processes would have made this film a lot more fulfilling. But I do have to praise Coppola for making this relationship near impossible to glorify even in Tumblr gifsets, it is unapologetically depicted as grooming (though once more lacking the focus on Priscilla's reactions which could have make the film shine) and there is not a single moment that could be misconstrued as romantic. I do think it's a little funny that Jacob Elordi essentially plays another version of Nate Jacobs here. I wanted something messier and more raw, condemning Elvis much more explicitly (which to be fair Coppola isn't exactly known for) but this was just... tepid.

Delightful and funny, but also quietly melancholic. I love the framing device and what it says about storytelling. Anderson's distinct visual style is also perfect for tackling themes of nostalgia for a long forgotten past, even during times of hardship. It's good, but I think I would appreciate this film more once upon acquainting myself with Zweig's works.

Absolutely none of the charm of Catch Me if You Can but a great depiction of the disgusting and shallow Wall Street culture and the destructive emptiness of capitalism. I find it hilarious people look up to Leo's portrayal of Jordan Belfort when Scorsese doesn't even attempt to make him likeable. Wish there was a little bit more about how the fraud impacted the victims, though of course this is from Jordan's perspective and he couldn't care less. I like what it tries to do but my hatred of finance bros and women being objectified (wow, someone give this guy a medal!) made it a hard watch, which means the film accomplished exactly what it set out to do tbh.

Supernatural did it first. I first watched this when instead of "X happened before GTA 6" the joke was "before Leo got an Oscar." I thought it was so trippy and loved it. My mind hasn't changed much in the years since. Just so fucking good. Love love love the cast (it's so bleeding cute how Nolan needs to put Cillian Murphy in everything) Almost perfect as a bigger picture thing, which is why the weak script and characterisation is so surprising. The only time I cared about the characters was when Arthur and Eames interacted. But other than that, it really artfully takes on the mantle of The Matrix. There's great stuff not only on the nature of guilt and reality, but also of film. It's difficult not to see Ariadne as a set designer and the others as actors and directors, and the dreams play with time the same way films do. In one of the dreams I believe the hour that passes matches an actual hour in runtime and I thought that was genius. And, not that it matters, but I'm quite fond of the idea that the all-too-cliche "and it was all a dream" is applicable here, especially the "reality" in which Cobb is an extractor hired by Sato on the run from the cops. It makes perfect sense as the construct of a guilt-ridden mind to justify avoiding his children, and the sequence serves to provide Cobb with the same catharsis he envisions for Fischer. It is the only way all the fantastical coincidences could make sense, and especially tempting to believe with consideration to Ariadne's symbolism. Whether or not the ending is "real," it's clear that Cobb finally moves past his guilt and chooses this version of reality. Would have been really funny if Mal was right all along.

More than anything, an incredibly heartfelt and caring portrayal of the loneliness of childhood and the desire for parental acceptance at a level I in my ignorance did not expect from a 40s film.. Though this is described as a horror, it instead merely fills me with an aching sadness akin to reading old fairytales such as The Little Matchstick Girl. The whole film is about being haunted, not only literally, but by the ghosts of one's past. While the Reeds attempt to escape their memories and fantasy, the Farrens are trapped in them. Though not as well developed as Amy's friendship with Irena, their situation is equally tragic, with daughter hopelessly clawing for her dementia-ridden mother's affections. Just as Amy internalises her father's admonishments and sinks deeper into her alienation, Barbara too perpetuates the harsh treatment she faces from her mother. And of course, Ann Carter's performance ties everything together. She perfectly embodies a sweet little child lost in a world of her own without ever coming across as irritating or bratty, which really emphasises Miss Calahan's point about Oliver's parenting failures in overreacting to a loneliness he himself is partially responsible. The Curse of the Cat People is so ahead of its time for refusing to allow dreamlike childhood wonder to be snuffed out in favour of conformity.

Somehow in all my years of life, I've managed to almost completely avoid anything to do with this film and went into it near blind except for that one John Travolta meme and all the cultural references to the diner scene and Mia Wallace (WHO IS CRIMINALLY UNDERPRESENT???) but I generally expected to enjoy it. Boy was I Wrong. And I knew Tarantino liked feet and saying the N-word but I could never have guessed how explicitly that would come into play here. Well, it's pulp fiction all right. I cannot believe this is held up at the film of all time when it's just... okay? The non-linear storytelling and visuals are cool and all, but not really enough to keep my attention. Even these remind me of, strangely enough, fictional director Dexter Banks from The Magnus Archives "All he was interested in doing was recreating things he had seen. Taking scenes and music that he loved from those old, obscure corners of cinema and then constructing whatever patchwork narrative would allow him to shoot his own versions of them." I guess I'm not a cinephile because Pulp Fiction was just boring to me. Despite my well-documented insomnia I genuinely fell asleep at the 1 hour mark and had to try again. The five dollar shake thing makes me laugh in 2025 though, so it's got that going for it. And Samuel L. Jackson's performance, but you know, that's Samuel L. Jackson so it was going to be a given. Tarantino is also not as funny as he thinks he is.Sorry but 12 year old edgelord humour does not a good movie make. And yeah I get there's stuff about postmodern nihilism, morality and redemption, but I just cannot find it within myself to care.

This is such a self-pitying incel's wet dream. It's impossible not to draw parallels to the mindsets and manifestos of school shooters, but this commentary is not very well done. Similarly, the film tries to criticise society's failure of the mentally ill while simultaneously villainising and sensationalising them. The discussions of class also simply boil down to "rich people bad" and the depiction of revolution is laughable. There's a thousand different films that tackle all the themes Phillips attempts to here with much more artfulness and nuance. Joker, in comparison just feels hollow. Of all characters, the Joker is one I've never wanted an origin story for. It's his chaos and unpredictability which makes him so appealing as a villain, but Phillips snuffs it all out for what? Realism? This film also makes no sense within the wider context of Batman. If the Joker is already in his 30s here, will he be fighting the future Batman well into old age? I'm also not a fan of the Wayne's murders being ideologically based, at least not how it's portrayed here.

Bane and his fight scenes are insanely boring to me, but what an ending to a trilogy. I'm so glad it doesn't overshoot and lets the story end where it needs to. I can think of a lot of tings to nit-pick (messy plot, not really any convincing motivations for Bane, neoliberalism, awful fight choreography and even worse portrayal of women... again) but it's a kind of fun movie with a fun cast and I'm very upset Heath and Joseph didn't get to reunite on this set.

I've been avoiding this release for literal years because of the impossibly high expectations I'd set for it in my mind. This was going to be my future favourite superhero movie of all time. If it didn't live up to them, I'd be heartbroken. And boy does it live up. Reeves focuses heavily on my favourite elements of Batman, the noir and the horror (this whole film could literally just be a Saw sequel.) I was already optimistic at the first crime scene, but what sold me was the use of Nirvana's 'Something in the Way.' Now this is the Batman live action I've been waiting for all my life and I should have bit the bullet sooner. It almost feels like a direct challenge to Todd Phillip's Joker by making the Riddler a Redditor fringe type (who, by the way, I was really skeptical about being portrayed seriously, but Reeves and and Dano really make it work, though I wish he was a bit more fun.) The film's aesthetics were gorgeous, reminding me somewhat of The Crow which is all I really look for in a movie, and really solidified Gotham as it's own place rather than just New York in winter. And I would like to personally thank Robert Pattinson for not doing a Christian Bale post season 4 Dean Winchester voice too. Big fan of how emo, angsty and brooding Bruce is in this iteration and cannot wait to see more of it, if the second part ever gets released. I will say that the pacing was a little off though with the three hour runtime being absolutely unnecessary, and I wish more of it was spent within the manor with Alfred to really emphasise his bond with Bruce. You don't get nearly the same warmth and banter as in other versions. Much like the ferry scene in The Dark Knight, my favourite scene here was towards the end where Batman is not fighting bad guys, but actively helping people and caring about civilians. While I understand that's probably not really what most viewers of action films want to see, it's so important to show Batman's character development and shifting values in light of his experiences. It's also a lot better at tackling the main political themes than the Dark Knight trilogy (aka recognises the value of the social good over maintaining a police state and keeping faith in broken systems) but still falls short. It's difficult enough when the protagonist is a white billionaire, but Hollywood is too afraid to commit to even trying. Anyway, I never got the hype around The Dark Knight, it's good don't get me wrong, but nowhere near as ground-breaking as everyone seems to think it is, and while I do have issues with The Batman too, this 10000% clears. Also LOL at fuckass Robert Pattinson in heavy smudged eyeliner moping and telling Alfred "you're not my dad!" I love emos.

Cursed to always enjoy homoerotically coded films critiquing consumerism and toxic masculinity by representing them as mental illness that are idolised by the very people they're about for all the wrong reasons

One of the most relatable and touching things I've seen recently. Nails perfectly the true value of art being not in its technical "goodness" or skill, but its power to form community. This is what generative AI image "artists" don't seem to understand. You can really feel the love put into the creation of Look Back. My only gripe with the film is the way in which Kyomoto's death plays out, it feels quite disconnected and could have been integrated better. The brief presentation of grief is incredibly well done and real with all the "what-ifs" at play. God this made me want to both pick up a pencil again and reach out to the artist friends who inspired me more than they'll ever know. I still think of you guys whenever I blow the dust off my sketchbooks.

So much to unpack?? The popsicle scene, Marilyn Manson jumpscare, Zach being the only man ever??? Love when gentle artistic brunette boys love their partners and willingly take part in all their schemes 333 Though I have a sneaking suspicion Julie's attention is a lot more focused on Fern. Pam Grier looks so good in this but she is criminally underused and I'm mad about it. A lot of the dialogue is awful though, especially during the very homoerotically charged locker scene and Courtney's whole "Never send a rose unless dyed black as a warning. And if one is sent to you, destroy it along with the sender" spiel. So close to being one of my favourites, but just doesn't hit as much as other similar films from the era. Also probably one of the only movie makeovers I've ever been gagged by (although Fern's original look is ADORABLE and would do numbers on Pinterest today)

More There She Goes and awful poetry than axe murdering :/

Almost fun but I couldn't connect to the characters or plot for the life of me.

Edward is so adorable :((( I just wish he was played by literally anyone other than that piece of shit (though I can't imagine him in a gothic role I think River Phoenix would have captured Edward's gentle spirit incredibly well)

Unashamed to admit that I too was one of the children who discovered this film from SpongeBob SquarePants. The use of lighting and shadows in this seems to be a lost art and I adore it. We as a society don't talk about Count Orlok's shadowy hand groping Ellen enough. I can't even imagine how it must have felt watching this 103 years ago when Dracula was still a relatively recent novel and horror was not yet a common film genre.

RIP Claudia de Pointe du Lac de Lioncourt, I wish you got to see this 😔 Pretty decent but way longer than it needed to be. I was a big fan of Count Orlock's framing in the first act, never truly quite visible. The reveal of his face (not in the least because of his goofy moustache) killed some of the horror and tension for me and I wish Eggers maintained the whole "fear stemming from the unknown" thing he had going. The jump scares too were overkill, I find them a bore in general, but especially here they felt cheap. I'm not a film expert so I don't have the vocabulary to articulate fully what I mean, but the transition between scenes also left a lot to be desired as Eggers fell back on the same techniques over and over. As a metaphor for sexual repression and shame it's fine, but there's just something about the film that renders it somewhat emotionless/hollow and dampens the impact. Oddly I felt there wasn't enough eroticism present. More focus on Ellen would have been nice. The final shot of the film was beautiful, I want to own a painting of it.

Disappointed at how shallow and "safe" this was. There is no real depth or insight into anyone or anything, and the pacing is awful. Kim Fowley's abuse is also disgustingly santised and rendered near non-existent. But it did convince me to hack off my hair with kitchen scissors (again) so there's that.

Rewatch to procrastinate my reread for a 3k word paper I have due on Monday, but I'll leave an earnest review/compilation of my thoughts this time so I can still pretend I'm engaging with the text.

• The title scene is pure art. The portions alone perfectly capture the essence of the film and book
• I find it fascinating how the morning routine scene is intended to seem excessive and slightly concerning, yet mirrors identically the thousands of videos on TikTok and YouTube 38 years after the book's conception. The visual medium makes the parallel all the more clear
• I completely forgot that they both changed the sushi party and turned Vanden and Stash into goths, I ADORE their character design
• Patrick not caring about his image around those who are racialised/he views as inferior a la the dry cleaners. Incidentally, these are also the only people who see him for who he is, whereas his peers and even the white bartender in the beginning ignore his violent confessions/outbursts
• Not quite relevant as a general point, but the identicalness and interchangeability of everyone here is quite interesting if compared with the dehumanisation and similar interchangeability of say... factory workers inSeverance. Something to be said about capitalism consuming everyone, even those who stand to benefit from it
• Not a graphic designer but I hate the surnames being larger than the first name on specifically Patrick and Timothy's cards. They are also all off centre. Subtle differences that suggest superiority when really the cards are all exactly the same right down to the phone number and typos!!
• Not analysis, Carruthers reminds me of Harold fromSuits
• Right after Patrick kills a black man, we see three Asian service workers who are largely ignored. Also ties into racialisation
• Pinstripes do clash with some of Patrick's ties but the outfits just aren't insane enough for me. Would have been a great creative choice if they slowly became more and more lurid and reflected those in the books
• Unfortunately I sound exactly like Patrick when talking to about music. Except I have opinions and he merely regurgitates reviews he has committed to memory, as he does with fashion and food also. Analysis itself is very meta, especially because he doesn't see past the surface of 'Hip to be Square' and recognise it as satirical. Funnily enough reminds me of a lot of male music enthusiasts now too, except whereas he claims to never enjoy a band's earlier works, I've found it tends to be the opposite. They don't like it when their preferred artists become "mainstream" and "sell out" whereas for Patrick it is only then they are acceptable to claim to enjoy. Conformity, consumerism shaping identity yadda yadda. Unironically really enjoy HLATN but discovered them from American Psycho and will never rid myself of the association. Curious to see who they replace them with if the remake is set in the 21st Century. Also just leaned the lil dance was improvised by Bale??? Love him
• OH looking at it from a contemporary perspective, all of Patrick's monologues sound like something an idiot got ChatGPT to spit out in order to sound intelligent
• Valium and the numbing effects of consumerism
• Forgot how fucking funny this film is oml, highlights include Patrick's narration at Paul's apartment and him washing his gloved hands in distress after Luis kisses them. This could potentially signify the extent of his materialism in that he views articles of clothing as extensions of himself
• Patrick still listens to music in private
• His "there are no girls with good personalities" vs when he's around women acting like a gentleman, it's still acceptable behaviour within his little boys' club and conformist, but he accidentally messes up by bringing up the "Ed Gein" quote.
• Booo fake true crime aficionado!! Ed Gein did NOT say that! Not sure if he's just an idiot or if this plays into the mistaken identity motif
• Could potentially compare Patrick's naming of the hookers to the commodification of factory workers and their need to pick out more palatable western names, but this is a stretch.
• Luis being markedly (only slightly) different from the other finance bros with his bow tie and garishly aberrant business card, not only in his sexuality (wish the film did more with Patrick's probable closetedness) but also in that he views Patrick as an individual and cares for him in some way unlike the other vapid empty characters. This is also true of Jean, neither of whom Patrick ends up being able to kill
• Blackness is exploited in order for Patrick to preserve his mask. He talks about "ending apartheid", claims to enjoy Whitney Houston, and uses a showing of 'O Africa Brave Africa' as an alibi. When confronted with a Huey Lewis CD by Detective Kimball, Patrick disregards them as being too "black sounding." Non-whiteness and Patrick's world are at odds with each other
• "Can we talk?" "You look... marvellous." You get it
• Patrick noticing a kitten and smiling saying "Here kitty, kitty" before descending into chaos <333
• Sorry I'm not highbrow or worldly or anything I've come to realise I just really love chase scenes the next 10 minutes of this film come close to Chaplain or Keaton, they're incredible
• The realtor affirming that the real psycho is.... America
• This is the second film I've thought "this is like if Batman was the Joker" about

The most culture defining superhero movie of all time and the blueprint for all that follow, but it is extremely difficult for me to overlook the imperialist propaganda undertones. But then again, I suppose that is a key feature of any superhero movie. Best part for me was the ferry subplot, cinematically tension was built up well and I enjoyed the portrayal of societal morality and hope. Iconic as the final monologue was, it's this scene that I feel truly champions optimism through dark times.

Batman if he was the Joker.

Thoroughly enjoyable and most definitely Stu Macher's origin story.

This concept has been done to death on film and in contemporary literature, I wish they'd start putting a unique spin on it for once.

Gomez is fr just goth Sportacus.

I always find it so fascinating how very different Anjelica Huston and Carolyn Jones' portrayals of Morticia are, yet still somehow perfectly capture her essence.

That opening scene alone is a better portrayal of depression than every other critically acclaimed pretentious arthouse film about mental illness and suicide ever.

God you people will call anything feminist as long as it masquerades as championing "sexual empowerment."

I can't believe white people reinvented Lookism. On a serious note though, the cinematography is breath-taking and visceral and I loved it even when the gross shrimp scene made me feel sick. The body horror and ensuing bloodbath (literally) was also delightful, but it felt incongruous with the rest of the film. It seems a little gratuitous and unnecessary but it's so masterfully done I don't mind too much. I do have to say, it felt a little spoonfeedy to me at points. I understand it is a satire, but still. I found it incredibly interesting that Elisabeth's first transformation into a "monster" essentially just gave her the body of a very old woman, which in turn made her murder so much more brutal. The shallow social commentary was disappointing, but I think it's similar to Barbie in that Coralie Fargeat isn't necessarily trying to make a bold feminist claim, but scratch the surface of the entrapments society has build for women. In that sense, it's fine I suppose. It's also like Barbie in that Demi Moore " is not the right person to cast to make this point." Her performance was great, but if you can create grotesque monsters to make a point, you can cast a visibly aged woman. There was something interesting being done with the pornographised shots of Sue, but ultimately the shift to body horror overshadowed this. Cool concept and incredible visual effects aside, this was really not that special.

Probably would have loved it if I was a little less feminist.

A refreshingly honest portrayal of mental illness and adolescence. Nothing of the romanticism or dramatizing one would usually expect from this type of film, but still perfectly capturing how unlikeable mental illness can make you. I was worried Ethan would act as a manic pixie dream boy at first, and while I do find him a little underdeveloped, he represents those whose loved ones are suffering, and subsequently their own suffering, quite well. Despite this, I felt the wider plot and cinematography to be a little lacking. It was very formulaic and repetitive and the pacing was weird in a way that doesn't seem intentional. The therapy scenes in particular felt rather half-baked.

I LOVE silly, fun slashers, it's like Groundhog Day and Scream had a baby.

"Not scary, not sexy, not trendy. Just Belgian." Yeah, I could tell by all the racism.

Dexter if season 4 onwards had marginally better writing. It's a charming concept, but the execution is lacking. Not as funny or gory as I had hoped and I wasn't at all a fan of the Goddess of the Underworld character. The comic book pop art scenes could have been really cool, but just seemed out of place and janky. The pacing also felt a little odd to me, it started off pretty strong and instantly unravelled. It didn't live up to it's potential as a film but I am certain I would adore this premise as a sitcom.

This is literally the plot of Scoobynatural.

Indescribably bad, but half a star for the Jillian Venters cameo.

Move over Greta Gerwig, this is the best film about girlhood and female friendships I've ever seen.

Maybe I'm just incredibly biased because I'm in love with River Phoenix, especially in all his hippie feminist goodness here, but this is genuinely such an underrated masterpiece? It's got everything I want in a film - River Phoenix, dark humour, murder, River Phoenix, immigrant matriarch character, River Phoenix etc. It's a silly film with a silly premise but I could rewatch it for all of eternity. All of the characters are so loveable and well played and Devo is so damn pretty and sweet, I need him expeditiously. It's a shame River didn't get the opportunity to star in more light-hearted media because I think he really shines in such roles. But other than the love of my life, what really makes this film so fun is the performances of Kevin Kline and Joan Plowright. Kline's Italian accent is objectively horrible but it just makes the over the top nature of the film even better. I thought the "based off a true story" tagline was just a ploy, but surprisingly it's true. I wish still they made dumb films like this. And did I mention I love River Phoenix?

Perfectly captures the feeling of attending a family gathering. I know it's listed as a comedy, but this is horror all the way. I put this on thinking it would be relaxing and fun like Bottoms but I was sorely mistaken. You can really feel the tension and claustrophobia in your gut, amplified by almost every scene mirroring personal experience. I did think the discordant score throughout was overkill though, and a bit too on the nose. The overlapping dialogue and cinematography is more than enough to get the point and feeling of anxiety across. Even that at points did start to get repetitive. I had no idea this film would resonate with me as much as it did, but I think being in the same position in life currently as Danielle certainly helped. While aimlessness regarding the future is often portrayed through a lens of detachment and apathy, Seligman really accurately depicts the stress and helplessness that comes along with it.

Veronica Lake is so so beautiful and I cannot believe she's only 19 years old here. She (and the smoke effects) carried the entire film. March's character, Wooley, is a lot less memorable and unsurprisingly I am not a fan of the 25 year age difference between the two. But this is unfortunately incredibly commonplace in Old Hollywood films, so it didn't make too big a difference in my viewing experience. It is a cute and simple concept, and there's not much to say about it other than Lake's performance is the only thing that makes the film successful. She perfectly balances playfulness and naivety with allure that befits a witch. Used to her in more typically "femme fatale" roles, it was really interesting to see her play such a unique character. The visual effects are really kitschy and silly, but they add to the charm and I honestly adore them. One oversight the film never addresses is the fact Jennifer's attraction to Wooley is the result of a love potion, which leaves a sour taste in my mouth. That aside, I do however wish the film focused more on Wooley's marriage to Jennifer and the antics caused by her powers. Instead, the ending is an unsatisfying domestic scene with Jennifer losing all her spunk. Bewitched is closer to what I was expecting from this.

This is an incomprehensible fever dream and I love every second of it. Everything about it - the sets, characters, CGI - is larger than life (haha) giving the afterlife a wonderfully lurid atmosphere that is so refreshing in comparison to the dull dark interpretations often displayed in film. I love the irreverent approach to death, which truly touches on the chaos and incoherence of it all. I of course adore the melancholic goth Lydia and Keaton nails the zany uncomfortably creepiness required from a character such as Beetlejuice, but despite the film being named for it, it's the Maitlands who really function as the stars. Watching them navigate their deaths, (surprisingly) capitalism, and surrogate parenthood was incredibly engaging, with both the couple and Lydia clearly caring deeply for one another. Lydia's feelings of invisibility within her family are operate in the backdrop of the action, with her taking comfort in the ghosts' company, and it is so tragically relatable, with her at one point even hoping to join them in the afterlife. The whole film is so over the top it's a surprise all the elements work so well together, but they do, and I don't think it would be easy to recreate it's success today. I hear there's a sequel in production and I'm honestly not too sure how it could possibly live up to its predecessor.

"Horror comedy set in the 1980s" is probably one of my favourite genres and this film was definitely silly and fun, but it lacked any unique flavour to make it memorable. It was deliciously packed with references to other films like Back to the Future, Halloween and, of course, my beloved Scream and the premise is incredibly fun and self-aware, but the actual slasher element falls somewhat short. The killer reveal is very expected and a little boing, much like the rest of the actual storyline. There is just something quite flat about it. The serial killing almost takes a backseat and each event is painfully formulaic. I'm well aware time travel never makes sense and I'm all for suspending my disbelief, but I feel as though it could have been a little more developed. I have so many questions because this system feels so contradictory. More so than Jamie, I found Lauren to be an incredibly interesting character who was unfortunately painfully utilised. This is also true of the relationships within the film. I was surprised they didn't fall into the cliche of Jamie's parent's realising who she is, but still I hoped for more development of the relationship and meaningful interactions with both Pam and Blake. The closest you get is her calling Pam "mom" either by accident or a moment of duress. The film's humour is simple, but mostly effective. Some of the dialogue, however, especially Jamie's lines, are of the "woke-genz-satire" variety, which can get infuriating, but Shipka's portrayal keeps them from becoming overly obnoxious. The soundrack was also really fun, but I was a little disappointed that the costumes and sets didn''t reflect the same cliche 80s energy like in Lisa Frankenstein. I think that contrast with the "modern day" world would have been great. Overall, while the film is not the best of it's kind, I hope they keep coming out with more like it.

Universal female experience.

Me irl.

Pretty accurate representation of adolescent aimlessness.

This is a gorgeous technicolour precursor to The Devil Wears Prada, with the medium working so well to capture the colours and vibrancy of the fashion and settings. And the parody of French intellectualism is absolutely delightful. Unfortunately Fred Astaire's geriatric ass is unnecessary and ruins the whole thing.

A lot to process and needs many rewatches before I can review properly, but damn River will never not break my heart

I would like to issue a formal apology to my younger sister because this film informed my entire career as eldest sibling.

The new Mendes Beatle's biopics have absolutely nothing on this masterpiece.

Jacob Elordi bath water.

Don't let MrBeast see this.

Best film soundtrack of all time.

Randy is so Abed Nadir coded :(

God I miss Atsushi Sakurai.

Home Alone for goth chicks.

When he's pretty, has a skincare routine and isn't antisemetic. 😍😍

Obsessed with the end credits scene.

Patrick Verona you ARE a pretty boy!

Not meta enough, Ghostface should have called me midway through watching.

I was going to say Abed Nadir would have loved the Scream series and then Alison Brie showed up. Incredible.

"He was making a movie called stab. He was stabbed." Can't argue with logic like that.

So #coquette of Ghostface to carve a heart into Derek.

Billy Loomis is my favourite rat looking, homo repressed mama's boy.

But when I do this with my Taeyong photocard, suddenly it's a problem.

I need them to make a film exactly like this about Jeff Kinney and the founding of Poptropica.

Country boy I love you.

How do I experience this on the LNER?

The film of all time.

River Phoenix as a vegan, feminist, anti-cop, fortune telling hippie... I want him so bad.

Only watched this so I could feel what Abed Nadir felt watching 'Kickpuncher'. I get it now.

Incredible soundtrack, I wish Mozart was real.

"That's my favourite way to be an ally. You just say you're doing something, and then you don't do any of those things." Cinema is so fucking back, baby!

This is what the final season of 'Community' should have been.

This is my 'Hello Kitty'.

If POC solidarity isn't real, explain this liberals.

Little Sister is seemingly the perfect title for this film, a double entendre referencing Colleen’s role as both the little sister in her family, as well as being a “little” Sister in the Church, on the cusp of becoming an actual nun. The film itself unfortunately does not follow through with this dichotomy with very little examination into Colleen’s ecclesiastical motivations. You never really get the sense she’s religious, let alone wants to be a nun. There is zero discussion around her faith, save for a few visual signifiers. She fixes the upside-down crucifix on her wall, and says grace at the dinner table once, but when Tricia asks Colleen if she believes in God, her response is a non-committal “mhm.” This too could have been an interesting thread, a woman cloistering herself to escape from the chaos of her home life, but is never developed. Neither is there any engagement with how the war and her brother’s disfigurement might impact Colleen’s faith. At the beginning of the film, the Reverend Mother doesn’t think Colleen is truly devoted to becoming a nun, and at the end she takes her vows. The audience is not given any reason to dispute the Reverend Mother’s doubts in between these events.

Colleen is conceptually such a fascinating character, but nothing is ever done with her. Her ex-goth identity feels like more of a quirky gimmick, because no insight is given about what it actually means to her, and she easily slides between her meek nun and manic pixie appearances. Even if it was “just a phase” and something she no longer identifies with (which you cannot tell either way because it is so surface level), there should at least be some depiction of how it influenced her current identity. Despite all her potential, Colleen is painfully dull, saved only by Addison Timlin’s sweet performance. The most interesting thing about her is the gorgeous deep wine lipstick she wears at Emily’s house (colour-matches would be welcome). She is so passive, accepting whatever the plot throws at her with no real reaction, that it is difficult to buy her as a person at all.

It isn’t just a Colleen thing, which could be chalked up to a traumatised personality, and again would have been incredibly interesting had it been developed. All the characters lack fleshing out and interiority. Jacob himself seems barely affected by the war, despite that being the driving force of the film. He’s a shut-in for two days until Colleen dances for him and suddenly he is cured of any PTSD we’re told he has but never shown. Their father’s character is basically non-existent and the film would be no different without his inclusion. Another thing that could have been fascinating if done deliberately (mentally ill mother, absent father) but alas. One of the most interesting moments of the film to me was when Colleen caught Emily (an eco-terrorist who had been building a pipe-grenade) making out with her veteran brother who had been disfigured by a landmine explosion. And of course, it is never mentioned again. In fact, Emily just disappears after this scene. The ending feels like it is supposed to be quietly hopeful, suggesting that love and understanding are enough to get through life together, but reads bleakly: Colleen forgives all her mother’s abuse and becomes a nun despite ever expressing a calling, and Jacob and Tricia are married despite clearly both being dissatisfied in their relationship.

The film’s attempts to engage with politics are equally disappointing. In fact, engage is the wrong word. There are constant references to the 2008 elections and Obama, but that is all they are. It is as if it believes mentioning it enough times, no matter how surface level, counts as social commentary. Considering the film was released after both of Obama’s terms, you’d think there would at least be elements of hindsight present.

Clark introduces so many interesting themes, but never develops or takes them anywhere, which is a shame because there is just so much wasted potential. There is also a constant chicken motif present throughout, but I haven’t been able to figure out what that’s about.

All in all, Little Sister is let down by the weight of what it could have been. Not only in terms of its unrealised potential, either. I won’t mention how badly beginning your film with a Marilyn Manson quote has aged (whoops, I just did) because that is to no fault of the film-makers, but I do take issue with how completely incongruous its implications are with the film itself. The quote paired with the movie poster, portraying Colleen as more heavily “goth” than she ever appears, is completely misleading as to the type of film this will be. As I mentioned before, the “ex-goth” aspect of her character is hardly made relevant, and to market the entire film around it is disingenuous. In all honesty, I did only pick this film up because I assumed it would be a bigger feature of the story, and it would have been so much more rewarding if it was.

Oh Clementine Kruczynski my beloved, I know what you are (Beautiful Princess Disorder haver.) Though not at the forefront, there's a horror film in here with Patrick's predation, and every scene with him made me feel sick. Also the horror of potentially dooming yourself to repeating the same mistakes over and over and never being able to learn and grow from them, which is pretty much the point of the film. That it's better to have loved and lost than remain stagnant. God, this is gut-wrenchingly real. Like stumbling upon an old diary and not recognising the events on the pages as part of your own life, but yearning for them nonetheless. I've often considered my own memories, wondering whether I'd cut loose the most painful strands if given the chance, and as much as I want to, I could never commit to a "yes." Every fibre, good or bad, is integral to the web of my being and I don't think I could let that go, no matter how much relief it would bring. The true strength of the film is that it's underlying message applies not only to failed romances, but all of human experience. Grief and rage are universal. Are the characters unlikeable? Absolutely. Does the relationship feel rushed and awkward? Sure does. But that's the point, isn't it? That they aren't perfect for each other and maybe nobody ever is. You experience good and bad, and become a more complete person for it. Perhaps it's just my cynicism, but I view the whole thing as more of a parable than a romance, so I don't care that they're realistically imperfect and toxic. The film wouldn't work if they lived in a fairytale, even if only during their honeymoon period. In fact that would perpetuate the sentiment that they were "soulmates because they found each other again" when that's the whole tragedy of it. Quite ironically, I almost wished I'd watched this years earlier so it wouldn't have taken me so long to come to terms with this truth, but at the same time I would never have appreciated it before knowing a posteriori.

I could not understand the hype when La La Land was first released. I've never been one for movie musicals or romances so I was never planning on watching it, but after almost a decade of hearing its praises, a girl gets curious. I'm glad I picked it up despite my bias because this was really visually appealing, but I know what I like and I've been vindicated. Admittedly some good stuff on love and ambition, as well as the sacrifices one has to make for each underscoring the entire relationship. But by so heavily referencing beloved old Hollywood classics, you set yourself up with the same expectations. Maybe this is just me once again just not liking these genres, but the musical numbers and build up of the relationship felt weak. Chazelle tries to force you to root for the couple through their magical shared moments, but there's no real depth to their romance or individual personalities, other than Sebastian sacrificing his dreams for Mia's sake. I also can't believe with how white the film is considering jazz is a central theme. Sure there are black musicians present, but they are used solely as props for Sebastian's "salvation" of the genre. That's not limited to the music either, the whole film feels very... vapid "L.A" and makes no attempt to unpack this.

Aesthetically, this is everything to me, but the horror and storylines are rather lacking. The narrative framing reminds me of Grizzly Tales for Gruesome Kids, which I loved as a child. Masami from the first tale is honestly just how I feel when I have a crush, demonic consumption and all. A lot of her lines alluding to fear can be read as romantic, and in that way this is probably accidentally the closest thing we have to a good Carmilla adaptation. The second story is definitely better in atmosphere, a typical haunted house exploration and its consequences. The build-up of creepiness before the climax was done quite well, although the ending fell a little flat.

Interesting cinematography and editing, especially in the first act, but overall kind of boring. You don't see a single kill until over halfway through the film! In a supposed homage to slashers!! With all the build up, it's disappointing how underdeveloped and boring the elderly couple's motives are, and the kills are quick and anticlimactic too. It relies too much on the physicality of the aged body for its "horror" and comedy, which falls flat against the already weak commentary. If anything, I think it's incredibly sweet that they're so devoted and attracted to each other after all this time. Props to Howard for not perving on any of the other characters. The televangelist stuff especially seemed incredibly hamfisted — I audibly rolled my eyes at the reveal. I watched Pearl before this by accident and was worried it would impact my experience, but it didn't much. I definitely preferred it though, because the character was given a lot more substance. You don't get that here with any of the characters, even those you're meant to sympathise with. Was no surprise to see Sam Levinson in the credits.

An enjoyable watch with a deeply rich artistic vision, but the more I reflect upon it, the less I like it. This isn't to say it's bad - it has its merits - but just did not meet my expectations. I really wanted to, but del Toro's Frankenstein suffers from the same sort of simplification of source material as Coppola's Dracula. I'm not one to automatically dismiss adaptations as inferior the the novels, Interview with the Vampire proves that, but del Toro's version lacks the subtlety and nuance of the novel which makes it so great. Any moral ambiguity is removed, with Victor portrayed as the one dimensional villain lacking the original's moral conflict, and the Creature an angsty cutie patootie who is wholly free of fault. Any violence he does engage in is purely reactionary and in self defence. It's a facile version of the story, made with half-attentive Netflix audiences in mind. I mean, the script literally spoon-feeds its themes to viewers with lines such as "you're the real monster," with the rest of the dialogue faring little better. I was actually quite interested in the familial cycle of abuse route del Toro decided to take with this adaptation, as well as the Oedipal motifs, but again, maintaining the complexity of the characters would have served the theme better. Victor calling the Creature his son at his deathbed felt completely unearned, a contrivance more to serve an emotional beat than than reflective of any character development. I never thought I'd say this, about a gothic horror film of all things, but the best part about it was Jacob Elordi. He reminds me of a long lost friend whom I once picked apples with in papa's orchard. Elordi's portrayal is very endearing and sympathetic, and it's impossible not to root for him when he is so gentle even as it weakens the story. I have never before seen eyes so expressive. The Creature does just look like a very tall guy with a bad skincare routine, so its a little funny how people repeatedly react to his appearance. I don't know, very much style over substance. It is a gorgeous film, and clearly a lot of thought has been put into the making of it, I just wish the script matched the artistry.

I can't believe they made a movie out of Poptropica's Pelican Rock Island. For me, this is a near perfect film. Shawshank Redemption entertaining and has a beautifully executed message of hope. It's restrained, but gets its point across perfectly without resorting to any cheap gimmicks. Brooks being framed through the wooden bars of the half-way house as though he is still imprisoned particularly stood out to me upon a rewatch. It's a bittersweet experience the second time round, knowing the entire time how Brooks will end up. Maybe that better emphasises the tragedy of becoming an "institutionalised man." I can remember the collective, heartbroken gasp the first time I watched this film in high school, during a Religious Studies class. I can't remember why we were watching it, but Andy definitely does have a Jesus flavour to him, and the poster reflects that. There is also something to unpack about the treatment of women within the story that I haven't fully delved into yet, but I did notice that violence against women is consistently presented as forgivable and redeemable. Red murdered his wife, Andy is accused of doing the same, and though Brooks' crime is not revealed in the film, the novella has him killing both wife and daughter. The only other women of significance are Andy's posters, which help him escape. I don't know what to make of all that yet, but much to think about....

This film is very special to me as someone who used to stay up until sunrise as a child playing Super Real Tennis on my Sony Ericsson phone.

This makes Casey Affleck's casting as older Timothee Chalemet in Interstellar make a lot more sense. As a film, Good Will Hunting is just... fine. It's an extremely digestible feel-good story with a cheesy message so I can understand the mass appeal, but it left me wanting more. Will feels like a dumb person's caricature of a smart person, and though I think comparing long running shows to films is reductive, Suits' Mike Ross is a far better execution of this type of character, and feels more grounded in reality. I cannot understand all the critical acclaim.

I didn't think I'd tear up on a rewatch, but I did towards the end. It's difficult not to get emotional about both the horrific tragedy of the Holocaust, as well as how it mirrors the current genocide in Gaza. I cannot help but think of Hind Rajab whenever that sweet little girl in the red coat appears on screen. The scene in which Schindler breaks down over not saving more people is utterly heart-breaking, especially in light of current events. He has done so much, and yet it is not enough. What have I ever done? What have you? Schindler's List doesn't shy away from a humorous tone at times, which makes the horror hit so much harder. It's so harrowing to think that the Nazis' cruelty has been toned down in this film, when it is still so unspeakably evil. It's an arbitrary thing, but for me the black and white filter on the film evokes an old photograph, really emphasising the fact this is recent history. It's heavy. Perhaps this is why I feel conflicted at times over the Hollywood dramatisation of these events, and how they are being used as entertainment in a way. Really, it's a near-perfect film. It doesn't drag at all despite the 3 hour runtime, and the use of light and shadows is beautiful. Time is taken to develop many of the Jewish characters, so they are cemented as individuals rather than nameless victims. These are real people, and these events really happened, you are reminded once more, as the actual Schindlerjuden and their descendants appear onstage at the end, alongside their actors, to pay their respects at Schindler's grave. I also found it very interesting that Schindler's character development comes after he stops caring about profit. I do take issue with Schindler's speech at the factory before he flees, however. It doesn't mesh with the film's overall tone or his character, feeling shoehorned in to provide a hopeful ending. My larger issue with the film is the unfortunate Zionist propaganda towards the end, which is really disappointing as it is such an important piece of media and otherwise incredible film.

For a film that uses Bram Stoker's name in its title, it's not very accurate to the source material, and a lot more boring. Nosferatu (1922) and Nosferatu (2024) did it better, and this film clearly set the groundwork for the latter, which executes the premise with more success, even though I still find it flawed. The eroticism in Bram Stoker's Dracula feels meaningless, where as Nosferatu deals better with themes of repression and sexual assault. Here, Mina is reduced to a mere love interest, with her only character trait being her desire for Dracula, which itself feels unfounded because the two have no chemistry. Furthermore, the film doesn't commit to either condemning or sympathising with Dracula in any way, meaning I just wasn't emotionally invested in him or his goals. If this was the only film I'd ever seen starring Keanu Reeves, I would never have believed he was a generational actor. Jonathan Harker is such an impotent character here, and it's not at all helped by Reeves' stiff acting. He even gives up on his awful British accent half-way through. The only saving grace of this film is the incredible cinematography. It's undeniably visually stunning, with the lack of CGI in favour of antiquated techniques such as miniatures and practical effects creating a magical atmosphere that lends itself well to the film's setting and era.

Upon a rewatch, the extended cut definitely drags a lot more. It's less enjoyable knowing the twists, though perhaps the tighter theatrical cut does not have this problem. I read Fingersmith recently, and wanted to revisit the film in light of that, and Park Chanwook really does take all the good parts of the novel while getting rid of all the telenovela fluff. The change in setting from Victorian England to 1930s occupied Korea is such an interesting choice, but feels disappointingly underutilised. I wish the occupation, as well as its effect on the relationship between characters were further explored. Every single frame is breathtaking. I could pause at any point and have it look like a painting, and the attention to detail with the costuming and sets is remarkable. Kouzuki's basement is a bit cartoon-evil compared to the relative realism of the rest of the film and I don't understand how he has this much power, but it works to make one's skin crawl and amplify the heinousness of his character. The sex scenes have me conflicted. They make sense narratively, but are far longer and more explicit than they need to be, serving as a critique of the "male gaze" while simultaneously employing it. It is partially justified by Hideko's only exposure to sexuality being through pornography, but I still feel as though some scenes like the reclamation of the bells at the end are undermined by the explicit portrayal of the act. It would be more impactful if it was merely implied, not allowing the audience to consume this first act of honest intimacy.

I Saw the TV Glow presents some interesting concepts and allegories, but is executed poorly, feeling like a student film, or underdeveloped r/nosleep story. It relies to heavily on narration and monologues in front of pretty lights to tell the story rather than showing it. There is nowhere near enough focus on character relationships or the reasons someone may be unable to live their truth or accept it, and unfortunately I found the film pretty boring overall despite its clear potential. Maddy's monologue on time did resonate with me though.

What's Travis Bickle doing here? Full disclosure, I picked this up thinking it was the other Matthew Lillard film where he plays a punk. SLC Punk was entertaining enough, it's hilarious at times, but I don't think I'll ever think about it again. The direction, as well as Heroin Bob's appearance reminds me a lot of Scorsese. It's a pretty fun satire of the commodification of subcultures, and incredibly relevant in the TikTok age. Ironically one of my favourite aspects of the film is how genuine the costuming feels. Stevo may be a poser but he sure knows how to dress the part. No Shein "punk" here. Still, it is Mike, in polo shirts and glasses, who is the most punk of all. He doesn't rely on conformity to a uniform to feel secure in his identity, and embodies his values in a meaningful way. Despite not being a punk, the film is oddly relatable as a 20 something applying to corporate jobs despite having these quixotic ideals and heavy eye makeup. Lillard is very good, especially when Bob dies, but his performance overshadows everyone else's character to the point I couldn't feel the full emotional impact of Bob's death. I think that's somewhat typical of adolescent self-centredness, although its not clear whether this is a purposeful choice.

I wish I could stop seeing Bruce as Patrick Bateman whenever he wears a suit, but alas. This is actually quite a typical superhero movie, nothing special but entertaining nonetheless, and sometimes that's all I need. The driving force for Batman is of course, the death of his parents, but the scene showing it here was incredibly disappointing and lacking in emotion. It's made even less sympathetic by how much of a non-character Martha is. Women in general are basically non-existent in the film, and even Rachel is lacklustre. It's true what they say about Nolan's writing of female characters. Surprisingly, it's quite a funny film, but the humour isn't too overdone and annoying (looking at you, recent Marvel films.) I don't get why people think Batman Begins is so dark, gritty and serious when it does balance drama with fun in a very comicbook-esque style. The Batmobile chase scene for one is SO fun and thrilling, perhaps one of the strongest moments of the whole film. Of the several villains featured, Cillian Murphy's Dr. Crane is the most compelling, with just the right touch of subtle creepiness in his demeanour. It's a shame he wasn't featured more. Big fan of Christian Bale but I am physically incapable of taking the Batman voice seriously.

Honestly I can't really tell who the target audience is, parts of it don't read like a typical children's film but it's a little too sanitised for adults. Of course, children are generally a lot more intelligent than they're given credit for and could quite easily appreciate the concepts presented here, but it's not a common filmmaking decision. I think Wendell & Wild has great ideas and an even better soundtrack (children are also able to appreciate good music and should be taught about it early on lest they become members of a certain fandom I won't mention) but I do feel like Selick and Peele bite off more than they can chew with all the themes and plot points present, the breadth of which aren't explored to their full degree and leave the film overall feeling a little messy and overcomplicated. The character designs and range of diversity without feeling "tokenised" is really strong here in what feels like a very justified "fuck you" to Tim Burton. I had no idea how much I needed Jordan Peele in a goth adjacent context until now and I need him to keep doing it. Never in my life did I expect to hear X-Ray Spex in a stop motion animation. This film had so much potential it breaks my heart not to see it fully realised.

Glittery vampires twenty years before Twilight. The Lost Boys is like if a hair metal band read Anne Rice before making a 90 minute long MTV music video. And I sincerely mean that to be a compliment.

The cinematography is so gorgeous and fun, completely emblematic to me of the 80's summer horror flick genre. The soundtrack is incredibly fun too, with rock music scoring every single scene. Cry Little Sister was one of my favourite songs long before I even realised it was a cover, and the theme for The Lost Boys. There's surprisingly not much blood for a vampire film, but when it is depicted, the practical effects go all out, with death scenes that quite clearly inspired the likes of True Blood and Blade. The influence doesn't end there. And of course, it inexplicably reminds me of Supernatural's Winchester brothers, which either goes in favour of or against it, depending on who you are.

Despite all this, there's not that much dialogue present within the film, which is probably why Sam's constant one-liners are so memorable. The Lost Boys is definitely more comedy than horror and doesn't take itself too seriously. Which works pretty well for it, but that's not to say there isn't anything under the surface if you take the time to look.

One of the film's main concerns is with family (specifically Reaganistic nuclear family), and lack thereof. Though Lucy tries her best, Michael is more susceptible to peer pressure and delinquency owing to his lack of a strong father-figure and role model. The Lost Boys constantly infect others with vampirism to replace the family they do not have. Even the villainous Max appreciates the necessity of a nuclear family unit, courting Lucy as a potential mother. His ostensible attraction to Lucy is extremely gendered, based on her maternal potential as he sees her nurturing both her own sons and strangers, helping a little boy find his mother, and giving money to a group of homeless children for food. Though he is somewhat a father figure for the Lost Boys, Max is quite uninvolved in their lives, necessitating the presence of Lucy. This can be read as both the importance of both masculine and feminine parental figures, as well as a condemnatory depiction of men who deviate from their ideal family role, and the effects it has on their sons. While at points satirical, in the end, it is the boys' grandfather who saves the day night, restoring order and filling the gap left by the Emerson brothers' absent father. This, of course, is done in front of an American flag.

Moral panic is rife within The Lost Boys. Vampirism in the film represents various factors of parental fears, from drug addiction and peer pressure to the main threat to the utopian nuclear family — queerness. The rockstar fashion of these vampires gets this across perfectly. Though desirable, they are outsiders and they are dangerous. Star is positioned as Michael's love interest, she is barely a character in her own right, used as bait by David to seduce Michael into the lifestyle. Star represents what is safe, what is proper, her protectiveness over Laddie signalling the maternal woman Michael should want. And at first he does, but he drinks from David's blood and his visions of Star are replaced with David's face. Really, David is all that exists in Michael's periphery, with the other vampires relegated as mere props. Every tense interaction between the two drips with homoeroticism. Ultimately, Michael destroys this 'deviant' aspect of himself as redemption, reuniting with human-again Star, emblem of his heterosexuality, and safely within the domain of the family.

The film becomes even more sinister when examining the Lost Boys themselves. Named after Peter Pan's Lost Boys — a group of children taken to Neverland by Peter Pan who never grow old — the concept of child vampires is both tragic and horrifying. Though the film aged up the vampire characters for more sex appeal, Laddie is left pre-pubescent, and the uncomfortable implications remain. These boys have their childhoods stolen by Max, turned and doomed into a hedonistic but meaningless existence. The film never dwells on this, but it is not difficult to interpret their condition as stemming from abuse and trauma, their constant addition of others to the family representing the continuation of the cycle of abuse. The original script, with younger vampires, would really have driven the perverseness of this home, and though I love the film as it is, it's a shame the story was never fully realised in this way.

I wanted so badly to enjoy this film. Blade's impact is undeniable, and it offers great representation in its depiction of a black vampire and black companion without falling back on any negative stereotypes. There is inherently also a fair amount of racial subtext at play, not just because the protagonists happen to be black, but because it is an inherent feature in vampire narratives.

"Spare me the Uncle Tom routine." Frost tells Blade, entreating him to accept his vampiric nature and help him realise a world where vampires are treated equally regardless of his perceived pure-bloodedness. Ironically, he invokes the supremacy of their shared vampire ancestors, despite himself being turned. And of course, on several occasions, fleets of all-white police officers attack Blade, completely ignoring the white vampires freely terrorising the city right in front of them. Unfortunately, this analysis is clunky at best. The film is far more concerned with being cool.

That, they succeed at, to some degree. Dated CGI aside, techno music scoring massacres, blood sprinklers, the entirety of the subway scene, and Frost making out with his girlfriend immediately after ripping out Krieger's throat, face covered in viscera, are the DEFINITION of cool. But it isn't enough to render the film interesting. For all his Sportacus moves, deadpan one-liners and incredible wardrobe, Blade is a flat character.

His companion, Dr. Karen Jenson — in her equally badass leather jacket — also suffers from a lack of personality. She barely reacts to the events of the plot, and feels more like an automaton than actual person. The two thus have zero chemistry with each other, platonic or otherwise, though the scene in which Blade drinks from her is played as an orgasmic experience. This is never expanded on. Nor are the several Oedipal resonances present within the film. This makes it difficult to care about the characters, killing any would-be emotional stakes. Even Whistler's death has no impact. It's no Batman and Alfred. Constantly, the audience is expected to believe things the film never bothers to justify, much like these highly artificial relationships.

Most glaringly, this is the case with its vampires. I'm willing to look past the awful logic of vampires being both born and made, but though posed as a grave threat to humanity, they don't feel all that distinct from their prey. Familiars (wannabe vampires) just don't make sense in this world. All they gain are aversions to garlic, silver, and the sun, and a bloodlust which is a hassle to fulfil. Granted, Quinn is seen to regenerate several times, but the claim of superhuman strength feels overstated. The only reference the audience is given is when the vampires fight Blade, who cuts them down with ease anyway, so there really is no heightened sense of danger. This really does dampen the weight of Blade's final decision to forgo a cure because it would take his superhuman strength. I suppose when you open a film with a blood rave, it is pretty hard to live up to the cosmic expectations you set up for yourself. Probably all this could have worked a lot better as a video game.

The Great Train Robbery is significant for threading together the techniques experimented with during the birth of cinema, to create a cohesive narrative, as well as revolutionising film by introducing techniques such as cross-cutting and continuity of action, and dynamic camera movement. There is, either at the beginning or end of the film depending on the projectionist's preference, a standalone scene of Barnes, leader of the bandits, shooting at the camera and into the audience. Frames like a wanted poster, this scene, if viewed at the beginning as I did, emphasises the danger and stakes of the proceeding film, with the breaking of the fourth wall posing a direct threat to the audience. Of course, they did not actually think they were going to be shot, but to quote an earlier review of mine (bigheaded, I know): "I suppose the closest comparative experience for a 21st century audience might be horror video games on a VR headset. A novelty to most, one cannot help but jump at the monster that approaches, despite being fully aware it cannot harm you." The acting in the film is somewhat exaggerated to make up for lack of narration, but is far less theatrical than previous films such as 'A Trip to the Moon.' This paired with a somewhat-contemporary subject matter and variety of camera angles makes for a far more realistic film, combining the familiarity of actuality footage with the excitement of the Cinema of Attractions. In the version I watched, the music further contributed to this excitement and amplified the tension present throughout, though I am unsure whether this was the originally intended score.

Dare I say this is the first furry on film? The pig's costume and its mechanisms are incredibly sophisticated, and the performer/s inside are just as talented, bringing the pig to life convincingly, with his body language and eye movements really emphasising his shame. The tongue is diabolical. Freddy-Kreuger-lick-me-through-the-phone level horrifying. That aside, I don't really understand why this film is considered nightmare fuel.

An incredibly common aspect of life (as much now as in 1896) preserved as actuality film. Though it appears to be documentarian, the film is at least partially staged, using actors including members of the Lumière family. The footage itself is taken from amongst the crowd, placing the audience within the scene. This paired with the lack of distinction in early cinema between the reality of a film and the audience's reality, must have at least inspired a thrill, though the legend of first-time viewers fleeing in fright has been dispelled (and seems rather silly in the first place). I suppose the closest comparative experience for a 21st century audience might be horror video games on a VR headset. A novelty to most, one cannot help but jump at the monster that approaches, despite being fully aware it cannot harm you. And isn't that fun?

I wanted to read the original Stephen King novel before interacting with this film, but Billy Loomis’ “Corn syrup. Same stuff they used for pig's blood in Carrie” has been stuck in my head, and the film was available on iPlayer, so I committed the cardinal sin of watching the film before reading the source material.

More than anything, Carrie is tragic. The eponymous protagonist is a sweet, shy, 16 year old girl who has suffered abuse her entire life, both at school and at home. In the book, Carrie is described as overweight and unattractive, of which Sissy Spacek is neither, dampening the impact of the bullying somewhat. Even so, she is tyrannised relentlessly by her peers, led by archetypal pretty, popular, mean girl Chris Hargensen, who looks vaguely like Sidney Sweeney.

Chris and her boyfriend Billy are hard to take seriously, they are cartoonishly evil, with even their scenes together consisting of mutual abuse. I can to an extent excuse this one dimensionality as being viewed from Carrie’s perspective, which would explain why they completely lack nuance. It’s easier to turn your bully into an infernal monster in your mind than contend with the fact one of your peers, a teenage girl not so unlike yourself, is capable of such cruelty towards you. But Chris egging Billy on to bludgeon a pig to death for the purpose of a high school prank is pretty damn inexcusable. Chris specifically is portrayed as an especially evil and vindictive woman, as she weaponises her sexuality and gives Billy *gasp* a blowjob to bribe him into aiding her revenge plot. She talks through the entire thing which logistically makes no sense to me, but you get the point. The scene also made me realise you don’t see that much in films anymore.

Sue Snell is another girl involved in the tampon-stoning of Carrie at the beginning of the film, but unlike Chris, she feels horrible about it. Sue’s actions throughout the film are a form of atonement, hoping — like the audience —- for Carrie to experience just one day of feeling normal, happy even. The way she is played, however, makes her seem ambiguous, sinister even, right up until she notices the blood bucket at prom. Her plans coincide too perfectly with Chris’ (in fact, Chris would not have been able to enact hers without Tommy asking Carrie to prom), and the way she leaves dinner to rush to the prom right when Prom Queen is about to be announced is more than suspicious. Sue is accused of being malicious by Miss. Collins, the gym teacher, and vehemently denies it, but never really shakes suspicion. It doesn’t seem like the film intended this ambiguity either, simply lacking focus on Sue’s character, which would have made the story far more compelling. Sue is well-intentioned, but clearly acting more to make herself feel better than for Carrie’s sake. She goes as far as pimping out her boyfriend to Carrie, but doesn’t do the one thing that would actually help Carrie — be a friend to her. In fact, I don’t think I can recall a single moment of interaction between the two girls. Carrie’s loneliness permeates every scene of the film, heartbreakingly. If only she had a single friend, perhaps the events of the Black Prom could have been avoided.

Really, the only person to actually talk to Carrie is Miss. Collins. She constantly stands up for Carrie, tries to boost her confidence, and even slaps Chris in the face for her cruelty and bad attitude. Miss. Collins is the only character in the entire film who has Carrie’s back the whole time, which makes Carrie snapping all the more tragic. Tommy also seems to genuinely fall for Carrie (he also bulldozes over her boundaries repeatedly, though in the name of getting her to open up), and many of the other kids seem delighted by her. She is so close to having the happiness she deserves, but the conventions of tragedy must be adhered to. Carrie’s dignity is stripped from her one final time, in her fall, she takes everyone else with her. Broken, Carrie sees malice where none exists and innocents, even those on her side, pay the price.

Though not really relevant to the plot, I’m also interested in two of Chris’ minions: Norma and Helen. Norma, simply because she never takes that damn hat off, even while getting a perm! Helen, because her position in the social hierarchy is fascinating. Chubby and glasses-wearing, Helen looks far more like a screen-accurate Carrie than Sissy Spacek, yet rather than being subject to the same bullying, she is precariously part of the in-group. Of course, the only way to remain there, is by picking on those “beneath” her, as not to get grouped by them. I’ll give the film credit for this, it nails the depiction of the high school social ecosystem, though I’m not sure whether this is owed more to Stephen King, Brian de Palma, or Lawrence D. Cohen.

But of course, the most compelling character, other than Carrie herself, is her mother, Margaret White. An extreme religious fundamentalist, her every scene with Carrie feels claustrophobic, and the fear and control she exerts over her daughter is palpable. It is this relationship that is at the heart of Carrie, the reason for Carrie’s insecurities and self loathing, as well as the bullying she endures. I just wish there was more development on this aspect of the film, more of Margaret’s religious frenzy and how Carrie has been beaten down by it. Ironically, Margaret’s constant attempts to quell Carrie’s powers are what make the harmless teenager stronger and more violent, as her telekinesis seems to be triggered by her distress.

Like any good Christian, Margaret hates herself. Not in the least because she committed sins of the flesh (highly suggested to have been a victim of marital rape), and enjoyed it. And because Carrie is a result of this sin and a physical manifestation of her sexuality, Margaret hates her too. For Margaret, female existence in general is shameful and to be punished. She beats Carrie and forces her to pray, rather than comforting her when she has her first period, and spits “I can see your dirty pillows” upon seeing Carrie’s barely low-cut dress. As per tragic convention though, the fool speaks the truth and the monstrous really is feminine. Carrie gets her powers alongside her period, and while Margaret condemns it in its entirety, telekinesis empowers Carrie. It allows her to both get a taste of the life she has long craved (however briefly), and enact revenge against those who have wronged her. Margaret is one of Carrie’s victims, though her death differs significantly as it is not a result of Carrie’s blind rage, but a conscious moment of self-defence. But even here, Carrie is a dutiful daughter, giving Margaret the gift of martyrdom while fighting against evil. She is stabbed by flying knives like the arrows of the Saint Sebastian statue in the prayer closet, which could be considered a fuck-you, but it is also the end goal of Margaret’s twisted religiosity. Her quasi-crucifixion affords her both the punishment she feels she deserves, and what she believes to be righteous salvation. She dies in a state of religious ecstasy, a smile on her face and moaning orgasmically. She also succeeds in preventing Carrie from fully transcending beyond adolescence, as consumed by grief, she dies shortly after. The damage has been done, with a kill-count of 73 people, but Carrie has been saved from the worst — fully realising and exerting her womanhood.

Fire in Carrie is equally as destructive as blood, but also purifying. It operates like Biblical wrath, indiscriminate in its all-consumption in order to raze the environments that have failed Carrie. Just like the injustice of Carrie’s mistreatment, her flames do not care whether its victims are innocent or guilty, in a textbook example of tragic waste. Even if you consider innocent bystanders as deserving of punishment, surely Tommy or Miss. Collins should be exempt. The entire school, and the White home, must first be completely destroyed before they can become pure, reminding me of the house of Hamlet or Oedipus.

This is where the “good for her!” reviews miss the point. Yes, Carrie is undoubtedly tragic and sympathetic, but most of her victims didn’t deserve their fates, and it is what makes her a monster, a supernatural school shooter, if you will — who are culpable for their crimes regardless of tragic backstories or a history of being bullied. Carrie, who has only ever known cruelty, continues the cycle, and the film does not attempt to absolve her, rather points to these systems of abuse as holding responsibility for creating monsters and refusing to admit it.

The whole film, especially the prom scene, is beautifully shot with a dreamlike quality, which mirrors Sue Snell’s actual dream, emphasising Carrie’s idyllic experience is just that. Sue is styled as a bride in her dream, which I find interesting but don’t know what to make of yet. Maybe that her survival allows her to experience a “key” milestone of womanhood that Carrie cannot, and she feels guilty about it? Just like Sue’s dream quickly turns into a nightmare, so does Carrie’s prom night, though the scenes leading up to the big climax are slow and drawn out, building an almost painful sense of anticipation. The music and fashion are also a wonderful time capsule for the culture of the 70s, even with the overly specific lyrics of the song playing during the prom:

All the pain and the pleasure's the same It goes so fast I'm the girl with the strawberry hair In the photograph So come on, let's dance Let me have it while I have the chance 'Cause there's another world Where there are other girls But, tonight, there's only me I never dreamed someone like you Could love someone like me

Certain choices, however, date the film, and work against the tragedy it tries to construct. The kaleidoscope effect in particular, with Margaret’s voice echoing “They’re all going to laugh at you!” as Carrie hallucinates her peers mocking her, in particular creates an unintentional comedy in what is supposed to be one of the most moving scenes. Ironically that also makes it work somewhat, as the audience finds themselves laughing at the absurdity of the situation, much like at least some of the high schoolers did.

My main gripe with the film is its voyeuristic, pornographic opening, depicting sexualised high school students fully nude, and sensual close ups of Carrie showering that go on for far too long before the inciting period actually hits. As someone who has been a teenage girl in a locker room, I think it’s absolutely ridiculous and objectifying with no further purpose, and every defence of the scene is weak. Sure, one can argue that it contrasts the fantasy of the erotic female body with its truly violent nature in Carrie’s period, but that’s neither a greatly feminist endorsement (suggesting de Palma is just as afraid of the monstrous feminine as Margaret White), nor does it require 3 whole minutes of soft-porn footage. Even in a film almost entirely about women and womanhood, it is impossible to ignore the fact that Carrie and her story are conceived entirely by men.

Well, that was horrifying. Though I don't love it quite as much as everyone else seems to, it's inarguably incredibly visceral and real. A lot of the feelings evoked by Hertzfeldt could come from my own diary. But I don't know, this feels more like a 2010s YouTube animation than actual film, and not because of the art style — I love the art style. More so the narration and humour if anything. Perhaps it would have resonated more within the cultural context of that era? Though it started strong, towards the middle and end a lot of it felt like Hertzfeldt was just blowing hot air.

I am awful at picking favourites. In any category, I appreciate far too many things to be narrowed down into a single object of desire. But without a doubt, from the moment I first watched it as a child, Scream is my all time favourite film. And it doesn't even have any vampires in it. Don't talk to me about any of the sequels though, I pretend they do not exist. I have so may thoughts about Scream that I cannot even streamline them into a cohesive review, so instead here is a scene by scene analysis of things I find interesting :3

Home alone, Casey Becker receives a phone call from a stranger. She hangs up on him several times, assuming it’s a wrong number, before engaging in conversation. His voice is attractive, tone flirtatious, and it is easy to forget Roger L. Jackson also voices Mojo Jojo. They chat about horror movies, with Casey telling him she enjoyed the first Nightmare on Elm Street film, but the sequels sucked. Funny, considering director Wes Craven directed only the first in the installation. The stranger asks whether Casey has a boyfriend. Coyly, she lies in the negative, flirting back until he implies he can see her. She looks outside, but sees nobody. Unnerved, Casey hangs up. The stranger, or rather, Ghostface (Billy) calls back, tone no longer lighthearted.

“No, you listen you little bitch! You hang up on me again, I'll gut you like a fish! Understand?” he yells through the receiver, reminding me not insignificantly of Patrick Bateman, and evidencing for the first time his deeply misogynistic nature.

In fact, though Ghostface does kill men, his psychological torture is reserved for women, and his male kills are largely out of convenience.
Casey is understandably frightened by this, and threatens to call the police. Ghostface tells her they’ll never arrive in time, threatening her life and revealing that her boyfriend, Steven, is tied up on the patio. She looks outside again and sees Steve, who looks to his right and his left, hinting at there being two killers on either side of him. Ghostface (Billy) demands she answer questions about horror films to save his life. She answers the practice question correctly, but answers the real one wrong — stating Jason was the murderer in Friday the 13th instead of Mrs. Voorhees. From the onset of the film, Billy’s fixation on horror movie villains and their mothers is a constant theme. As punishment, Ghostface (Stu) kills Steve, gutting him so his entrails spew out of his body. He (Billy) then turns his attention back to Casey, asking him what door he is at. This, of course, is a cruel trick question, as one Ghostface waits at both doors. She refuses to answer, and in response, Ghostface breaks open the glass kitchen door by throwing a lawn chair at it. Casey escapes outside through the kitchen back-door, and sees her parents’ car coming up the driveway. Ghostface is right behind her, and we see clearly for the first time the now-iconic mask and black robes (originally white, but too similar to the KKK’s garb), but she manages to stun him by hitting him with her cordless and runs towards the car. He (Billy) catches her though, stabbing once before strangling her. Billy’s preferred MO is choking his female victims before killing them, in another reflection of his woman-hating nature. Casey’s parents return home, too far for her to catch their attention, though they later hear her wheezing final breaths through the still-connected receiver. Ghostface finishes her off, but not before she manages to unmask him, dying with a look of betrayed recognition on her face. On first thought, it’s a bit disappointing that this kill is by Billy and not Stu himself, which would have felt more impactful, but the implications of Billy killing both of Stu’s sexually promiscuous girlfriends is just as interesting. I don’t think Billy reciprocates Stu’s devotion, so likely isn’t acting out of jealousy, rather Stu is offering these women to him as a means of homoerotic bonding and proof of loyalty, as they penetrate her together with their phallic knives. Stu does get his turn too, however, desecrating Casey’s corpse by gutting her like Steve, before hanging her from a tree.. To her credit, Casey puts on a fair fight. All the female characters do, while the males are inert, despite being hunted far less relentlessly. Killing off the film’s biggest star within the first 12 minutes is certainly shocking, playing with audience expectations early on, and warning it is not a regular slasher, but it is certainly not new. This is exactly what Alfred Hitchcock does with Janet Leigh’s character in Psycho — a frequently referred to film in Scream.

The same night, Billy Loomis climbs through his girlfriend Sidney Prescott’s window in the style of Glen from Nightmare on Elm Street. Even on a first watch, this is incredibly suspicious. In fact, the film flaunts Billy's guilt at every opportunity, leading the audience to believe he must be a red herring. Sidney's father, Neil Prescott, hears her scream and tries to come into her room, but she blocks the entrance with her closet door, giving Billy time to hide. Sidney denies screaming and Neil informs her he is going away on a business trip, conveniently right before the anniversary of his wife’s murder and the Ghostface killing spree. In Scream, everyone is a suspect. Neil leaves, and Billy tells Sidney “I was at home watching television and uh The Exorcist was on, it got me thinking of you.” How romantic. In Abed Nadir-esque fashion, Billy complains about their almost NC-17 relationship transitioning into edited-for-TV tame. They make out a bit, but Sidney stops him when he gets too handsy. "See whay you do to me?" he says, though it's likely his excitement really stems from the murders he has just committed. Billy assures her, he’s not trying to pressure her about sex and respects her boundaries. A soft, tender cover of Don’t Fear the Reaper scores this scene, which is relevant because not only was it featured in Halloween, but for the pertinence of the lyrics themselves. “Don't fear the Reaper, baby I'm your man” Gus Black sings, in a non-diegetic confession. Indeed, the Ghostface costume (sold in-universe as Father Death) does resemble a Grim Reaper.

The next day, Sidney arrives at school, which is teeming with reporters, including Gale Weathers in her iconic lime green two-piece Versace suit. Her best friend, Tatum Riley, tells her about the murder of Steve and Casey, who as it turns out, sat next to Sidney in English class. Sidney is pulled out of class to be questioned by the police in Principal Himbry’s office, where he caresses Sidney’s face really uncomfortably. At lunch, Sidney hangs out with Billy, Tatum, Tatum’s boyfriend Stu and fifth wheel Randy, as the group discusses the murders. While all the potential killers, including Tatum, wear boots similar to Ghostface at some point in the film, here only Billy and Stu do. Additionally, only one of each’s leg is visible in the scene — Billy’s right and Stu’s left — hinting at the fact they are two halves of one whole costume wearing serial-killer. The boys discuss being asked if they enjoyed hunting because Steve and Casey were gutted. Tatum argues it’s sexist that girls weren’t asked because they could be the killer too. Of course, this sets her up as a suspect in a film we already know is about playing with traditional slasher tropes. “Casey and Steve were completely hollowed out, and the fact is it takes a man to do something like that,” argues Stu. He is prideful of his actions and sees such violence as an expression of masculinity, every bit as misogynistic as Billy. He then proceeds to gleefully describe the process of gutting someone. It is also revealed Casey dumped Stu for Steve. Stu is unhinged enough to be a prime suspect, yet the obviousness of it and the contrast between his manic way of speaking and Ghostface’s charming act over the phone is enough to make the audience dismiss him. Billy shuts him up feigning offence at his tactlessness, which in hindsight is obviously out of a valid concern Stu will give himself away.

“I didn’t kill anybody.” Stu says, unprompted.
“Nobody said you did.” Billy replies, giving him a pointed look.

Sidney returns home, and waits for Tatum to pick her up after practice, who she’s staying with since her father is away. She flicks through channels on TV, but they’re all related to the murders. The audience finds out through a report by Gale Weathers that Sidney’s mother was raped and murdered a year ago. Sidney falls asleep on the couch, and is awoken by the phone ringing. It’s just Tatum telling her practice ran late and she is en route. She gets another call, assuming it is Tatum again, but this time it’s Ghostface. He starts talking about scary movies, making Sidney believe it is Randy playing a prank on her until he makes a sadistic comment about her dead mother. She hangs up, upset, and bolts the front door shut. Unfortunately, this means she has locked Ghostface (Stu) inside with herself. He attacks her, but Sydney manages to get away. Of course, the locked door means she has to do what she criticised about horror movies only moments ago and “[runs] up the stairs when she should be running out the front door.” She hides in her bedroom, and the closet door from the previous night prevents Ghostface entering. She uses her computer to fax 911 right as Billy climbs through the window again. She embraces him for comfort, telling him the killer is in the house. A cell phone drops out of his pocket and Sidney bolts out of her room, to the front door. Billy is arrested, professing his innocence the entire time. At the station, Deputy Dewey, and Tatum’s brother, attempts to contact Sidney’s father, but he isn’t registered at the hotel he said he was staying at. Suspicious.

Sheriff Burke questions Billy, resulting in perhaps the funniest line when viewed in the 21st century: “What are you doing with a cellular telephone, son?”

Dewey has tracked down the mask but it proves not very useful as it is a commonly sold Halloween costume. It is licensed under the name “Father Death”, perhaps suggesting the killer could be Sidney’s actual father, who is nowhere to be found. Sidney leaves the station with Dewey and Tatum from the back to avoid reporters. Gale Weathers foresees this and ambushes Sidney. Sidney punches Gale in the face, and Tatum later echoes all our reactions: “‘I'll send you a copy.’ BAM! Bitch went down. ‘I'll send you a copy.’ BAM! Syd! Superbitch!”

Ghostface calls Sidney at Tatum’s house, exonerating Billy, and promising he will be back for her soon.

Dewey drops Tatum and Sidney to school, where Sidney is immediately hounded by a reporter. She sees Gale’s van also parked up further ahead and goes to talk to her. Gale believes Sidney misidentified Cotton Weary as Maureen Prescott’s killer, and the actual killer is linked to the current murders. Sidney hangs out by the lockers with Stu and Tatum before class, with Stu and wonders how Billy is holding up. Stu is checking his reflection in a mirror, focusing on the areas Sidney hit him last night. A kid dressed like Ghostface runs through the halls, and Sidney rushes off in frustration, bumping into Billy. He maintains his innocence again, and wonders when Sidney will get over her mother’s death, comparing it to his own mother leaving him. He got over it so she should too, Billy so understandingly says. Which is hilarious because this rat looking homo repressed momma's boy very much did not get over it. It’s interesting though, because he’s not trying to hurt Sidney in this scene, he’s just incredibly narcissistic and it bleeds into his perfect-boy facade. Obviously, Sidney doesn’t take that well.

In Principal Himbry’s office, he berates the two fake Ghostfaces. This is another nod to there being two killers, compounded by the fact that one of them is dressed identically to Billy in an earlier scene, with the blue flannel. The other prankster is quite tall and so is Stu, but that’s slightly less convincing as evidence. Sidney tries to compose herself in the bathroom, and hears a cheerleader gossiping about her. Turns out, Sidney’s mother had a reputation for sexual promiscuity, even before the murder. The girls leave, and another kid dressed as Ghostface jumps out at Sidney from one of the stalls. Based on the fact he doesn’t have a knife, nor seems particularly motivated to actually hurt her, it’s most likely another prankster. All this hysteria results in the school being closed, and a curfew being imposed on the city. Stu invites Sidney and Tatum to a party to celebrate.

The school is empty except for Principal Himbry and the janitor, played by Wes Craven and looking suspiciously like Freddy Krueger (his name is even Fred!). Himbry tries on one of the prankster’s masks making you wonder for a second if he’s actually the culprit (he certainly hates children enough to be), until he is killed by the actual Ghostface (Billy). Unlike his female kills, Billy doesn’t play with, taunt, or choke Himbry. He is not interested in powerplay or his fear, and kills him only to serve the plan. Thus, even his stabbing of Himbry is quick and perfunctory.

Stu visits Randy at the video store to invite him to his party. Stu genuinely seems to like Randy, they feel like actual friends just like Sidney and Tatum. Now that they’re not around the girls, Randy is comfortable enough to voice his own misogyny. He objectifies Sidney throughout, and hypothesises that Sidney is a target for Billy because she wouldn’t sleep with him, but also constantly maintains that rule # 1 of surviving a horror movie is not to have sex. For a woman, there is no winning – sexuality, whether too much or too little, is ample justification to be viciously murdered. After all, as Randy says, “there's always some stupid, bullshit reason to kill your girlfriend.” His movie-freaked mind does come in handy, as he correctly predicts Billy is the killer and Sidney’s father is a red herring. He even calls Stu Billy’s “little lapdog”, foreshadowing his role as an accomplice. Of course, it being spelled out like this makes the audience immediately dismiss this theory, and the film subverts this many times before finally playing it straight.

Dewey drives around the girls to get snacks for the party before curfew. At the supermarket, Sidney opens up to Tatum about her intimacy issues (“How many guys would put up with a girlfriend who is sexually anorexic?”), oblivious to the fact Ghostface (Billy) is spying on them. The Sheriff's department finds Ghostface’s calls were made from Neil Prescott’s phone, who is still nowhere to be found. He is now the prime suspect, which is highly uncomfortable considering the flirtatious conversations with high-school girls including Sidney herself. Sheriff Burke tells Dewey to keep an eye on her. Youth of America plays as he drops the girls off, which is an incredible song, and it seems as though every parent in Woodsboro is absent or neglectful, because Stu’s house is filled. There is a singular East Asian guy in the background of WASP kids, which amuses me to no end. Gale also arrives, using her acquaintance with Dewey to slip into the party and plant a camera into the living room. Stu, dressed like Hugh Heffner and in an approximation of toxic male patriarchal power tells Tatum to get him a beer from the garage. Even when he is not being violent towards women, he is sure to demean and objectify them in subtle ways. Later, he will repeatedly call Sidney “baby” when she suspects him of being the killer. Tatum obliges, and the camera focuses on her breasts as she descends the dark stairs. In horror movie terms, her death warrant is signed. It doesn’t help that she’s blonde, like Casey. The door closes from behind her, and Ghostface appears. For the second time, he is mistaken for Randy, “No, please don't kill me, Mr. Ghostface, I wanna be in the sequel.” Tatum says, batting her lashes and Christening the killer for the first time. It’s not Randy though, and a fight ensues, with Tatum managing a couple of great hits and almost escaping, before Ghostface crushes her head in the garage door.

Billy arrives at the party, giving Stu another pointed look implying business has been handled, and leads Sidney to Stu’s parents’ room to talk. Randy sees this, and despite fully believing Billy is a killer, is more concerned by the fact that his chance with Sidney is gone. Upstairs, Sidney opens up to Billy about her anxieties about turning out just like her mother, and Billy is as emotionally intelligent as ever, comparing her trauma to Silence of the Lambs. In the living room, everyone is watching Halloween, which Randy pauses to explain the horror movie rules: 1. Never have sex 2. Never drink or do drugs 3. Never say “I’ll be right back.” Randy is standing in front of the television with Michael Myers’ knife pointed at his back, foreshadowing Ghostface’s knife hanging over him, but ultimately allowing him to survive. Stu breaks the third rule immediately, telling the group he’s going to get some more beer. Gale and Kenny are watching this transpire from their van through the planted hidden camera, incredibly bored. Gale is saved from the tedium by Dewey inviting her to check out a tip about an abandoned car. More guests leave the party, and when one asks where Tatum went, Stu feigns ignorance claiming she probably just got mad at him and bailed. Another red flag: surely he would have noticed her corpse in the garage when getting more drinks. Meanwhile, Billy and Sidney finally have sex, intercut with scenes of the group downstairs watching Halloween.

“Here comes the obligatory tit shot!” Randy exclaims, and it cuts to Sidney taking her top off. Billy steps in front of the camera, his back obscuring Sidney’s bare chest as they fall onto the bed. It’s a purposeful teasing of the viewers, with constant references to sexually explicit scenes within the genre suggesting the film will follow suit, but instead it cuts to the aftermath of the sex scene rather than exploiting it for fan service. Having witnessed how dehumanisingly female characters and their actresses, especially in horror, are treated by male fans, this is a welcome subversion of common tropes.

The phone rings, and Randy picks it up to discover Principal Himbry’s fate. The remaining guys leave, wanting to see his corpse, leaving Randy alone. Gale and Dewey find Neil Prescott’s car, and rush back towards the house. Sidney and Billy are getting dressed, when she asks him who he called when he was arrested. She’s still suspicious, clever girl. She almost pieces it together, but everything falls apart when Ghostface “kills” Billy. It’s so painfully obviously staged the second (or in my case, 1000th) time round: Billy turns towards Ghostface so you don’t actually see him getting stabbed, like some extra said a while ago “the blood's not the right color. [...] It's too red”, Billy’s shirt has no stab holes, the acting during his “death” is awful compared to Skeet Ulrich’s performance throughout, and of course you can actually see Ghostface wiping fake blood onto the blade. This all sets up Neil Prescott as the most likely killer. Sidney escapes out of the attic window and sees Tatum’s body. Randy is incredibly drunk, breaking one of his own rules, and watching Halloween, oblivious to the fact Ghostface is sneaking up behind him. Randy is played by Jamie Kennedy, and Laurie is played by Jamie Lee Curtis, so his calls of "Look behind you, Jamie!" are wonderfully meta. Ghostface (Stu) holds his knife above Randy for quite some time, but doesn't stab him, probably because he sort of likes him. Incidentally, this is also the only scene in which one of the boys’ actors is actually in costume, though it’s Skeet Ulrich and not Matthew Lillard despite this Ghostface being Stu. Sidney reaches Gale’s van, where Kenny lets her in and they watch the video feed together. Kenny forgets about the 30 second delay on the feed, because he rushes to help Randy, only for Ghostface to be right outside and slit his throat. He tries to attack Sidney again inside the van, but she escapes. Gale returns to the van, finds Kenny dead and attempts to drive to safety. Sidney tries to flag Gale down, causing her to swerve and hit a tree. Sidney returns to the house, hoping to find Dewey, and find him she does — with a knife in his back. Ghostface (Billy) pulls the knife out and makes for Sidney, who locks herself in Dewey’s car. Unfortunately, Ghostface has the keys. Even so, Sidney manages to escape and returns to the house, taking Dewey’s gun. Both Randy and Stu reappear, accusing the other of being the killer. Interestingly, Randy is the only one who suggests they need to leave the house, while Stu just wants the gun.

Sidney shuts the door on them both, which would give Stu plenty of time to kill Randy because he still has a knife, but he doesn’t. Because, I posit, he is vaguely fond of him. Not that he’d let Randy live if he got in the way of the plan, but he doesn’t seem to go out of his way to kill him. Surprise! Billy’s not dead. He stumbles down the stairs, and coaxes Sidney into giving him the gun. He opens the door, letting Randy in before the pindrop moment where Billy quotes Anthony Perkins in Psycho, saying “we all go a little mad sometimes.” (mommy issues, again) and shoots Randy. He reveals himself in his own psychopathic glory, and that the attack was faked. Stu walks in at that very moment, and Sidney collapses into him, momentarily thinking he can protect her. That is, until he reveals himself to be the other Ghostface. Two killers? Unheard of! They both corner Sidney into the kitchen and torment her, while Stu homoerotically nuzzles Billy. Billy claims its scarier when killers don’t have motives, citing Norman Bates as an example. Norman Bates very famously did have a motive though — mommy issues — and Billy immediately reveals his own similarly themed call to mass-murder. He sees Sidney as a stand-in for her mother, who had an affair with Billy’s father and in turn resulted in his family being broken apart. Billy doesn’t consider it might be his father’s fault for engaging in the affair, he places blame solely on women. Maureen, Sidney, even his own mother for “abandoning” him. “That motive enough for ya?” he asks, touching his blade to his lips in a frame as equally beloved by Tumblr gifsets by 14 year old girls as the corn syrup scene. This shocks even Stu, who looks surprised and a little hurt Billy didn’t share this information with him. Billy gestures to Stu (so much of their dynamic is Stu following Billy’s orders to please him), and the latter returns with former prime suspect Neil Prescott. Stu and Billy plan to frame Neil for the Ghostface murders, and the murder of his own daughter.

Instead of killing her on the spot like common sense dictates, they do the horror movie villain thing of leaving their victims unsupervised while they stab each other homoerotically. Remember the phallic knives? Stu yells at Billy to “get it up” and do it, which he obliges with the creepiest smile in the entire film. Billy keeps stabbing Stu, a lot more than is really necessary, and neither realises how debilitating their injuries are because they’ve only seen them in movies. The gun disappears just as they’re about to enact their grand finale, and Gale appears, aiming it right at Billy. Unfortunately, the safety is on, so Billy easily knocks her out. In the distraction, Neil and Sidney escape, and Billy’s true colours show under pressure. He can’t string together a single sentence without calling her a bitch. Donning the Ghostface costume, Sidney incapacitates Billy and kills Stu by dropping a TV on his head after he tries to attack her. Billy comes to and pounces on Sidney, strangling her. She sticks her finger in his fresh wound, fingering, for the third time, the wrong guy. Or, the right one, I guess. Gale shoots him and he dies pathetically. As per horror movie rules, Billy comes back to life right as Randy warns that’s what happens, but Sidney doesn’t give him a chance before shooting him between the eyes. The film ends with the revelation that Dewey is still alive, and Gale reporting live from the scene.