All the bad reviews are big oil putting their grubby little hands in the mix. Viewers loved it or at the very least were entertained. Reviews out there not saying good things.
I thought it was phenomenal, and walked out absolutely stoked. Was surprised about how the critics responded. No conspiracy theorist, but something smells fishy.
Food for thought
Something that often comes up in Hollywood development rooms is what do Gen Z guys actually watch? Especially if they watch any action films. Do Gen Z guys actually watch any action films?? Thoughts? Any action movies that come to mind that they love??
Has that happened to anyone? If so, what was the movie, and what did it do for you? Any kind of film counts, no matter how big or small the effect.
Question, Do you wish Kubrick got to make Napoleon?
I've been on a Kubrick binge lately and I'm getting ready for when the Criterion Boxset of All Stanley Kubrick films comes out. Re-reading on Kubrick's failed attempt on making a Napoleon Bonaparte biopic, I feel it is a big mis-opportunity that Kubrick didn't make it.
It's clear that Kubrick really was trying to make his magnum opus with Napoleon and made sure to get all the details right. He also wanted to cast Jack Nicholson as Napoleon and Aubrey Hepburn as Josephine, and I think both of them are great castings and that Kubrick enlisted the entire Romanian Army to appear as soldiers and cavalrymen for the extensive battle scenes.
It just saddens me for when it all fell apart, thanks to Sergei Boundarchuk's Waterloo bombing and MGM cancelled the film and Kubrick went to make A Clockwork Orange. Kubrick's Napoleon has always been a bug "What If" for me and I just wondered how the film would've been received had Kubrick actually made the film?
All in All, Do you wish Kubrick got to make Napoleon?
Rating: 9.5/10
Watched: October 2, 2026
I have to confess, I was expecting a very different movie from the one I watched, and I'm not mad about it. Part of my preconceptions about Bullitt has a lot to do with the fact that the only thing I KNEW about this movie was about it's legendary car chase scene.
I promised myself I 'wasn't gonna be the guy' who talked about the car chase scene because everyone always talks about the car chase scene but you know what?
It absolutely deserves it. The clip I included was because of the specific shot of the bad guys seeing Bullitt's famous car appearing behind them in the rearview mirror. The slickness of that moment absolutely sold the scene to me in an instant. It was so very well done, and the resulting chase through the incredibly steep hills of San Francisco, sometimes narrowly missing a full-on crash, all the way out of the city is some of the most tense car driving I think I've ever seen. My stomach rose and fell as those rad old muscle cars went flying up and down those hills and you just have to give kudos to the drivers and the camera people because for some of the hairier shots, they were IN the damn cars.
So, going in knowing only that it has an exceptional chase scene led me to believe I was in for a kind of proto-Dirty Harry-esque kind of affair with plenty of violence, and that was a thing I was fully ready to accept.
But what I got was something I love even more than that: a rock solid police procedural with a bona fide mystery at the core and plenty of thoughtful, considerate work to solve the case. And what a case it is.
From the moment things started developing, I was certain I knew who was involved, why Bullitt's case was going sideways and how people were always seemingly one step ahead of him. I'm sure the director wanted us to think that and it worked like a charm, because it sure seemed like Bullitt was thinking along the same lines.
I can't say anything more than that about the movie's actual plot because to do so might affect your ability to enjoy it, so I'll leave this in closing;
Lt. Frank Bullitt's investigation into the murder of a gangster turning State's evidence and the attempted murder of police officers results in more than one exhilarating chase, a few shootouts, and the use of genuine police protocol to catch the real bad guy.
And that? That's a great combination!
When we discuss major American directors, the conversation almost always centers on their early indie breakthroughs or their massive, big-budget masterpieces. But I often find that a filmmaker’s most revealing work happens right in the middle when they have established their voice, secured decent budgets, but aren't yet locked into the massive pressure cooker of giant studio franchises.Think of that specific window where a director has total creative control over mid-budget, original projects before they scale up or step away.Which director’s mid-tier filmography do you think holds up better than their most famous works? I'm looking for films that don’t get the massive retrospective essays but show a master working at the absolute peak of their technical and thematic powers.
So lately, I was just taking a look back at the TV show Mystery Science Theater 3000 since I wanted to get a better understanding of how copyrights for then recent movies made during the early 90s worked since many of the older movies the show used were from the mid 50s to early 60s.
But again, I am a bit confused on how copyrights for movies made in the early 90s worked since the show was still fairly new back then as I found it interesting how many of the films the crew lampooned were really old movies that I don’t know if it was too costly or demanding to show more recent movies at that time regarding how licensing was handled.
So I’ve been really interested in the movie and a lot about it but my old teacher explained it as grotesque and disturbing. I’m not really into disturbing aspects in movies but I do wonder if it really is as gross as he said it was or if it’s just fine.