r/TrueFilm

Hard not see it as something like micro-transaction or DLC cinema. Yeah you could see the normal peasant version of the movie...OR you could upgrade to Odyssey+ and unlock what was REALLY shot! And we'll even throw in a few exclusive trailers and teaser footage that you'll never see at those peasant screenings. See this on the biggest screen possible! Otherwise...are you really even seeing it??

Gatekeeping significant chunks of your artistic vision at an up-charge is one of those things that is so obviously silly on its face when described out loud.

Too often the conversation shifts mostly to how big the screen is and how loud the sounds are, rather than the actual quality of the film. Adjacent to what Scorsese was talking about with the theme park rides; just from a different angle. In many cases we've abandoned the meat and potatoes and opted for worshipping at the altar of "spectacle" and "the experience".

"What did you think of the movie?"

"Well, I saw it on IMAX so it..."

Pair this with the pre-order hysteria months ahead of release that leaves normal people shit out of luck for weeks after the film comes out. I really don't like this trajectory.

I agree with the sentiment: a film was trashed on release, its director's reputation destroyed and the studio bankrupted based on bad pre-release press and a truncated cut made at the studio's demand. It's exactly the kind of film one wants to reclaim. I just can't see what everyone else sees when they call it a misunderstood masterpiece. I've seen the film twice, both times in the restored 3 1/2-hour version, and both times it's struck me as barely functional from a narrative standpoint, with baffling lapses, longueurs and dog-ends (what's going on with the John Hurt character, to pick just one example?). I also think the filmmaking is a mixed bag: the visuals and production design are both incredible, but Cimino doesn't seem to have a clue what to do with the dialogue scenes, which are all glacial and stilted (except when they feature Sam Waterston, who's giving the best performance in the film and manages to wrest it into something gripping when he's onscreen). And if you ask me, there's something kind of smug and simplistic in the film's misery and "everything sucks" cynicism - the film came at the end of a decade of other films saying similar things, but they don't have the tang of adolescent posturing that this does.

I'm not trying to be combative; I'm just giving my own response to the film. I've tried to like it, but I just can't. To the people who do like it: what am I missing?

I say "recent" pretty broadly, like in the last ten or twenty years or so. I've noticed is that a lot of horror/thriller defaults to being centered around some sort of traumatic event in the protagonist past, an event consistently hinted at throughout and finally shown in flashback. The first time I remember seeing it was in Peter Jacksons BRAINDEAD (1992) but back then, it wasn't as overused. On the other hand, there were also Gremlins (1984) which played it for laugh, suggesting that it was a bit old back them.

Personally I'm a bit tired of the trope. What is the appeal? Why did it gain such popularity?

You get invited to a 1970s movie party. I would love to hear your Niche movie costume.

I’d love to hear some niche movie costumes that are elite :)

There are two scenarios:

1. 1970s movie costume party with people who aren’t cinephiles and more so everyday people. So, in this case “niche” might not actually be niche for cinephiles.
2. 1970s movie costume party with cinephiles. So, now you gotta go deeper to pull something that’s actually niche.

Let’s hear them!

hello, i have watched a bunch of Nouvelle Vague movies and read about the start of this movement which originated from these young people who were film critics for Cahiers Du Cinéma magazine. they were big fans of Hitchcock, Rossellini and others and with their analysis and reviews helped those directors get the recognition they deserved.

what amazes me is that they were all very young (early to mid 20s) and already had such deep knowledge about the art of cinema.

i'm curious to read those early analysis before they started making movies on their own, and it would be great if you have recommendations for specific articles that are particularly revealing of how their ideas developed. thank you!

I honestly can't remember the last time I was in a physical cinema. Oh, wait, it was that Elvis flick, so 2022. But I watch a lot of movies in VR and it gives sort of the same experience. There is that sense of massive scale, and there is something special about watching it in a (virtual) cinema, rather than in front of my PC at home. There are no other cinemagoers, of course, which can be a good or a bad thing.

Which made me wonder, which kind of films benefits from the big screen?

Without an audience to share the fun with, as is the case with VR, most stupid comedies doesn't really benefit; sitting alone in that grand theater sort of makes it a bit weird. Horror, or more grand and epic experiences, works far better. Wide shots really get the right sense of scale.

THE BATMAN (2022) had an epic gritty feel in VR, even if dark muddy tones doesn't do well in the medium.

BACKROOMS (2026) didn't really felt like it was made for the cinema, somehow, but it is hard to put my finger on it. Some films seem to be intended for cinema, others less so.

When you watch a movie on film, it will always have a few artifacts and blemishes on it. That's the nature of the physical medium. I've seen movies on film both when it was the standard mode of presentation and for more modern special screenings, and while the movie always looks great, there are definitely times when you see some specks of dust on the film. That's just how it goes.

At home, people try to replicate the cinema as much as possible. People buy 4Ks of movies because they're supposedly as close to film as you can get digitally. We love to see film grain in our old movies! But whenever a film is digitally restored, they remove evey single blemish from the print. That's just not a realistic digital recreation of a film. You would never see the movie on film and have it be so perfect.

I'm not saying restorers shouldn't remove *any* blemishes; it's still important to clean up these old prints. But we should leave a few intact to celebrate the way the film actually looked in theaters, not clean everything up just because we can.

Been thinking about the directors that have impacted cinema the most and have influenced the most filmmakers that have followed them and why. These are the directors that I thought of, so far.

Akira Kurosawa - mainly Seven Samurai, which formed and perfected the template in how you execute an ensemble film

Alfred Hitchcock - Template for the thriller and how to structure it in terms of pacing. You can see the huge influence he had on Chris Nolan.

Stanley Kubrick - Mainly 2001: A Space Odyssey (a film i don't like). The use of cutting edge special effects and the first truly dynamic and well-made science-fiction film, which influenced every director going into that genre

Ridley Scott - Lighting and how to use it to effectively depict a world. Mainly Blade Runner which i think is the film that has the best lighting in any film. Pretty much every film that does a world in the future uses his aesthetic and lighting technique.

Any directors I am missing, feel free to add.

Giancarlo Esposito has become so associated with calm and intimidating authority figures that I almost expect him to be the antagonist whenever he appears.

In By Any Means he’s playing Vernon Dahmer instead. Dahmer was a real civil rights leader in Mississippi who helped Black residents register to vote and was murdered after the KKK attacked his home in 1966.

It feels like a much different use of Esposito than Gus Fring, Stan Edgar or Moff Gideon. I want to know whether roles like this will remind people how much range he actually has beyond the controlled villain characters he’s become known for.

What do you guys think of the casting?

What threw me off this film was the dialogue. I greatly feel that the film could have been improved with a more natural sounding script instead of the one-dimensional and unnatural conversations that they have. Don’t get me wrong, Sean's speech on love and how will was just a child was touching, but the film could have hinged itself on its subtext instead of having the characters emphasize what was already established through the subtext itself. Having Sean explain Will's habit of pushing people away before people could push him told me that the writers couldn’t trust the viewers to understand the message themselves. Moreover, when displaying Will's intellect, some of the scenes felt straight out of a Marvel film where the main character is offensively praised and glamorized (like the opening scene where he fends off the hecklers).

​Which is also what leads me to be unsatisfied about Will's revelation at the end and his closure with Sean. Will was finally seen as a person rather than a patient to be diagnosed, and found some solace in his trauma. But it felt contrived, sort of over-the-top and cheesy, a penultimate scene that every film contains to bring out a few tears.

​I can understand the praise surrounding good will hunting but it felt formulaic and too easy to understand. I like There Will Be Blood, due to its slow build up of daniels character and the uncertainty in whether to praise or condemn him. From the beginning of the film, it was quite obvious that Will's character arc was going to be one of overcoming an obstacle and reaching closure. And I'm not the biggest fan of clichés that are further bolstered by overused film tropes.

​

Hello, I’m looking for feedback on my debut feature film. It’s a found footage horror film about a woman trapped in a liminal room where she regresses into an animal. Would love feedback on the formal choices, acting, writing, pacing, escalation, reversals, etc. I welcome brutal and confrontational reviews, please just try and engage with the work.

Screenplay

Animal Trap Found Footage Horror Film

I run a movie club in my group of friends, and we just watched THE GODFATHER (1972) as our latest installment. It was my first time ever watching it... I thought it was a good/great movie, but won't lie it definitely fell short of the "transformative, one of the best movies of all time" it is usually regarded as.

In doing some research, I think I understand why it was regarded as such when it released. So... I am looking for examples of films that came before THE GODFATHER (1972) that I can compare it to? What is an example of a highly regarded gangster/mafia/crime movie that came out before 1972?

Note: It has spoilers. This post is for discussion on IMAGES (1972); if you intend to watch (I 'fiercely' recommended) probably come back later & make this discussion enriching. Additionally, I've not used AI to write /refine this, so please pardon grammatical errors!

So, I'm on a horror movie spree! & This is the 3rd one I've watched! (Shining, Posession & this one).

Just finished watching Images (1972)! Oh! What an amazing movie! It's a sort of movie which sustains a contortion in your stomach all through. You just get an eerie vibe. It's like something wrong is happening or you even start feeling a little dizzy because of the fractured sense of perception. At some points it's like WTF IS HAPPENING? The protagonist's (the main lady's) countenance is super amazing all through. Her perplexed expressions & the ever-changing face (adapting) stirs multiple emotions & she is able to convey the fractured sense of perception which she is feeling. Also, the director quite beautifully dropped the cue towards the end- when the imagined lover's kid said that she'd conjure up (wholly a mental construct) a friend if she felt lonely. I believe the protagonist lady did exactly the same thing. It also was indicative of her troubled childhood. She is the striking example of how fucked up things can get. It's like towards the end you simply can't discern satisfactorily as to what really transpired & what was figment of her imagination except the fact that her partner was dead. Also, the scenic beauty of the location where the film was shot was simply breathtaking. It unknowingly renders a sense of contrast to the central theme of the film (Super tensed).

Also, may god bless each one of us with a partner like hers. If you're an atheist, then I'd say I wish the universe gives us an opportunity to experience this sort of companionship. He was so tolerant to such an imprudent & super unstable partner.

Superb. Thanks to the individual who suggested this to me in one of my recommendation solicitation post! I'd be watching other movies too. HONESTLY, No AI search gave me this gem. AI simply can't replace reddit!

What's your take on the movie?

Relevant quotes:

​"Art is prayer—it speaks for itself. In my view, art has always been a weapon in humanity's struggle against the forces that threaten to devour our spirit."

"Art doesn’t think logically, or formulate a logic of behavior; it expresses its own postulate of faith."

​"An artist who has no faith is like a painter who was born blind."​

"Faith is the only thing that can save man. This is my deepest conviction. The essential purpose of man is to seek truth through the pursuit of spirituality. By spirituality, I mean a person's search for the meaning of life."

​"The aim of art is to prepare a person for death, to plough and harrow his soul, rendering it capable of turning to good."

​​"Art is born and takes hold wherever there is a timeless and insatiable longing for the spiritual."

​"The goal for all art... is to explain to the artist himself and to those around him what man lives for, what is the meaning of his existence."

​​"Art must carry man's craving for the ideal, must be an expression of his reaching out towards it; art must give man hope and faith."

​"The artist is always a servant, and is perpetually trying to pay for the gift that has been given to him as if by miracle. Modern man, however, does not want to make any sacrifice, even though true affirmation of self can only be expressed in sacrifice."

​"For the sake of creating a spiritual bond with others [art] can only be an agonising process, one that involves no practical gain: ultimately it is an act of sacrifice."

​"The profound lack of spirituality of those people who see art and condemn it... is like the utterance of a man born blind who is being told about a rainbow. He simply remains deaf to the pain undergone by the artist in order to share with others the truth he has reached."

"Modern mass culture, aimed at the ‘consumer’, the civilization of prosthetics, is crippling people’s souls, setting up barriers between man and the crucial questions of existence, his consciousness of himself as a spiritual being. But the artist cannot be deaf to the call of truth: it alone defines his creative will, organizes it, thus enabling him to pass on his faith to others."

"Art has an important function when it comes to solving the spiritual crisis in today's world. There must be something that stimulates the spiritual progression and develop humanity's own self, something that makes her strive for humanity and individuality. What I myself do in art is based on my belief in the dignity of mankind and of the value of the people that my films are meant for, as well as the value that the maker of them should possess."

He is an old school mafioso, how could he decide to just turn rat?

Even if Micheal betrayed him, he is a full, albeit small, NY boss. He had mob options available to him. And who wouldnt want to take down the Corleones? Why go to the police?

And just seeing his brothers face brought back his honor?

Did you think of this as weak writing? Or am I missing some lore?

Here is my list of 2026 horror movies I saw so far, from best to worst. Has some spoilers:

Obsession - it’s been discussed so much that I don’t have anything very original to say. When I first saw it, I thought it was good and very entertaining, with some great horror elements (for me, Nikki’s behavior was the main source of horror). But then, I talked about this movie so much after watching it, because everyone has an opinion, and that gives it a lasting value.

Really everything about it works, it is smart in how it approaches the character of Bear exactly because he is not some extraordinarily horrible person and people’s opinions can vary in the amount of blame they assign to him. I think very few people, or almost no one, actually missed anything, but between the takes where he is a horrible person who should be blamed every step along the way, and a normal person whose worse instincts surfaced in an extraordinary situation, there’s a lot that can be discussed, and that’s what keeps people talking and keeps the movie relevant. (8.5/10)

Back Rooms - less perfect than Obsession but almost as good, in some ways even better. It just operates on a completely different level of horror. Here the story and characters are less important, though they're there, so the fact that on paper it wasn’t the greatest story doesn’t take from the whole level of existence it puts you in. I really felt, this is reality, this world is backrooms. Memories of memories, aesthetics without meaning, alien familiarity. It is a very original movie, and manages to say a lot about the world through its concept.

Of course, it is a movie, so it needed a plot and I think it did an adequate job of creating one that didn’t take away from the experience of it all, and even connected to the larger point. Nothing particularly bothered me, it just was nothing special, and at the same time I didn’t need it to be because events and people are just a backdrop to the space it all takes place in. That is pretty special. (8/10)

Buffet Infinity - considerably less good than the other two, and goes on for a bit too long, but I enjoyed it a lot. It had some excellent moments, the idea is simple and reminds me of some shit you think of with your friends and then develop into something borderline existential. The humor is pretty dumb, but in the bigger context that works and becomes part of the appeal, mostly it just feels like being stuck in the mind of someone enthusiastic about the idea they have (like shit I’d think of at the age of 14, the retro style helps recreate it too), and what we got is as far as that idea goes but I’m glad it got made. (7/10)

28 Years Later: The Bone Temple - obviously a better movie than Buffet Infinity but for me, lesser horror. IT was good but I didn’t like it as much as I liked 28 Years Later part 1, which was a trippy horror fantasy. This was more grounded to a place and characters, and was less interesting. It had less zombies, but the bit about bringing that alpha back to a human mentality was not bad. Jimmies were ok, at least the main one was, but dominated over exploring the different elements and horrors of the world. Ok movie but nowhere near my top zombie movies, whereas the previous one gets a solid 4th place. I never cared about the original Days either, I think this one is better, so there’s that. (6.5 / 10)

Send Help - It’s a fun movie, not much of a horror, I agree with people who point to similarities with Triangle of Sadness though whatever, I didn’t think about it at all after but it’s not a boring watch. I think the most impressive element of it was making Rachel McAdams look a bit repulsive at first without any special effects, the tuna sandwich bit was hard to watch. (6 / 10)

Exit 8 - I really don’t know how to rate this movie, because if I didn’t play the game I would probably give it like 7 - 7.5 and put it there with the Buffet Infinity for the great idea. But I did play the game, I love the game, and I know that the best part about this movie is a very exact recreation of the game. I mean, everything that’s really original and interesting is basically the game itself and the movie is a walk through where you watch it played by a moron, because, despite understanding the rules, he’ll stop when facing the most obvious of anomalies and wait for something to happen. Aside from that the backstory idea is average, it works but it doesn’t add anything special for me, the part with the kid was not kind of messy after the flood the guy waited for to happen. Yeah it’s a fantastic concept, but just play the game to experience it. There’s also another game in the train which is pretty good too. (6/10)

Undertone - It’s not a great movie, nothing happens, the songs in reverse and the folklore element is not very original but it was kind of effective though it didn’t go anywhere interesting. I still didn’t hate it, I don’t know why I think just the lead character and that slightly claustrophobic setup with her mom came across as unusually realistic and convincing. It could have been much better if anyone bothered to do anything more with the story. (5.5 /10)

Hokum - I don’t really get the hype about this movie. It is obviously nicely made, it looks good, good acting, conversations are well written and all. But the story is just so incredibly unremarkable that the fact that it’s objectively a better movie than many of the others on this list only enhances my disappointment. I can appreciate a shitty production that had some things going for it, but this is a clearly competently made movie that has nothing in terms of the story. I mean it has a story, it’s just a really bad story. Not because of any plot holes or bad execution, just because there’s nothing that makes it good, I legitimately don’t understand finding that a sufficient enough basis to make a “real” movie about, without trying to think of anything better. (5.5 / 10 but I want to give it a 2)

Dolly - kind of like American Gothic, a little bit of Barbarian. Some funny slasher scenes, the main villain is pretty successfully gross as a beefy doll face thing stuck in some inane childhood fantasy. It doesn’t get too far with creating a compelling psychological story, but maybe that’s ok because realistically that would be too ambitious and probably just be cliche. Has some gross moments, artsy style, nothing really too original and the story is very simple (the one “twist” is instantly predictable). I think that if you want to have a pretty superficial but fun slasher, they were onto something with the villain (though like i said, borrowed a lot from other movies), but then you need the twists to make it interesting, and this was too straight-forward. I would make it so that the girl selfishly leaves the mutilated boyfriend behind while he begs her to come back and help him, because she doesn’t want to risk it. It would be better than the guy sacrificing himself for her and finding his way through the woods with his jaw hanging just to help her, just to have her neatly survive in the end. It really needed some edge. (5.5 / 10)

The Bride - I had a longer review of this and my point is that the movie perfectly depicts what it feels like to be stuck with a drunk and annoying person until she finally passes out and shuts up. So from that point of view, there actually is some horror in this, because it’s a nightmarish experience. But the movie is not self aware and unfortunately the line between very annoying and complete horror is in this case thinner than it seems. (5 /10)

Passenger - not really interesting, bland story, very annoying main characters who don’t even die in the end. I guess the broad concept, or not even the concept, just the setting, could lead to a better story if it was completely different but it’s not. Maybe the nicest thing i can say is that it’s not pretentious. (5/10)

Saccharine - I liked the style of this movie, and it has some really grotesque moments, but the story really brings it down. I’m not even sure how to rank it. It’s just bizarre because it seems to constantly change the underlying mechanisms and pull in different directions, but not in interesting ways that catch you by surprise but in a way where it makes no sense. First, the issue is that the fat girl starts consistently losing weight by eating the dead woman’s ashes. But then also, the ghost of the dead woman makes her obsessively eat, though it doesn’t really matter since she is still losing weight. Then the issue is actually a pancreatic cancer she shares with the dead woman, so she needs to remove that for her to leave her alone, it’s not about the ashes anymore. Then she does that in the dumbest way possible, but that’s also irrelevant because she still ends up eating her girlfriend, which was what you instantly think would happen the moment she came to her house but should have happened before the whole random pancreatic tumor storyline.

I don’t think the movie even knew what it wanted to say, it’s as if 5 different people wrote their takes on the main idea, and then someone tried to pull all the takes into one movie but without any effort to connect them into a coherent story. (5/10)

The Mummy - I mean it is a ridiculous story to the point where it’s a comedy, probably every review of this movie points out the incredible stupidity of everyone involved, but it also feels like such a classic 00’s horror movie, something that 20 years ago or so would pass as good because no one expects it to have a decent story. It has some moments, but the happy ending really brought it down for me, that was too much. If you’re going to do a really dumb movie that serves as a vessel for some cheesy horror scenes, at least end it brutally. (5 / 10)

Marama - Technically a thoughtful story. Some really good elements. Decent acting. Cool gothic vibe. Deeper themes. Just very very very very very boring. I don’t know, a big part of me genuinely believes it deserves to be at least one point above the rest of these 5/10 movies, because it’s hard to explain why it’s not, but it’s not. (5/10)

Faces Of Death - This one is just annoying as fuck, thinking it has clever meta comentary (“we’re using the name of a cult classic to get noticed but it’s cool because we’re self-referential about it”) while having nothing to say. It’s one thing that the story is pretty insipid, the fact that the movie considered itself relevant and clever made it even stupider.

The lead actress was hard to watch, at least here I could believe why no one wants to believe the word she’s saying if for no other reason simply to annoy her. She is good at coming across as a reddit mod though. The biggest shame is that the plot based around someone who works for youtube and basically has to decide what gets censored could have been a good setup for a movie that wanted to make any attempt to tell a good story. There’s a better movie based around this concept, Censor, so if you like the idea but don’t want to watch total trash that congratulates itself on being trash, then that’s a good alternative. (4/10)

I still plan to watch Evil Dead Burn and the Camp one that just came out. Is there anything else that’s good that I missed? I’m trying to avoid total crap, but only semi-successfully.

Edit: typos, like making some movies/5 instead of /10

Question, What went wrong with Judge Dredd (1995)?

I watched the 1995 Judge Dredd and I don’t care what critics say. I love the film. Everything Is so over the top and I just love the set and productions designs and the visual effects. Stallone also, in my opinion, gives a good performance as Judge Dredd.

However, just reading the behind the scenes stories, The Production was a mess. Although I like Stallone as Dredd, I don’t think he really understood the character and probably didn’t understand the satirical nature of Dredd. The Director, Danny Cannon, apparently had a grand vision for the film, wanting it to be the “Ben-Hur of Comic Books” while also being more darker and satirical, while Stallone wanted an Action Comedy and generally, Stallone won out in the end.

Although I love Judge Dredd, I think Stallone didn’t understand the nature of the source material. He should’ve watched RoboCop to get a better understanding of the character. I also think because Stallone and the director clashed on the vision, they couldn’t come to terms with what story they wanted to do.

So, What do you think went wrong with the film?

Why are people so obsessed with obsession? Maybe the director used a one wish willow for that. Haha.

Anyways, going to the theatre with such hype all around and a global box office success, this was one of the most unsatisfactory watches in a long time. The movie wasn't absolutely bad. It was a decent movie. But something didn't satisfy. Just got out of the theatre and still trying to organize the reasons for that. One I can quickly think or feel is the movie was rushed at some points and dragging at some points. Not consistent at all. Anyways, am I the only one who feels this way?

May be a little late to post about Obsession as it is almost completing its theatrical run.