r/TrueFilm

This is a very niche question, but given that this is a more niche subreddit I wanted to see if anyone has experience, advice, or just general information around working with theaters on private showings as a film enthusiast.

For context, my wife is big into old-school horror (Romero/Lloyd Kaufman/anything John Carpenter, anything with remotely similar vibes). She's also into lost films, the Muppets, and generally anything in an equally eclectic range.

She has expressed interest in running screening series where she can find fun intersectionalities (i.e. "women in horror who love big hairy monsters" and it's all just bigfoot horror with female directors, as a hypothetical) and also just share that interest of weird old movies with people who might also be interested.

I want to help her work with local theaters to potentially make this happen, and I work in financial risk management so I'm generally pretty good at talking to people and having my shit together. However, I (presumably) cannot merely acquire a 35mm copy of Who Framed Roger Rabbit, rent out a theater with a 35mm projector, and go nuts with my wife and 30 other people before we follow it up with a showing of The Descent.

TL;DR: Does anyone here with experience actually screening movies have a short list of important things I need to know before I ask a local theater owner if my wife and I can show weird movies to other people on a regular basis and talk about them in their theater?

To be clear, because my wife told me I should say so, it's important to note that these films are films that have been shown in theaters before and aren't (that) weird or (at all) pornographic.

Ms .45. This movie demands your attention and it’s very in your face. It’s about a woman who is sexually assaulted horribly, curses the existence of all men so she buys a colt 45 and starts killing them randomly. I was recommended it to me because I said I love Mandy. I get the recommendation because revenge but these are totally different movies.

The feel is gritty New York if you like the Warriors and the Night of the Juggler this movie is for you.

I have to warn you the sexual assault is brutal. It is plural as well.

This is a movie that you can’t just have on in the background. If someone walked in while you were watching it they would ask you “what the fuck”.

This movie is like Joker for women.

This is the kind of movie that I was apprehensive about recommending to you guys but it’s too unique for you to miss.

I really have to warn you before your viewing, the sexual assault is rough. It’s a serious film where you will feel different after watching it.

It is a horror thriller drama there is no comedy here.

It is about a persons reaction to violent sexual assault but it’s more tasteful than other movies tackling the subject. I can’t blame her. This is the world women are forced to live in, being treated like creatures. Oggled over and degraded. She gets her revenge for living in our society. The movie is the reaction to that trauma.

-I recently watched this movie for the first time and then read reviews from when it was released. I can't believe the disrespect it got from critics, but I'm guessing because it came out at around the same time as a lot of brainless slasher and creature features, this was a case of being genre-film ghetto-ized.

That's a shame because THE BROOD has some actual substance. True, it features killer dwarves and body horror straight out of ALIEN (1979), but there's also larger themes like divorce and all of the ugliness that can create (literally, in reference to the aforementioned killer dwarves).

-One of the main criticisms I read about the film was the supposedly ugly nature of the violence. It's true that for the most part, these scenes go on long enough that they seem to be happening in real time, which might add a certain verisimilitude some viewers would find disturbing. At the same time, however, perhaps Cronenberg wanted them this way so we'd have no choice but to take them seriously.

This is strictly armchair psychology on my part, but my understanding is that the inspiration for THE BROOD was Cronenberg's own difficult divorce around the time of FAST COMPANY (1979). Doubtless, that period in his life was one of great mental and emotional stress, so perhaps the violent scenes in THE BROOD represented the director projecting his own feelings about how the divorce process left him bloody and broken (figuratively).

-Even in hindsight, I find the character of Nola, the maternal figure played by Samantha Eggar, endlessly fascinating from a psychological standpoint. What does it say that in her rage, she manifests creatures who resemble cracked-mirror versions of her own daughter Candice? What does it say that the "brood"-lings don't appear not to have capacity to love anyone back, including Nola, yet she seems to care more for them than for Candice?

Also, if the "brood"-lings are born of rage, why don't any of them ever resemble Nola's own parents, whom she has legitimate beef with? If the creatures are meant to be the objects of her visualized anger, why is her anger so acutely directed at her own kid?

-Having now watched SHIVERS, RABID, and THE BROOD, I've enjoyed seeing the evolution of the "evil scientist" character. In Cronenberg's earlier two movies, they were either entirely devoid of personality or seemingly oblivious to the consequences of their actions, but Oliver Reed's Dr. Raglan is noticeably different. He may start out in the film as an amoral figure, but he seemingly has that elusive moment of conscience before the end.

-The strong technical aspects of Cronenberg's movies continued with Mark Irwin serving as his cinematographer for the second time. There are scenes involving the brood-lings invading a kitchen as well as a classroom that yield genuinely disturbing moments, in no small part because these spaces as photographed (and through production design too, I'm sure) felt either clean and downright antiseptic, or warm and inviting. This makes the inevitable clash with the presence of the chaotic brood-lings all the more powerful.

-Overall, I appreciated that the movie was trying to say something about not just divorce, but generational trauma; specifically, that those who are victims of it are in danger of perpetrating it on their own children. Exactly how to prevent such a vicious cycle from perpetuating is something I didn't glean THE BROOD, but perhaps there no easy answers. Maybe the best way forward is to just be aware it's a thing.

Next up to watch: SCANNERS (1981).

First post here, hope this is allowed!

I’m putting together a university seminar on representations of therapy and therapeutic culture in American literature and film, and I've noticed a striking pattern: almost all the films where therapy is genuinely central are directed by men (think Forman’s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Van Sant’s Good Will Hunting, Baumbach’s The Squid and the Whale, Ramis’s Analyze This).

 I’m looking for films by female (or non-binary) directors where therapy, therapists, or psychiatric institutions are not just part of the backdrop but the actual subject, that is films that interrogate what therapy does, who it’s for, and what kind of norms or subjectivities it produces.

 To be clear about the distinction I’m drawing: a film where a character happens to see a therapist doesn’t necessarily qualify. Nicole Holofcener’s Walking and Talking (1996), for instance, is a film I like a lot, but therapy is part of the urban middle-class milieu rather than the central subject. I’m looking for something where the therapeutic relationship, the institution, or the cultural logic of therapy is what the film is really about.

 Any suggestions, including documentaries, international films, or lesser-known titles, very welcome. The gap itself might be the point, but I’d love to be proven wrong.

I realized the movies I end up loving most are usually the ones I discovered from random Reddit threads where people were passionately arguing why a movie changed them emotionally or completely messed with their expectations.

I’ve actually started keeping track of recommendations because I got tired of forgetting the movies people swore were masterpieces and then randomly remembering them months later.

A few movies that completely lived up to the hype for me were Prisoners, Parasite, Interstellar, Her, and Memories of Murder.

I wonder what's everyone’s personal favorites. What’s the movie you’ve recommended so many times that you could probably explain the entire plot from memory at this point?

I just got out of my showing of Obsession. It was a great film, but it felt oddly like a film I had seen already. I figured out this is because it reminds me so much of the story structure and premise of Talk to Me (2022) while somehow feeling less profound and "smart" with its concept.

I'm curious if others picked up on the similiarities between the two films:

• Both films introduce us to a supernatural object or product that is a viral sensation in the film's world

• The main character interacts with this supernatural object to get something they want:

in Obsession the main character wants to get the girl he likes to love him. in Talk to Me, the main character wants to speak to her recently passed mother again.

of course, both of these wishes come with a catch and side effects.

• Both of the main characters start to regret their choice + circumstance, but each of them routinely switch back and forth between resisting + giving into their temptation that this object is providing to them.

• Both main characters become addicted to getting what they wanted, brushing off their friends' concerns and falling further into a delusion that they could somehow make their circumstance fit into their lives despite the repeated red flags and disturbing happenings.

• Both characters confide in the original source of where they got the object from and aren't given help.

• Both of the characters' choices essentially sacrifice someone close to them and replaces them with some otherworldly demon or spirit.

• Both of the sacrificed / possessed / replaced characters are implied to have been sent to somewhere else. Talk to Me visually shows us some kind of hellish place where the friend's little brother is being held hostage, while in Obsession we hear what seems to be the real Nikki suffering on the phone.

• In both films a proposed solution to break this scenario is to kill the person possessed.

• Both films have the main character die at the end for the person originally taken control of to be freed.

• Both films seem to also converge paths on meditating on loss and filling a void (with something unhealthy and detrimental to people around you) despite their main diffrentiator being a romantic versus familial void.

These are the similarities I noticed, I'd be very curious to see if those involved with Obsession took some inspiration from Talk to Me. I enjoyed both films but I found almost everything about Obsession predictable, maybe because so much of its story beats and structure feel like something familiar, since it feels like Talk to Me did a lot of first (and I'd argue better)

This isn't to say that the social commentary that's there in Obsession doesn't land, I just felt Talk to Me took bigger swings and hits harder emotionally with its concept in ways that surprised me and felt unexpected.

Man, so many positive things I could say about this film. The acting. The visual display that is in front of you. The colours. The way Linus shows you his complete naked body to the viewer. . Let me catch my breath. I love this film. Cage is an exciting actor. Anything he is in you are enticed because Cage.

The moment when the camera fades to Jeremiah and Mandy’s face. Melts like volcano lava into the picture.it’s really peak

The movie switches from a drug induced romance, to horror to straight up what the fuck am I watching. Peak cinema, the kind that makes you feel emotion.

My favorite moment is the importance of the number 44. When you notice you realize.

It’s a romantic horror film. The best kind. Some people might say it’s slow but okay art is subjective. But man the awesomness of Mandy is real.

Also you can buy the 44 shirt and tiger shirt. I own both

I generally try to go into movies blind so after a screening of Obsession and some time to think on it I decided to check out some reviews and general discussions on the movie in the larger subreddits. I was surprised to see the overwhelming praise for this film! Not "8/10 it was God time" but "best movie I've seen in years", "11/10!" kind of reactions. So I guess I wanted a discussion about it without being buried in downvotes for not completely loving it.

* The Good

Inde Navarrette. A great performance that really dives into the roll even with some of the nonsense thrown at her. This film would have fallen flat on its face if it wasn't for her going 110%.

It is shot and paced pretty well. While it has the modern cinema look of desaturated colours while in Bear's place, it can be forgiven since maybe 1/4 of the movie takes place there. Pacing didn't drag which is important for a horror film, and thankfully is under 2 hours!

* The Not So Good

The plotting. So much happens in this movie because people act like aliens instead of real people. Noone talks to each other or reacts like any sane person would in these situations and it's all so that the madness of the movie can continue on at the cost of believability

* The Ugly

Cheap horror movie tricks. It seems to me that the filmmakers did not have total conviction to their premise. This film is full of modern horror cliches that are not needed at all. Creepy girl standing in the shadows, walking backwards, spider walking, jittery movement, jump scare gore, long shot of creepy smiles. Cheap. Cheap. Cheap.

You have a premise that is terrifying enough (sadly know all too well). Be sincere about what you are doing with it! The end result is a cartoon. Nikki's madness escalates too quickly. She is immediately so off that even going into this movie blind you know exactly how it's going to end up when she goes from 0 to 80mph on night one, leaving you with over an hour of movie time for the last 20mph. It's horror, build it up slowly and then let us have it.

/tldr: It's Blumhouse, not high art.

I'm a big Arnie fan but wow this movie is TERRIBLE.

The dialogue is awful both in content as well as delivery. The fight scene acting is very weak and has no immersion. The combat scenes have 0 realism. Matrix is not even taking cover but somehow a barrage of thousand bullets don't hit him.

The villain is wearing a weird ridiculous outfit for no reason. The girl who helps Arnie doesn't seem to have a brain because nobody in the right mind would fire a RPG at a police vehicle.

There is NOTHING at all good about this movie man.

Hi everyone,

I’m currently working on a personalized movie rating app, and I’m rethinking how films should be evaluated depending on their genre.

The question I’m exploring is whether different genres should be judged with different priorities.

For example, a horror film might rely more heavily on atmosphere, tension, sound design, or imagery, while a documentary might depend more on perspective, clarity, access, impact, or the way it frames its subject. A comedy might be judged more on rhythm, timing, character dynamics, or rewatchability.

Of course, every film still needs fundamentals like writing, direction, sound, and visual language. But I’m interested in whether some criteria should matter more or less depending on the type of film.

If you have a genre you know particularly well, I’d be curious to hear:

1. What do you think matters most when evaluating that genre?

2. What does that genre need to do differently from others?

3. Are there criteria that are often overrated or underrated for that genre?

4. Can a film in that genre be great even if it fails at something usually considered important?

5. What examples best represent your view?

I’m not trying to define a universal system. I’m more interested in understanding how people who know a genre deeply actually evaluate it.

After watching The Banshees of Inisherin, I kept wondering which of the two was actually right.

At some point, a quote by Natsume Sōseki came to mind:
“Tragedy is greater than comedy.”

People only straighten their posture when faced with death.
Only then can they become truly serious.

Rejecting someone, cutting off your own fingers and throwing them at the other person, even the audience trying to analyze which side is right — all of it felt like nothing more than people performing a comedy.

What happens in this film is something completely ordinary for human beings.

The reason it feels insane is because we ourselves are living inside the comedy.

That’s why I thought it was such an incredible film.

In the end, the two men descend into attempted murder and both survive.
And I felt that, only then, for the first time, they were finally able to truly face each other.

Frank has no healthy blueprint for love or partnership, so he studies romance through a movie star he watches on a screen, a man who is physically “off” (one leg shorter than the other) and yet framed as desirable and adored. That’s the closest he ever gets to seeing a body as “wrong” as his welcomed instead of rejected.

What devastates me is that Ronnie only ever exists for Frank as a fantasy. In Frank’s head, Ronnie is proof that a broken body can be loved. In reality, when they finally meet, Ronnie treats him like dirt: laughs at him, talks down to him, recoils as if Frank is too filthy and deformed to be allowed in the same space.
You can see Frank go through the five stages of grief in seconds lol 😂 . He could have easily pulverized Ronnie’s head the way he crushed those men’s skull outside the club, but he doesn’t. Instead, he dances. He retreats into the only language they “share”: the choreography and elegance he memorized by watching Ronnie on screen.

Seen that way, his lie to the Bride makes more sense, even if it’s **still inexcusable**. He’s not drawing from any lived experience of reciprocal love. The best “relationship scripts” he has are all about control, staging, and keeping the other person trapped inside his fantasy. Lying becomes a way to hold onto the movie in his head. what makes it so brutal when he finally owns the lie, calls himself a “black hole,” a “monster,” and the Bride answers, “so am I”, two people admitting they’re dangerous to others as well as to each other.

That’s very close to what Mary Shelley does with the creature in the original novel. The creature is right that Victor Frankenstein wronged him, created him, abandoned him, denied him any model of kindness or belonging. But in the end, he tearfully admits that this doesn’t excuse the innocent people he killed or the way he wasted his own free will on revenge. He owns the fact that his pain is real and that the way he responded to it made everything worse.
Frank feels like a modern version of that. He is treated monstrously, and he really has been given almost no healthy tools for love. But the movie still shows that the patterns he clings to(idealizing Ronnie, lying to the Bride) are his, and they hurt the one person he actually doesn’t want to “obliterate.” That’s what makes his late self awareness so devastating (him owning the lie and saying “I am a black hole, a monster”): by the time he starts to own his monstrosity and loosen his grip, it’s already too late. He’s destroyed.

Male genitalia in mainstream films honestly raises questions for me. Off Campus is a good example.

Going into the serie, I knew it was rated 16+, so I expected sexual scenes. And that’s fine with me. But to me, that kind of rating doesn’t mean I’m going to see explicit genitalia.

There’s still a real difference between showing a sex scene and actually showing genitals. That line matters. A bare torso, even if it’s sexualized, is not the same as showing a sex organ. The moment you see a penis on screen, it shifts into something much more explicit.

What bothers me isn’t just that it appears, it’s also the feeling that it’s becoming more and more normalized. Like the boundary is slowly moving without really being questioned.

And for me, the solution isn’t to balance things out by showing vulvas too. If anything, I think neither belongs in mainstream films, even with a 16+ rating. That kind of content fits a different context, where the viewer knows exactly what they’re getting into.

That’s basically what pornography is for. There’s a kind of contract there. In regular films, it’s not the same.

So the issue isn’t that a film has some erotic elements, it’s that this line gets crossed without being clearly signaled.

Am I the only one who feels like this is a real disconnect?

ETA : thanks for all the "puritanism" accusations lol. i like fan service, well served, just not porn. don't want to see anyone's anus, vagina or penis in a film not porn rated ... and in almost every culture people cover between the legs so. i'm just thinking about ratings doing their job. because perverts will always exist, everyone has their own boundaries, that's just logic. don't insult my intelligence 🤷🏾‍♀️

PS: yes this post is AI translated. I speak French and I'm not American, and also, I'm a, woman. Thank you. The world doesn't just contain America. If it bothers you that it sounds AI, sorry, but I didn't wanted to sound odd as I'm not a fluent speaker.

I let time pass after its release and actually forgot it was even made, even though I had been looking forward to it. A recent interview of her called it back to mind. I thought it was going to be a small, almost quaint, artistic film that had a personal aura about it. I was not prepared for the power of the emotion, the towering presence of a depressed, removed, pencil-cracking, angry main character (performance), and especially not ready for how absolutely inspired it was in terms of filmmaking itself. A Proustian, Sound-and-the-Fury, intensive exploration of memory and trauma. Usually I resist all sorts of flashback motifs and editing techniques, but this film completely invaded me with both emotion (as if it were my own memories) and sensation. Again and again I pulled into the familiar of what I have sensed in life, in the privacy of my own being. And the treatment of abuse and its after image...it dove so deep down into it. The closest thing I could think of was Aftersun (2022) which approached suicide and depression from an oblique angle of childhood and sensation. This began in that realm, but sent me so far into the maze of what makes a person, I was pretty taken aback that Kristen Stewart could make such a film. I think it must be watched on a big screen in a dark room, right up against all that sensation and affect. You have to be swallowed by it to really get what it is doing. You have to be drowning in it, jolted by the cuts, just as she was. Felt a little bit like getting into a theatrical car accident, in how it reverberates in me far beneath the cerebral, and even emotional layers. Very impressed upon.

Stephen King released the novel; Christine in April 1983.
Then Carpenter directs and releases the film adaptation in December the same year. Did King option out the novel it be made into a script, or did someone read it in April, write a screenplay in a week, then get production behind it, and release it in 7 months?!😅
I legitimately don’t understand how that works.

Also! What film adaptations close to the novel release are your favorites?!

There are very, very few people in film history who could be accurately described as visual effects auteurs.

Ray Harryhausen is undeniable a member of that small club, and I thought I'd start the first thread about him in a decade.

We talk about Jason and the Argonauts as a Ray Harryhausen movie, not a Don Chaffey movie... we look at Harryhausen's films as a body of work, with his stop-motion creatures (not the directors or actors or screenwriters) as the salient feature.

To me, the fascinating thing about Harryhausen is that he had a massive impact on film history (influencing Godzilla, inspiring George Lucas, Peter Jackson, Tim Burton, pretty much every vfx blockbuster director of the past 50 years) as the special effects artist on low budget b-movies that generally aren't particularly compelling when his creatures aren't onscreen.

There are some really good, entertaining movies in his filmography, but just as many where the creature battles are the only reason to watch.

In other words, Harryhausen has a pretty unique place in film history. His name is synonymous with stop-motion animation; his creatures still have a charm, a personality, a presence even if they're technically 'outdated' compared to CGI.

I had the joy of seeing him host a screening of The 7th Voyage of Sinbad a few years before his death; a signed copy of his memoir is still a prized possession of mine.

I know Harryhausen isn't the kind of filmmaker who generally gets discussed on r/truefilm, but I think he did have a pretty major impact & brought a virtuoso creativity to his films.

The battle between Earth Realm and Out World continues in Mortal Kombat 2 with more characters, more world building, more humor and of course more bloody goodness. Whereas the first Mortal Kombat back in 2021 served as a stepping stone into this film adaptation based on the iconic video game franchise the sequel clearly surpasses it and is honestly the superior film. It is entertaining as hell and offers so much more for the die hard fans. 

Karl Urban as Johnny Cage is nothing short of amazing, perfect casting for a character who plays a bitter old washed up action movie star who feels like his glory days have long passed, until destiny  gives him a new purpose by choosing him alongside many of the other Earth Realm champions to partake in Mortal Kombat in order to save earth from being conquered. 

Another actor who steals the show is Martyn Ford as Shao Kahn, a brutal, merciless, tyrant whose objective is to conquer earth and to be worshipped as a “God” while killing those who go against him. Kahn is intimidating and just an evil villain in the film overall. Excellent custom design and makeup Ford absolutely nailed playing this role. 

CJ Bloomfield as Baraka is scary as fuck at first but quickly shifts in his tone and personality (NO SPOILERS) but that fight sequence between him and Cage was over the top and hilarious and both of their chemistry on screen is comedic gold! Myself and my buddy Dylan hope to see Baraka in Mortal Kombat 3. 

Lastly, as far as characters go we have to mention Adeline Rudolph as Kitana, very mesmerizing and easy on the eyes during her scenes but also a kickass badass heroine she’s a treat on screen! There is more to Kitana in the beginning of the film but we would hate to spoil it if you’re an MK fan go see this for yourselves on the big screen. 

In regards to the fight choreography and fatalities they are completed with love and care paying tribute to the video games! They are twice as brutal, twice as creative and twice as emotional. A lot of notable characters meet their fate in Mortal Kombat 2! It’s just a rollercoaster of mixed emotions that spectators will endure but in a good way! It’s pure fun and it’s a video game adapted film sequel done 100% right! If you grew up with video games across many decades of gaming you know what to expect from this. However, if for some reason you’ve been living under a rock and don’t understand these movies then you’re not the target audience and that’s totally okay. 

The various set designs in Mortal Kombat 2 are best described as spectacular homages that are very much recognizable stages for you to choose where you wanted to fight in the games, the details of these locations where the design was also made with love and care, and would make fans both happy and nostalgic. It’s really great to see a fresh new start to Mortal Kombat on the big screen unlike its predecessors from the 90’s which were severely lacking and didn’t quite deliver the goods. Oh Did we forget to mention how horrid the VFX looked on Reptile in the original Mortal Kombat film? We rest our case. 

Myself and Dylan are looking forward to seeing what else can be accomplished in Mortal Kombat 3 and believe that the newly upgraded Mortal Kombat films have a rightful seat at the table, for one of the best video game movies of the current generation like Sonic, Mario, and potentially others.. Mortal Kombat 2 “Finishes” with an A.

One of the best horror movies of the generation, arguably only topped by the director's subsequent film "Weapons".

The competition it had that same year (2022):

Terrifier 2

Scream 5

Bones and All

Pearl

Nope

Scream No Evil

X

The Menu

Men

Smile

Deadstream

Fresh

Watcher

Prey

Bodies Bodies Bodies

....and it still wiped the floor with all of them. Financial success, UNIVERSAL acclaim from both critics and audiences, and now the director is the hottest new thing in town, releasing Weapons to amazing success and soon the new Resident Evil, and beyond. This director can literally do anything he wants right now. He's earned the good graces of everyone, critics and audiences alike. He's the Tarantino of horror, hot new director dropping two classics back to back and having everyone excited to see what he does next. That name Zach Cregger now puts butts in seats.

This year's Cannes film festival's jury president Park Chan Wook was once a film critic before his successful career as a director. Here I translated and going to introduce one of his reviews, John Frankenheimer's classic Seconds from his book Park Chan Wook's Homage.

A cursed classic. No words could better describe this film. The history of Seconds is literally a piece of drama. A best-seller novel bought by Kirk Douglas and adapted by Lewis John Carlino - one of the best playwrights in his era. After the initial plan of Laurence Olivier playing a dual role was rejected due to him being lack of marketability, Rock Hudson and Jack Randolph - who was out of show business since having been blacklisted in the era of McCarthyism - decided to play each roles. And it was completed by the works of the most promising director John Frankenheimer and the legendary cinematographer James Wong Howe. It was the only American film selected as In Competition section in Cannes Film Festival but had to retreat with boos from audience and critics. Domestic box office results were devastating as well.

(Spoiler Alert)

>!It brings me tears to watch Tony visiting Arthur's house to see the lady who was once his wife. She recalls her deceased husband with no pity, unaware that the man she is talking to has been missing since the surgery. You can see how deadly he wants to get his life back while watching Tony who introduces himself as a friend of Arthur, saying how much he has loved him. Here it seems to me that Hudson is revealing his homosexual lover, and it is much more tragic considering he was gay and eventually died of AIDS. And it is much more realistic to see when Tony confesses himself as Arthur to his neighbors after getting drunk since the actor had to hide his homosexuality and constantly lie to public. Hudson thought it was an opportunity to show his another character rather than playing an usual romantic role and naively expected to win an Oscar afterwards.!<

It was 1966 in the era of neo-avant-garde and hippie culture and this film is filled with experimental boldness, still hard to imagine today. It has undoubtedly never been made and will never be in this dark atmosphere. And most of all, I would like to give an applaud to Hudson's painful once-in-a-lifetime performance and put Seconds as one of my all-time top 10 movies without any hesitation.