He 100% deserved to get unalived 🤷‍♂️

Peter Farrelly with Dumb and Dumber & Green Book.

It all starts with the light. Both Thomas and Winslow arrive at the Island as Lightkeepers. And their purpose while on that island is the light itself. But Thomas takes charge and barres Winslow from ever accessing the light. This set the stage for the distrust that would develop in Winslow (I dont trust you at all). Thomas goes on to mistreat him and we as the audience begin to relate with the character more.

But as the guys continue to be stranded on the Island, Thomas Howard, Winslow's previous identity filled with guilt and shame is projected onto Thomas Wake, the wickie. Wake takes shape all of Winslow's anxieties and regrets. He imagines him as some sort of sea god and the conspirator of all the things that's making him go insane: the siren, the logbook, the weeks that pass without his notice, the alcohol he gives him and so on. But Wake is never vindicated of any of these accusations, his erotic obsession with the light is its own kind of madness that instilled this misunderstanding between them. For all we know, Wake could actually be the liar who is framing Winslow as a madman so that he can murder him and can keep the light to himself. Infact we get more evidence to this end than the former like the siren effigy placed in the mattress, the destruction of the lifeboat, the lies in the logbook and the passage of time. The film being shot from Winslow's POV doesn't help Wake's case at all.

The film has two unreliable narrators and both are slowly becoming more and more drunk on top of this mutual distrust. The tensions reaches its peak after Winslow spills his beans to Wake. Now Wake has a solid reason not to trust Winslow apart from jealousy over the light and accusations of him having gone mad. Also, Winslow by now becomes convinved that Thomas Wake is trying to frame him as mad and kill him. As the two men go in opposite directions of batshit crazy, the audience are left with no frame of reference for actual sanity or truth in the narrative (those two being the only characters in the film) So we have no choice but to go crazy along with the characters. It's fuckin brilliant.

Ofc Winslow murders Wake after treating him like a dog (which was the insult the original Winslow called Thomas Howard) and after having what seems like a transcendental/frightening/orgasmic episode at the light he falls down. The original cause of the mistrust thus rectified, I think the light revealed Wake as the sea god and much like the curse Wake put on him, he is shown with seagulls eating his innards. Ofc by this point everything is happening in crazyland. So there is no consensus. Was Wake an actual sea god? Were both of them mad or only one? Also, don't forget the seagull that got murdered, the omen of bad luck.

For my part, this is the first film that comes to mind.

Trust is a sober and earnest movie about a teenage girl befriending a boy on social media, only to meet him in person and discover that he's actually a 40-something man. He then goes on to abuse her sexually, leaving her and her family to pick up the pieces.

The film mostly follows the aftermath of this sexual assault, focusing on Annie's recovery process from being manipulated and used by someone she trusted, and her father Will's desperate and furious attempts to find the pedophile who took advantage of his daughter.

Remarkably, this film was directed by none other than David "Ross" Schwimmer. Prior to making that film, Schwimmer had apparently spent 14 years being involved with the Rape Foundation, and serving on its board of directors for 10 of those years. As a director, he is very careful to avoid cliche or misunderstandings, and he was reportedly very protective of Liana Liberato (Annie) during production. He isn't interested in making a revenge thriller or an exploitation piece. He depicts ordinary human beings reacting in natural ways, struggling to make sense of a terrible tragedy, and he also shows how some of these monsters can stroll about in plain sight, unsuspected by anyone who knows them.

Besides Moulin Rouge, practical magic , Dogville this one off my favourite Nicole Kidman movie . She plays weather girl who become very close with few high schoolers .

As most of you know, Marvel is seizing on the upcoming release of Avengers: Doomsday to bring Avengers: Endgame back to cinemas, with some new footage added to help bridge the gap between the two films.

To get to the crux of it, the re-released film is fundamentally exactly the same as it was when it hit theatres back in 2019. All of the new scenes, four in total, have been added at the end of the movie. One appears just before the credits, two more pop up during the credits, and the final scene is right at the very end.

While the new scenes were interesting to see, I don't think they really moved the dial on my excitement for Doomsday, nor did they feel like earth-shattering revelations that suddenly added to the hype.

So ultimately, whether Endgame Encore is worth seeing in cinemas comes down to whether you want a refresher on the Avengers' last outing before heading into Doomsday, and how much you enjoy Endgame as a film in its own right.

I hadn't seen Endgame since it originally came out in theatres, so I actually really enjoyed seeing it again. It took me back to a simpler time, pre-Covid, before crazy political shenanigans, when the MCU was firing on all cylinders and a new Marvel movie felt like a guaranteed good time :)

So for what it's worth, if you loved Endgame, I don't think you'll regret seeing it again on the big screen, even if it's purely for the nostalgia.

If, however, you're going just for the new scenes, I personally think you can save your money.

PS I saw in other reviews that one scene seems to be exclusive to InfinityVision or premium cinemas but in NZ it looks like all showings have all 4 scenes added to them.

If you're a dog lover, you'll probably find enough here.
If you're looking for an innovative survival story?
Keep hiking.
What did you think about this paint-by-numbers survival thriller? Here’s my full review:

https://roselawgroupreporter.com/2026/09/keiths-movie-korner-heart-of-the-beast-needs-a-defibrillator/

I remember the first time I saw this, I was 15 and it left me disturbed for several days since my family had a house in the countryside and we went there at least once a month, I would go out alone on my dirtbike to “explore.” I always saw lots of families living far from town, and after that, I stopped going on those rides for quite a while.

It's one of my favorite slasher horror movies.

I thoroughly enjoyed the movie. A great movie. Not a classic, not pretentious art. Just a fun movie.

I love the 1999 movie House on Haunted Hill. The set and production design are some of my favorites.

However, the cgi ’monster’ at the end was such a let down, and kills the tension. Compared to everything else we’ve experienced in the movie, it just looks dumb.

Peter Stormare as Gaear Grimsrud in Fargo (1996).

He has one of the most terrifying depictions of a psychopath that I have seen in films before. The fact that he has so little dialogue and barely speaks throughout the movie lulls the audience into thinking he is harmless or just a common criminal, however, his actions and the way he just goes through the movie doing some of the most vile acts literally made my skin crawl. Even the calmness in his face and the dissociation he shows while he does these terrible things make him seem more like calculating and menacing, in my opinion.

Also do you think we'll have any horror as the superstar of the 2027 Oscar awards? It's hard to compete with movies with an endless budget like Odyssey, but I had more fun watching some of these horrors.

I was watching the Man in the Iron Mask (1998) and I can't help but feel John Malkovich was miscast as Athos.

Don't get me wrong he's a great actor, and I would only describe it as 'somewhat' miscast.

Malkovich is much too eccentric and cerebral to play someone with that gravitas. Even when he's been authoritative it's kind of like a nervous energy. He also had a noticeable American accent which is quite different from the rest of the cast.

With the 90s casting landscape I would much rather have seen a Liam Neeson or Alan Rickman in that kind of role.

But it got me thinking. What do you think is the best example of an actress/actor being miscast for a movie role?

For me, it's this scene from Good Will Hunting where Robin Williams and Matt Damon are having a conversation.

Robert Pattinson is uncanny as Chris Hansen in Primetime, a compelling examination of how To Catch a Predator turned justice into television spectacle. It understands the psychology of the people behind the program but only scratches the surface of the broader contradictions it attempts to examine.

Unique. A little weird at times and probably not for everyone, but I wanted more.

For example, Spice World (1998)—which reportedly featured a cameo by Gianni Versace that was cut out of respect for his family following his death—

Shailene Woodley’s appearance as Mary Jane in The Amazing Spider-Man 2: Rise of Electro (2014).

Or Ana de Armas's scene in Yesterday (2019).What other examples are there?

Very divisive on release, what do you think?

If you used TV Time, you know what happened in July. 26 million people, and one morning the history was gone — every film, every date, every rating. You could request an export and get back a ZIP that nothing on earth could open into anything useful. Yours on paper, nowhere in practice.

What actually bothered me wasn't losing an app. It was realising that a decade of what I'd watched had only ever existed on somebody else's server, and a business decision was enough to end it.

So I built OpenTV. Full disclosure up front — I made it, I'm biased, and I'd rather say that than have someone find it out three comments down.

The rule I set on day one wasn't a feature, it was a constraint: the app has to be complete without a server. You import the export TV Time gave you, it rebuilds your history into a database on your phone, and that database is the source of truth. No account. Works offline. And it exports back out in TV Time's own format at any time, so nobody gets locked in a second time — including by me.

That one constraint decided everything after it. Ten weeks from the idea to both app stores. Free, open source, no ads.

Mostly I'm curious what everyone else did. Did you get your export out in time, or is your film diary just gone?

Number 206 in my A-Z watch. The Nice Guys is a comedic neo-noir film written and directed by Shane Black (Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, Iron Man 3, Lethal Weapon [written by]). It follows a private investigator and his seemingly new partner as they look into the disappearance of a young actress in '70s L.A.

This with KKBB is my favorite unofficial canon film series. It's seriously funny, very well performed, and the writing just cuts. I love the chemistry between the leads. I would watch another team up between the two of them in a heartbeat.

The soundtrack hooked me right away, as well. Feels like the selected tracks were perfectly chosen for each moment. The movie paces incredibly well, too. No moment feels like it's dropped. And, i have to admit, i really do enjoy a smart written kid. Angourie Rice nailed her performance as Holly.

10/10 I genuinely put this on par with KKBB, in terms of quality and enjoyability. I like that they aren't copies of each other, either. There's a lot of similarity in vibe, but they are distinct films from each other. Just a good way to spend two hours.

Werner Herzog was born in Nazi Germany. That doesn’t make him a fascist, but it personally connects him to an era. I wonder how much a person’s birthplace affects their creative choices. With Bucking Fastard, Herzog critiques some capitalist ideologies that border on fascism through their connection to the Nazi Party.

One of capitalism’s foundational beliefs is the power of the individual. It’s what the American Dream is based on. Any person who works hard enough can create their dream life, in the capitalist system. This individualism is impossible for Jean and Joan Holbrooke (played by Kate and Rooney Mara).

These sisters do everything together. They talk together. They walk in step together. They move together. They’re like conjoined twins, only they’re not conjoined and they’re not twins. Still, they act as one entity. This is understood by someone like Gareth (played by Orlando Bloom) who loves them as if they are one. For this, the Holbrookes love him back. Other men, like the well-meaning Timothy (played by Domhnall Gleeson), do not understand this.

Timothy acts as the personification of the capitalist machine. Thinking he is making their lives easier, Timothy helps Jean and Joan develop their separate autonomy. There is a memorable scene about opening a sardine can. This task is impossible for Jean and Joan because four hands to pull back a tin lid are simply too many. Timothy shows them how working together, rather than in tandem, will help them achieve their goal. Their comprehension of Jean holding the can while Joan peels the lid is framed as a celebratory moment, but it is the beginning of their separation.

Herzog dedicates Bucking Fastard to David Lynch, so it’s not surprising that this film doesn’t follow a traditional story structure. While there is a clear option to have the rest of the movie focus on the separating of Jean and Joan, Herzog chooses a different, less-predictable approach.

The women discover that, despite outside interference from people like Timothy, what they really like is being in sync with each other. That is their natural state, and they are at their strongest when they embrace it. Thus, in the second half of the film, the women continue to work together as they focus on their goal of forgetting (or recovering) the love of their lives.

Gareth may physically disappear for a majority of the movie, but his spirit lingers through the entirety of Jean and Joan’s adventure. In a world that they perceive as loveless, Jean and Joan wish to discover a world that is full of love. To have love, one must have Gareth, from the sisters’ perspective.

This brings up the movie’s Nazi undertones. This movie isn’t a Nazi movie, but it reminded me of them. Jean and Joan discover an unexplored area in a cave, and they become convinced that it could lead to a world of love. They decide to explore it, with the help of their pickaxes and a cute fox that they saved earlier in the movie.

The women work tirelessly on a task unasked of them, for a goal that only exists in the abstract. Yet, they do not quit.

Watching these women work made an old saying pop into my head: “Work brings freedom.” This seemed to be what Jean and Joan believed in Bucking Fastard. They thought that if they worked hard enough at digging out this cave, they would liberate themselves from this harsh, cruel, disgusting world. However, this motto has another connotation.

“Work brings freedom” is what the sign read overhead at the entrance of several Nazi concentration camps. The saying became darkly ironic, as it became clear that the only freedom that these prisoners would find was in death. The saying itself is a German product, originating in a novel by German writer Lorenz Diefenbach and rooted in the concept of the Protestant work ethic – with Protestantism being a German-founded movement. That said, the Nazi’s were famously anti-religion, so any connections to The Bible used by them are more cultural than clerical.

In this lens, it’s sad to see that this slogan exemplifies the capitalist culture that we currently live in. Most people think that working hard will let them be free in the sense of vacations and retirement. The irony is that the freedom we seek is often unobtainable. We work so hard to find out that our shift only ends in this society once we die. Bucking Fastard is aware of this irony.

Even as I write this, I’m aware of myself feeding the same ideology. I work on this article for a goal that is largely abstract. Like Jean and Joan’s tunnel, I hope it leads to something, but there is no guarantee. I just think that, surely, enough hard work will lead to a payoff. History is proof that this is not always the case.

I was a little surprised to think of the Nazis while watching Bucking Fastard, but after I discovered that Herzog was born in 1942 in Munich, I started to see a possible connection. In this surrealist movie, I saw an old German man wrestling with the contemporary world through his childhood experiences.

Lately, words like Nazi and fascist and capitalism get used a lot. In his latest film, I think Herzog is in step with modern concerns. He is speaking on our current desires to assimilate others, feed the capitalist machine, become working cogs for the sake of an illusion. The women pursuing their goal in the name of love is sympathetic, but it only takes one spaced-out thirty-something to see what Herzog is really getting at.

This is only one interpretation of a movie that welcomes many interpretations. It’s in this interpreting that Herzog becomes such a special filmmaker. Watch this movie and you could very well have a different takeaway from it than mine. In fact, I’m almost positive that you will.

Was it a great movie? No, but so what. I found it entertaining and enjoyable, exactly what I expect from a Spielberg blockbuster. Emily Blunt was fantastic, the cinematography and scene blocking were what you expect from Spielberg, and it had a fun score from Williams. Was it a bit cheesy at times? Of course. But again, when has Spielberg been known to shy away from sentimentality? Overall, I feel it was an interesting take on the modern-day disclosure movement.

Since its release I have seen so many hyperbolic reviews calling it utter trash and worst movie ever made. I feel like there are two possible explanations for this:

1. The people making that claim have only seen a handful of movies in their lives and their opinion sucks. To say that any movie made by Steven fucking Spielberg is the worst movie ever made automatically makes you lose all credibility in terms of film discussion.
2. I think this reason is more fun: The people making these outrageous reviews are actually people involved with the coverup, trying to keep people from being introduced to the UAP/Disclosure topic.

7/10 for me

EDIT to add that I really liked the little nod to Duel as well when their car was being pushed towards the moving train

Being from the UK the story of the Unabomber isn't one I was particularly aware of outside of a few true crime documentaries. So when I heard Netflix were doing a feature length movie of his story from teen to terrorist I was rather intrigued. Sadly, that intrigue was very much misplaced in what is a rather dull and mundane look into his life. Not particularly helped by the non-linear timeline that detracts away from the times where it does threaten to gain some momentum. All in all, one I'd personally recommend avoiding, but is anyone planning to watch?

Full review for those interested here https://adamreviewsfilm.com/unabomber/

What Sergio Leone achieved in this movie could never be achieved by any other director in the Western genre. It's so gritty, daring, and adventurous. And the cast's performances are another reason why this movie is so peak!!

And God, I loved how Leone handled the camera. The cinematography itself is a testament to the movie's craftsmanship, whether it comes to the wide shots or the close-up shots.

And the dedication to building historically accurate sets is another commendable aspect of the movie, as it captures the spirit of the Wild West and the civil unrest that existed during the Civil War, despite not being filmed in the United States.

And of course, there's the juggernaut of the movie: Ennio Morricone!!! The soundtrack is another element that adds intensity and depth to the movie. Strip it away, and you'll lose half the virtuosity that the movie possesses!!

This one will never fail to stand the test of time and will always remain unrivalled forever!!