Last Seen Movie
- Thread starter JuanMena
- Start date
- Views 230,829
- Replies 1,489
- Likes 5
Guess Juan never said you couldn't talk about the name of porn titles you last seen.
The Evil Dead - With Evil Dead Burn being made available online on August 4, I figured it would be a good time to binge the franchise. My last binge was in October 2024, so not a long time has passed. But apparently, enough time has passed for me to watch the original and actually love it more! This might be my 4th overall viewing of the original Sam Raimi film. My only hang-up from the previous viewing was feeling the slowness of the film too much, especially when the 2nd act was transitioning into the 3rd. The movie didn't feel like a fast 85 minutes. I didn't have that gripe at all in this viewing! I think what helped me from feeling the slowness too much was the greater admiration for the craft on display. The cinematography in this film is incredible, especially considering the budget. So much variety in the cinematography, each choice a smart one. The editing was also very tight, the movie knew exactly when to jump at the viewer, when to slow down, when to turn up the heat. Fun fact, Joel Coen was the assistant editor. I don't know how much he contributed to this film, but the Coen Brothers were experts at pacing, and editing plays a big part in that. Beyond the editing and cinematography is the directing from Sam Raimi. How he tells this basic cabin-in-the-woods story from start to finish is so impressive. It felt like he wanted to do things differently, be as wild and as creative as possible. The movie's first major release was in 1981, but it was shot in 1979. That's important to note because this movie has strong 70s vibes. The chilling atmosphere screams the 70s. There's a torn-up poster of The Hills Have Eyes in the cabin cellar. A nice shout-out to Wes Craven, but now I think it indicates that Craven was an influence on Sam Raimi. Craven at that time was great at setting a creepy, unnerving atmosphere in his movies. As flawed as The Hills Have Eyes is, the atmosphere is unmistakable. Sam Raimi took that and added so much energy, a nice dash of comedy, and reckless abandon. I got wrapped up in all that.
Not to mention Bruce Campbell being an amazing scream king! He wasn't the goofy badass Ash Williams. He was the scared, slightly goofy Ashley Williams. His screams rival top-tier scream queens. Even though the guy wasn't a badass, it was still very easy to feel the toll he had taken for much of the movie. A true survivor. The stunts Bruce Campbell had to do also show a lot of strength and tenacity. Bruce Campbell was as game as Sam Raimi, which explains why they worked so beautifully together. Similar sensibilities as well, of course. Things I loved about the movie from the previous viewings still hold up. The practical effects, the stopmotion, the gore, the overall nastiness of the film, the haunting music, the effective use of smoke, the funny stuff, the cabin itself being a crucial character in the film, and even the other actors. None of them were as impactful as Bruce Campbell, but they all played their roles so well. Oh, and of course, the Fake Shemps! They were also fantastic. 2026 has seen me bump up certain movies after a rewatch. Face/Off and The Cat are two examples. The Evil Dead deserves the same treatment. I was so satisfied with the film that I actually debated whether watching Evil Dead II right after that was necessary. I wanted to sit with the movie for a while. After over an hour, I decided to watch Evil Dead II right away and not wait until tomorrow. I think that speaks volumes about the effect the original Evil Dead has on me now. Now I can't say Evil Dead 2 is obviously better, they're masterpieces for different reasons. Oh, I just spoiled a bit what I think of Evil Dead 2. Before I elaborate, let me rate this film. 10/10!
Evil Dead II - I was a little concerned going into this. After now embracing the first movie as a 10/10 film, I was unsure if Evil Dead II's firm hold on me would weaken. Also, a double feature of the two movies sounded good on paper, but the tones are so different. This is much more of a comedy than the first movie. Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi refer to the movie as "Splatstick." I was in the perfect mood to watch the first movie. Late at night with the lights off. Evil Dead 2 could be watched any time of the day, but after being put through the horror wringer with that film, the sequel might feel a little jarring. As it turned out, the concern was washed away almost immediately. Even though the sequel is more comedic, the energy and commitment are very much the same. A bigger budget allowed Sam Raimi to go for broke, like he did for The Evil Dead, but on a bigger scale. So Evil Dead II doesn't only feel like a change in tone, but an evolution of a filmmaker on full display. Also evolving was Bruce Campbell, who had a charming, timid presence in the first movie. Here, he evolved into a badass! The evolution takes place in the source of the film. He doesn't start the sequel as a badass. I think the film takes its time to justify its turn into comedy, without sacrificing the heavy impact Sam Raimi was able to leave from start to finish.
I think there has been debate over whether Evil Dead II is a sequel or a remake. It starts with a retelling of the first movie, which has significant differences. Only Ash and Linda head to the cabin in this retelling. According to Bruce Campbell, they didn't have the rights to the first film, so they couldn't use footage from that to recap the story. Apparently some people believe that the first 7 or so minutes isn't a retelling, but Ash going back to the cabin! That's silly, unless you believe that Ash has two girlfriends named "Linda." I always labeled Evil Dead II a sequel. Bruce Campbell even addressed this topic and said that if you simply start right at the demons of the forest reaching Ash, which is how the first movie ended, then you have a full-fledged sequel. Well, during this viewing, there were little things that kind of backed up the remake argument. The most notable one for me was Ash finding the shotgun. His reaction to it seemed like he had never seen or used it before. But he did in the first movie. But man, this is a silly topic to discuss. I still think it's a proper sequel.
Anyway, the movie didn't lose any of its luster. Evil Dead II is still a hilarious sequel with Bruce Campbell being more of a star. I'd say that Sam Raimi was the MVP of the first film. Here, Bruce Campbell is arguably the MVP. A big reason for that is the movie staying well above water when it was just Ash. He dominates the first half of the movie, as it takes a while for him to share the screen with other people. Once that happens, there's just no competition. Nearly everyone sucked compared to Ash. They were absolutely necessary for the plot and the film's body count. Their deaths and/or Deadite moments were tremendous, but the movie lived and died on Bruce Campbell. He carried it big time. Combine that with Sam Raimi's evolved state as a filmmaker, the maximum effort, energy, and creativity, and you have a towering classic in genre cinema. The pacing for this is better than the original film. It moves at a faster pace while still having the right amount of slow and explosive moments. The jump scares are so effective. Even after close to a half-dozen viewings, I still had to predict when things would jump. The special effects are even wilder, with a more ghostly animation added to the mix. Stopmotion makes its grand return in the form of Linda. What they do with her was crazy and funny. The stunt work was rough, but impressive. Sam Raimi really threw Bruce Campbell around.
I really have no complaints with this film. In this viewing, I can now spot strings being used to hold up Henrietta (Ted Raimi), but that didn't take me out of the movie. The volume is sometimes too low in this and the original film, which might be a sign that I need to watch either better Blu-ray rips or get 4K versions. None of these hurt the overall experience. Oh, I should shout out Ted Raimi and Sarah Berry. They were good in their respective roles, but Bruce Campbell was still the king. His one-liners were epic. Even after watching the movie multiple times, I still get pumped when he says "Groovy" and "Swallow this." I'm pretty sure Edgar Wright was inspired heavily by Sam Raimi, and the chainsaw hand prep scene had a quick editing style that Wright would trademark. Speaking of influences, I wonder if A Nightmare on Elm Street influenced Raimi. Famously, Freddy's glove appears a few times in Evil Dead 2. In this viewing, Ash getting a streak of white hair made me think of Nancy. The Evil Dead was playing on TV in A Nightmare on Elm Street, fun fact.
Even though the movie ends on a cliffhanger, justifying Army of Darkness, I think the film can stand alone. Army of Darkness is very different from its predecessors anyway. What I appreciate about Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy is that he strived to do things his way and not repeat himself. Between his 3 Evil Dead movies, there's really something for everyone, and it comes down to preference. As of now, I'm leaning a bit in favor of Evil Dead 2, just because it's so much fun. The Evil Dead is a bit more situational. In 2024, I watched that movie during the day. This time, it was late at night. I think that had some kind of impact. With Evil Dead II, it's great regardless of when you watch it. My desktop wallpaper is of Evil Dead II. I've had that since my last viewing of that film, so close to 2 years! I thought about changing it, but now after revisiting the film, I can't do that just yet! Evil Dead II is one of the best horror/comedies ever. I don't think much about ranking my favorite movies of all time. If I were to do that, Evil Dead II has to be on that list, specifically if I'm doing a Top 50, maybe 30! I'm sure in saying that this is my favorite Sam Raimi film. I don't think there has been a bad Evil Dead film, but relatively speaking, it's downhill from here. 10/10
Not to mention Bruce Campbell being an amazing scream king! He wasn't the goofy badass Ash Williams. He was the scared, slightly goofy Ashley Williams. His screams rival top-tier scream queens. Even though the guy wasn't a badass, it was still very easy to feel the toll he had taken for much of the movie. A true survivor. The stunts Bruce Campbell had to do also show a lot of strength and tenacity. Bruce Campbell was as game as Sam Raimi, which explains why they worked so beautifully together. Similar sensibilities as well, of course. Things I loved about the movie from the previous viewings still hold up. The practical effects, the stopmotion, the gore, the overall nastiness of the film, the haunting music, the effective use of smoke, the funny stuff, the cabin itself being a crucial character in the film, and even the other actors. None of them were as impactful as Bruce Campbell, but they all played their roles so well. Oh, and of course, the Fake Shemps! They were also fantastic. 2026 has seen me bump up certain movies after a rewatch. Face/Off and The Cat are two examples. The Evil Dead deserves the same treatment. I was so satisfied with the film that I actually debated whether watching Evil Dead II right after that was necessary. I wanted to sit with the movie for a while. After over an hour, I decided to watch Evil Dead II right away and not wait until tomorrow. I think that speaks volumes about the effect the original Evil Dead has on me now. Now I can't say Evil Dead 2 is obviously better, they're masterpieces for different reasons. Oh, I just spoiled a bit what I think of Evil Dead 2. Before I elaborate, let me rate this film. 10/10!
Evil Dead II - I was a little concerned going into this. After now embracing the first movie as a 10/10 film, I was unsure if Evil Dead II's firm hold on me would weaken. Also, a double feature of the two movies sounded good on paper, but the tones are so different. This is much more of a comedy than the first movie. Bruce Campbell and Sam Raimi refer to the movie as "Splatstick." I was in the perfect mood to watch the first movie. Late at night with the lights off. Evil Dead 2 could be watched any time of the day, but after being put through the horror wringer with that film, the sequel might feel a little jarring. As it turned out, the concern was washed away almost immediately. Even though the sequel is more comedic, the energy and commitment are very much the same. A bigger budget allowed Sam Raimi to go for broke, like he did for The Evil Dead, but on a bigger scale. So Evil Dead II doesn't only feel like a change in tone, but an evolution of a filmmaker on full display. Also evolving was Bruce Campbell, who had a charming, timid presence in the first movie. Here, he evolved into a badass! The evolution takes place in the source of the film. He doesn't start the sequel as a badass. I think the film takes its time to justify its turn into comedy, without sacrificing the heavy impact Sam Raimi was able to leave from start to finish.
I think there has been debate over whether Evil Dead II is a sequel or a remake. It starts with a retelling of the first movie, which has significant differences. Only Ash and Linda head to the cabin in this retelling. According to Bruce Campbell, they didn't have the rights to the first film, so they couldn't use footage from that to recap the story. Apparently some people believe that the first 7 or so minutes isn't a retelling, but Ash going back to the cabin! That's silly, unless you believe that Ash has two girlfriends named "Linda." I always labeled Evil Dead II a sequel. Bruce Campbell even addressed this topic and said that if you simply start right at the demons of the forest reaching Ash, which is how the first movie ended, then you have a full-fledged sequel. Well, during this viewing, there were little things that kind of backed up the remake argument. The most notable one for me was Ash finding the shotgun. His reaction to it seemed like he had never seen or used it before. But he did in the first movie. But man, this is a silly topic to discuss. I still think it's a proper sequel.
Anyway, the movie didn't lose any of its luster. Evil Dead II is still a hilarious sequel with Bruce Campbell being more of a star. I'd say that Sam Raimi was the MVP of the first film. Here, Bruce Campbell is arguably the MVP. A big reason for that is the movie staying well above water when it was just Ash. He dominates the first half of the movie, as it takes a while for him to share the screen with other people. Once that happens, there's just no competition. Nearly everyone sucked compared to Ash. They were absolutely necessary for the plot and the film's body count. Their deaths and/or Deadite moments were tremendous, but the movie lived and died on Bruce Campbell. He carried it big time. Combine that with Sam Raimi's evolved state as a filmmaker, the maximum effort, energy, and creativity, and you have a towering classic in genre cinema. The pacing for this is better than the original film. It moves at a faster pace while still having the right amount of slow and explosive moments. The jump scares are so effective. Even after close to a half-dozen viewings, I still had to predict when things would jump. The special effects are even wilder, with a more ghostly animation added to the mix. Stopmotion makes its grand return in the form of Linda. What they do with her was crazy and funny. The stunt work was rough, but impressive. Sam Raimi really threw Bruce Campbell around.
I really have no complaints with this film. In this viewing, I can now spot strings being used to hold up Henrietta (Ted Raimi), but that didn't take me out of the movie. The volume is sometimes too low in this and the original film, which might be a sign that I need to watch either better Blu-ray rips or get 4K versions. None of these hurt the overall experience. Oh, I should shout out Ted Raimi and Sarah Berry. They were good in their respective roles, but Bruce Campbell was still the king. His one-liners were epic. Even after watching the movie multiple times, I still get pumped when he says "Groovy" and "Swallow this." I'm pretty sure Edgar Wright was inspired heavily by Sam Raimi, and the chainsaw hand prep scene had a quick editing style that Wright would trademark. Speaking of influences, I wonder if A Nightmare on Elm Street influenced Raimi. Famously, Freddy's glove appears a few times in Evil Dead 2. In this viewing, Ash getting a streak of white hair made me think of Nancy. The Evil Dead was playing on TV in A Nightmare on Elm Street, fun fact.
Even though the movie ends on a cliffhanger, justifying Army of Darkness, I think the film can stand alone. Army of Darkness is very different from its predecessors anyway. What I appreciate about Raimi's Evil Dead trilogy is that he strived to do things his way and not repeat himself. Between his 3 Evil Dead movies, there's really something for everyone, and it comes down to preference. As of now, I'm leaning a bit in favor of Evil Dead 2, just because it's so much fun. The Evil Dead is a bit more situational. In 2024, I watched that movie during the day. This time, it was late at night. I think that had some kind of impact. With Evil Dead II, it's great regardless of when you watch it. My desktop wallpaper is of Evil Dead II. I've had that since my last viewing of that film, so close to 2 years! I thought about changing it, but now after revisiting the film, I can't do that just yet! Evil Dead II is one of the best horror/comedies ever. I don't think much about ranking my favorite movies of all time. If I were to do that, Evil Dead II has to be on that list, specifically if I'm doing a Top 50, maybe 30! I'm sure in saying that this is my favorite Sam Raimi film. I don't think there has been a bad Evil Dead film, but relatively speaking, it's downhill from here. 10/10
I'm 1h13m into Spider-Man: Brand New Day, but I just can't stomach anymore of it. It's too damn boring.
At least I enjoyed Spider-Man: No Way Home for the nostalgia of seeing actors from previous SM movies.
If I had watched this at a cinema I'd probably just go home.
At least I enjoyed Spider-Man: No Way Home for the nostalgia of seeing actors from previous SM movies.
If I had watched this at a cinema I'd probably just go home.
So you're watching a CAM-rip? I don't think there's any other version of that film to watch at home.
Yep, a cam rip but it's very watchable. The problem isn't even the picture quality, it's the movie itself.
Since my last post, I watched 10 movies. I typed up reviews for Army of Darkness, the Evil Dead remake, Rise, and Burn. I haven't completed Burn, but even if I did, all those reviews would make for an incredibly long post. I don't think I should do that, and I don't feel like condensing them. Then there's my thinking that I should review the other movies I watched this past week. It's overwhelming for me. So I'll just wipe the slate clean and give quick thoughts and ratings for those 10 films.
Army of Darkness - I loved it more on this latest viewing. Some of the comedy didn't land for me. But the ambition and overall energy from Sam Raimi still rocked. Bruce Campbell was amazing, it's perhaps the best performance of his whole career. The movie is rated R, but it should be PG-13 because there's not a lot of blood except for one sequence, and the gore is toned down from the previous films. Either way, Army of Darkness is a lot of fun. 9/10
Evil Dead (2013) - I liked it a bit more on this viewing, but I still believe it's a one-trick pony. What I mean is that its biggest strength is the gore. Everything else is either a mixed bag or very flawed. I did like Jane Levy's performance a bit more, and I recognized some cool cinematography when it wasn't copying Sam Raimi. This movie has seemingly gotten more love over the years, and I just can't get on board with it. It's the weakest in the franchise, but it's still a good movie. 7.5/10
Evil Dead Rise - Holy crap, I loved this more on the latest viewing! What's so baffling is that this was actually my 8th viewing of the film. I watched it 7 times within 2 months in 2024. I watched it with a couple of reaction channels, and I even watched those reactions multiple times along with the film. I thought I had exhausted myself of the film, but returning to it was such a thrill. I actually got goosebumps from certain highly anticipated moments. I loved Lily Sullivan and Alyssa Sutherland's performances. I loved Lee Cronin's directing. I loved his homages to the previous Evil Dead films, including the remake! I don't think many people love this movie as much as I do, which made me think I'm overrating it. I would rather be in the minority when it comes to this film. Also, because I bumped up my rating for Army of Darkness, I feel I have to do it for Rise because I previously rated them the same. At the time, I wasn't sure if Rise was better than Army of Darkness, hence rating them the same. Now? I'm kind of thinking Rise is better! So this is an easy 9/10.
Evil Dead Burn - I see it as a midpoint between the remake and Rise. It goes for the neck in the gore department like the remake while having some humor, like Rise. Also like Rise, director Sebastian Vanicek really wanted to flex his directorial muscles and make himself the star of the film. I think he succeeded. This feels less like an Evil Dead film than Rise. It seemed that the director was inspired by New French Extremity films such as Irreversible and crafted an Evil Dead film around that. He succeeded, the gore in this might have surpassed the remake. It is definitely less discriminating about who to kill than the remake! For example, the remake didn't show the dog being killed. Burn does! Like Rise, Burn has a bunch of nods and references to the previous films. The nods to Rise were among my favorites. I was surprised how much the movie referenced Rise. It's the longest film in the franchise, which is one of my gripes. At 1 hour and 50 minutes, the movie is a little too long. Many scenes could've been trimmed down. The desaturated look of the film sometimes bugged me, even though the story seemed to have been set during the winter. It snowed at some point. The desaturated look does go along with a cold atmosphere, and this movie is raw and cold overall. But following Rise, it felt like a bit of a step down. The climax of the film also featured a CGI thing that reminded me of the T-800 at the end of The Terminator. I wasn't a big fan of it. Going back to the runtime, I can kind of see why it was long because there was a mid-credits and post-credits scene, both of which are substantial. Oh man, the post-credits scene got me so fucking hyped! Talk about saving the best for last! 8/10
Wishmaster - A very dumb but fun special effects showcase from the KNB FX Group. The K in that group, Robert Kurtzman, directed the film. He was able to get some horror icons, who just so happened to be people he worked with before, such as Robert Englund, Tony Todd, and Kane Hodder. The practical effects mostly hold up. The CGI sucks! That drags the movie down, unfortunately. Also, sometimes it's just so dumb that it's hard to forgive. In other words, it's sometimes a "so bad it's good" movie. But other times, it's just bad. Still, it's worth watching, especially with people. 7/10
Lee Cronin's The Mummy - I figured that watching this after binging the Evil Dead franchise would be fitting since this movie kept being referred to as an Evil Dead film. Unsurprisingly, I agree with that. Hell, that's when the movie was at its strongest. When Lee Cronin pretty much replicated what he did with Evil Dead Rise. The dark humor, the gore, the gross-out moments, and the very energetic cinematography. He did go a little overboard with the split diopter shots. In Rise, I noticed a bunch of foot shots, which made me wonder if the guy has a fetish. Holy crap, he went overboard with the foot shots in this movie, it was a lot more unsettling. Still, the movie felt the most alive when Lee Cronin went full Evil Dead. Unfortunately, that's not the whole movie. The other half of this film is a supernatural mystery that just didn't fully work for me. There was one subplot that could've been cut out completely. It's a shame because that subplot featured an actor who was in Evil Dead Rise, the guy who played Mr. Fonda. Lily Sullivan is also in this film! Yay! But she's only in one scene. Boo! And they did her so dirty, but it made me laugh! Similar to Rise, this film has a great child performance. In Rise, it was Nell Fisher. Here, it was Natalie Grace, who played the Deadite, I mean, "Mummy" in the film. The movie is way too long at 2 hours and 14 minutes! If it stuck to being an Evil Dead film, then it would've been at least 20 minutes shorter. The third act also felt very bloated, and I didn't like how overly positive the ending was. By the way, I have never seen any other mummy film, this was my first. So I don't have any favoritism over the Brendan Fraser mummy films or the very old ones from Universal and Hammer. I was drawn to the film because of the Evil Dead comparisons and the fact it was written and directed by Lee Cronin. So maybe it's a bad mummy film. For me, it was a decent Evil Dead film. If I were to count this with the other Evil Dead films, it would be the weakest in the franchise, unfortunately. This film needed another editing pass. I heard that the test screenings were very rough and the studio was lost on what to do with this. They released it though. Even though Warner Bros has a bad history of not releasing films, their hesitation over this is a little justified. This film is a mess. A fascinating one at least. The positives narrowly outweigh the negatives. Also, you're not going to see another major film with Arabic actors. The cop in this was played by May Calamawy, a Palestinian/Egyptian actress! Some Latino representation too! The cast overall is pretty good and helps in making the film engaging. Jack Reynor's kind of funny because with the thick beard, it was as if the guy's only visible facial feature was his eyes! His mouth was practically covered by the beard. I just saw eyes on someone's neck. Big, wide open eyes too! Anyway, this review's starting to get long. A full review of this would've taken days. I have so many mixed feelings about the movie, but in the end, I kind of like it. 6/10
Brazil - This was the first film in a Friday double feature with a Discord server I'm in. A very random pairing on paper, but there ended up being a few surprising connections. I think I liked the film more than everyone else. They were very overwhelmed by the maximalist nature of the film, and highly critical of the story. I wish certain things were explained and made clear to the viewer, but overall, I was so sucked into the movie. I only watched it once before, and that was at least 15 years ago! A rewatch was long overdue. I watched the Director's Cut, which makes the film a little over 2 hours and 20 minutes. That's too long to open a double feature, but the host really wanted to watch this. We were supposed to watch it at the end of June, but the video file was corrupted or something. Anyway, the craft in this film is amazing, with the set design being the best. Michael Kamen's score is fantastic. The cast was so energetic, regardless of how much screen time they got. Actors like Bob Hoskins and Robert De Niro kicked ass, despite being barely in the movie. Jonathan Pryce was a very effective lead. Kim Griest was nice. Ian Holm was hilarious. Katherine Helmond and Barbara Hicks were also funny. Terry Gilliam is definitely an acquired taste. I've seen a few of his films, namely Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and 12 Monkeys. I thought about 12 Monkeys quite a bit while watching Brazil. I think Brazil is Gilliam's most well-regarded film, but even that still qualifies as an acquired taste, as demonstrated by the reactions of the people in the watch party. Whereas they would rate the film a 7/10 or even lower, I'm giving it an 8/10.
Cemetery Man - An Italian horror/comedy that just doesn't make sense. The premise was already crazy, corpses in a certain cemetery come back as zombies within a few days. The caretaker and his assistant must kill the zombies. That seemed enough for a whole movie, but the caretaker, played by Rupert Everett, falls in love and later gets the urge to kill humans. That love and murderous urge even come together. It's like Brazil, where the story is so crazy and hard to explain, but you have to go with it. The romance in both movies is totally random, but you have to go with it. Almost everyone in the watch party went for it, including me! There were a few points where I was ready to give up on the movie, but then it would pull something very funny. In hindsight, this movie is in line with the many Italian horror films I watched. Films that are very thin on plot, and excel in nasty, intense, and even funny visuals. Also kind of like Brazil! The nudity in the film was great, I almost forgot to bring that up. Cemetery Man is such a strong case of "It just works." Hard to explain, but not so hard for me to enjoy. 8/10
SOULM8TE - After watching Lily Sullivan in Evil Dead Rise and her one scene in Lee Cronin's The Mummy, I felt that watching SOULM8TE would've been fitting. I didn't have high expectations for the film. Universal didn't have high expectations. After Atomic Monster/Blumhouse failed to find a new distributor, Universal held off on releasing it theatrically in January 2026, only to randomly drop it on August 1 via VOD. A Saturday! Anyway, I never watched the 2 M3GAN films. This movie is a spinoff of those films, but the movie doesn't make any references to M3GAN. This is more of a standalone film. An erotic thriller that sadly wasn't very erotic or thrilling! This was a very mediocre film. It doesn't do anything new in its commentary on AI and relationships with androids. This movie is so inconsequential and kind of shouldn't exist. There was already a great thriller that tackled this subject, Companion from 2025! This movie lacks the intelligence, twists, and overall energy of Companion. It's a meandering film that doesn't say or do much. The erotic scenes could've been better, but I enjoyed them to an extent. Lily Sullivan is very attractive and does multiple sex scenes. No full frontal. She's topless, though, and in one scene, you get half a butt shot while she's fully nude. The best scene in the movie was her riding someone and then killing them. The movie should've had more of that. They failed at the commentary, but I would've been fine if they just went all in on being a dumb, fun genre movie. But nope! It was frustrating to see good actors work with a lackluster script. David Rysdahl and Claudia Doumit were decent. The latter was also very attractive. Elijah Cook was very charming, but he's barely in the movie. Lily Sullivan was easily the best of the cast. Even though the writing sucked, she did very well with the physicality and mannerisms. She was great at playing an android. But Sophie Thatcher was better in Companion! God, maybe I would've liked this film if I had never seen Companion. Then again, this movie's pretty similar to 80s-90s erotic thrillers if you take out the sci-fi element. The AI companion in this film pretty much becomes a jealous psycho bitch, a worn-out trope that's rooted in misogyny. The fact that this movie was directed by a woman didn't seem to minimize that trope. I think Kate Dolan was just a director for hire anyway. Anyway, I can't recommend this film unless you really want to see Lily Sullivan's boobs and grinding on a man. Those moments were nice, but the film was ultimately a failure. Fuck the climax. Ugh! That shit also reminded me of The Terminator. Companion even did Terminator-like things better! The CGI in the climax was rough, the nighttime setting was barely visible, and the final death was so damn lame. This movie overall didn't go far enough. It wasn't sexy enough, not gory enough, and not gun enough. Seriously, you're better off watching Companion. 5/10
Gymkata - I randomly wanted to revisit the movie, so I did. It's a "so bad, it's good" movie. It took me 3 viewings to finally enjoy it. The first two viewings were rough because the movie is a slog at just 89 minutes. The dialogue is shit, and the audio is so low any time people talked. The third viewing was the charm, as I found those major flaws a bit more enjoyable. I can't put it up there with The Room or Samurai Cop because sometimes it's just too boring, just too bad. On this fourth viewing, my opinion hasn't changed. I don't like the movie any more or less. I think what would push the rating up is if I watch it with a bunch of people and roast it with them. Kurt Thomas obviously was a fantastic gymnast, but whenever he wasn't doing that, he was awful! Weak line delivery, no charisma, stiff as a board. Sometimes those flaws made me laugh, but his gymnastic fighting, the "Gymkata," was even funnier! Richard Norton tries to carry the film and does a nice job. Not much to the character, so he only excels in fighting and looking like a hard bastard. In many of his films, Norton was one of the best fighters, competing with his co-stars such as Sammo Hung and Cynthia Rothrock. In Gymkata, there's no such competition, he's easily the best fighter. That's shown in the fight scene with Kurt Thomas, but because they had to make him win, Norton jobbed out, and it was embarrassing. Compare the strikes of Norton with Kurt Thomas, it's no question who was the better fighter. Norton even choreographed the fight scenes and talked about how Kurt Thomas struggled in that department. Speaking of fighting, shout out to Tetchie Agbayani kicking ass. She was a model who had no martial arts experience, but she delivered some great high kicks and karate chops! Hell, she was kind of better at fighting than Kurt Thomas. I must also shout out the third act of the movie, namely when Kurt Thomas goes to the "village of the crazies." That section of the movie was pretty much Resident Evil 4. That was pretty creepy with great atmosphere. But then it became stupid and funny when Kurt Thomas fought a bunch of people for almost five minutes with the help of a conveniently placed pummel horse! Yeah, this movie's very stupid, but fun if you like shitty action films like Samurai Cop and Miami Connection. Those films offer more to the viewer, but Gymkata is still rather special. 8/10
Army of Darkness - I loved it more on this latest viewing. Some of the comedy didn't land for me. But the ambition and overall energy from Sam Raimi still rocked. Bruce Campbell was amazing, it's perhaps the best performance of his whole career. The movie is rated R, but it should be PG-13 because there's not a lot of blood except for one sequence, and the gore is toned down from the previous films. Either way, Army of Darkness is a lot of fun. 9/10
Evil Dead (2013) - I liked it a bit more on this viewing, but I still believe it's a one-trick pony. What I mean is that its biggest strength is the gore. Everything else is either a mixed bag or very flawed. I did like Jane Levy's performance a bit more, and I recognized some cool cinematography when it wasn't copying Sam Raimi. This movie has seemingly gotten more love over the years, and I just can't get on board with it. It's the weakest in the franchise, but it's still a good movie. 7.5/10
Evil Dead Rise - Holy crap, I loved this more on the latest viewing! What's so baffling is that this was actually my 8th viewing of the film. I watched it 7 times within 2 months in 2024. I watched it with a couple of reaction channels, and I even watched those reactions multiple times along with the film. I thought I had exhausted myself of the film, but returning to it was such a thrill. I actually got goosebumps from certain highly anticipated moments. I loved Lily Sullivan and Alyssa Sutherland's performances. I loved Lee Cronin's directing. I loved his homages to the previous Evil Dead films, including the remake! I don't think many people love this movie as much as I do, which made me think I'm overrating it. I would rather be in the minority when it comes to this film. Also, because I bumped up my rating for Army of Darkness, I feel I have to do it for Rise because I previously rated them the same. At the time, I wasn't sure if Rise was better than Army of Darkness, hence rating them the same. Now? I'm kind of thinking Rise is better! So this is an easy 9/10.
Evil Dead Burn - I see it as a midpoint between the remake and Rise. It goes for the neck in the gore department like the remake while having some humor, like Rise. Also like Rise, director Sebastian Vanicek really wanted to flex his directorial muscles and make himself the star of the film. I think he succeeded. This feels less like an Evil Dead film than Rise. It seemed that the director was inspired by New French Extremity films such as Irreversible and crafted an Evil Dead film around that. He succeeded, the gore in this might have surpassed the remake. It is definitely less discriminating about who to kill than the remake! For example, the remake didn't show the dog being killed. Burn does! Like Rise, Burn has a bunch of nods and references to the previous films. The nods to Rise were among my favorites. I was surprised how much the movie referenced Rise. It's the longest film in the franchise, which is one of my gripes. At 1 hour and 50 minutes, the movie is a little too long. Many scenes could've been trimmed down. The desaturated look of the film sometimes bugged me, even though the story seemed to have been set during the winter. It snowed at some point. The desaturated look does go along with a cold atmosphere, and this movie is raw and cold overall. But following Rise, it felt like a bit of a step down. The climax of the film also featured a CGI thing that reminded me of the T-800 at the end of The Terminator. I wasn't a big fan of it. Going back to the runtime, I can kind of see why it was long because there was a mid-credits and post-credits scene, both of which are substantial. Oh man, the post-credits scene got me so fucking hyped! Talk about saving the best for last! 8/10
Wishmaster - A very dumb but fun special effects showcase from the KNB FX Group. The K in that group, Robert Kurtzman, directed the film. He was able to get some horror icons, who just so happened to be people he worked with before, such as Robert Englund, Tony Todd, and Kane Hodder. The practical effects mostly hold up. The CGI sucks! That drags the movie down, unfortunately. Also, sometimes it's just so dumb that it's hard to forgive. In other words, it's sometimes a "so bad it's good" movie. But other times, it's just bad. Still, it's worth watching, especially with people. 7/10
Lee Cronin's The Mummy - I figured that watching this after binging the Evil Dead franchise would be fitting since this movie kept being referred to as an Evil Dead film. Unsurprisingly, I agree with that. Hell, that's when the movie was at its strongest. When Lee Cronin pretty much replicated what he did with Evil Dead Rise. The dark humor, the gore, the gross-out moments, and the very energetic cinematography. He did go a little overboard with the split diopter shots. In Rise, I noticed a bunch of foot shots, which made me wonder if the guy has a fetish. Holy crap, he went overboard with the foot shots in this movie, it was a lot more unsettling. Still, the movie felt the most alive when Lee Cronin went full Evil Dead. Unfortunately, that's not the whole movie. The other half of this film is a supernatural mystery that just didn't fully work for me. There was one subplot that could've been cut out completely. It's a shame because that subplot featured an actor who was in Evil Dead Rise, the guy who played Mr. Fonda. Lily Sullivan is also in this film! Yay! But she's only in one scene. Boo! And they did her so dirty, but it made me laugh! Similar to Rise, this film has a great child performance. In Rise, it was Nell Fisher. Here, it was Natalie Grace, who played the Deadite, I mean, "Mummy" in the film. The movie is way too long at 2 hours and 14 minutes! If it stuck to being an Evil Dead film, then it would've been at least 20 minutes shorter. The third act also felt very bloated, and I didn't like how overly positive the ending was. By the way, I have never seen any other mummy film, this was my first. So I don't have any favoritism over the Brendan Fraser mummy films or the very old ones from Universal and Hammer. I was drawn to the film because of the Evil Dead comparisons and the fact it was written and directed by Lee Cronin. So maybe it's a bad mummy film. For me, it was a decent Evil Dead film. If I were to count this with the other Evil Dead films, it would be the weakest in the franchise, unfortunately. This film needed another editing pass. I heard that the test screenings were very rough and the studio was lost on what to do with this. They released it though. Even though Warner Bros has a bad history of not releasing films, their hesitation over this is a little justified. This film is a mess. A fascinating one at least. The positives narrowly outweigh the negatives. Also, you're not going to see another major film with Arabic actors. The cop in this was played by May Calamawy, a Palestinian/Egyptian actress! Some Latino representation too! The cast overall is pretty good and helps in making the film engaging. Jack Reynor's kind of funny because with the thick beard, it was as if the guy's only visible facial feature was his eyes! His mouth was practically covered by the beard. I just saw eyes on someone's neck. Big, wide open eyes too! Anyway, this review's starting to get long. A full review of this would've taken days. I have so many mixed feelings about the movie, but in the end, I kind of like it. 6/10
Brazil - This was the first film in a Friday double feature with a Discord server I'm in. A very random pairing on paper, but there ended up being a few surprising connections. I think I liked the film more than everyone else. They were very overwhelmed by the maximalist nature of the film, and highly critical of the story. I wish certain things were explained and made clear to the viewer, but overall, I was so sucked into the movie. I only watched it once before, and that was at least 15 years ago! A rewatch was long overdue. I watched the Director's Cut, which makes the film a little over 2 hours and 20 minutes. That's too long to open a double feature, but the host really wanted to watch this. We were supposed to watch it at the end of June, but the video file was corrupted or something. Anyway, the craft in this film is amazing, with the set design being the best. Michael Kamen's score is fantastic. The cast was so energetic, regardless of how much screen time they got. Actors like Bob Hoskins and Robert De Niro kicked ass, despite being barely in the movie. Jonathan Pryce was a very effective lead. Kim Griest was nice. Ian Holm was hilarious. Katherine Helmond and Barbara Hicks were also funny. Terry Gilliam is definitely an acquired taste. I've seen a few of his films, namely Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas and 12 Monkeys. I thought about 12 Monkeys quite a bit while watching Brazil. I think Brazil is Gilliam's most well-regarded film, but even that still qualifies as an acquired taste, as demonstrated by the reactions of the people in the watch party. Whereas they would rate the film a 7/10 or even lower, I'm giving it an 8/10.
Cemetery Man - An Italian horror/comedy that just doesn't make sense. The premise was already crazy, corpses in a certain cemetery come back as zombies within a few days. The caretaker and his assistant must kill the zombies. That seemed enough for a whole movie, but the caretaker, played by Rupert Everett, falls in love and later gets the urge to kill humans. That love and murderous urge even come together. It's like Brazil, where the story is so crazy and hard to explain, but you have to go with it. The romance in both movies is totally random, but you have to go with it. Almost everyone in the watch party went for it, including me! There were a few points where I was ready to give up on the movie, but then it would pull something very funny. In hindsight, this movie is in line with the many Italian horror films I watched. Films that are very thin on plot, and excel in nasty, intense, and even funny visuals. Also kind of like Brazil! The nudity in the film was great, I almost forgot to bring that up. Cemetery Man is such a strong case of "It just works." Hard to explain, but not so hard for me to enjoy. 8/10
SOULM8TE - After watching Lily Sullivan in Evil Dead Rise and her one scene in Lee Cronin's The Mummy, I felt that watching SOULM8TE would've been fitting. I didn't have high expectations for the film. Universal didn't have high expectations. After Atomic Monster/Blumhouse failed to find a new distributor, Universal held off on releasing it theatrically in January 2026, only to randomly drop it on August 1 via VOD. A Saturday! Anyway, I never watched the 2 M3GAN films. This movie is a spinoff of those films, but the movie doesn't make any references to M3GAN. This is more of a standalone film. An erotic thriller that sadly wasn't very erotic or thrilling! This was a very mediocre film. It doesn't do anything new in its commentary on AI and relationships with androids. This movie is so inconsequential and kind of shouldn't exist. There was already a great thriller that tackled this subject, Companion from 2025! This movie lacks the intelligence, twists, and overall energy of Companion. It's a meandering film that doesn't say or do much. The erotic scenes could've been better, but I enjoyed them to an extent. Lily Sullivan is very attractive and does multiple sex scenes. No full frontal. She's topless, though, and in one scene, you get half a butt shot while she's fully nude. The best scene in the movie was her riding someone and then killing them. The movie should've had more of that. They failed at the commentary, but I would've been fine if they just went all in on being a dumb, fun genre movie. But nope! It was frustrating to see good actors work with a lackluster script. David Rysdahl and Claudia Doumit were decent. The latter was also very attractive. Elijah Cook was very charming, but he's barely in the movie. Lily Sullivan was easily the best of the cast. Even though the writing sucked, she did very well with the physicality and mannerisms. She was great at playing an android. But Sophie Thatcher was better in Companion! God, maybe I would've liked this film if I had never seen Companion. Then again, this movie's pretty similar to 80s-90s erotic thrillers if you take out the sci-fi element. The AI companion in this film pretty much becomes a jealous psycho bitch, a worn-out trope that's rooted in misogyny. The fact that this movie was directed by a woman didn't seem to minimize that trope. I think Kate Dolan was just a director for hire anyway. Anyway, I can't recommend this film unless you really want to see Lily Sullivan's boobs and grinding on a man. Those moments were nice, but the film was ultimately a failure. Fuck the climax. Ugh! That shit also reminded me of The Terminator. Companion even did Terminator-like things better! The CGI in the climax was rough, the nighttime setting was barely visible, and the final death was so damn lame. This movie overall didn't go far enough. It wasn't sexy enough, not gory enough, and not gun enough. Seriously, you're better off watching Companion. 5/10
Gymkata - I randomly wanted to revisit the movie, so I did. It's a "so bad, it's good" movie. It took me 3 viewings to finally enjoy it. The first two viewings were rough because the movie is a slog at just 89 minutes. The dialogue is shit, and the audio is so low any time people talked. The third viewing was the charm, as I found those major flaws a bit more enjoyable. I can't put it up there with The Room or Samurai Cop because sometimes it's just too boring, just too bad. On this fourth viewing, my opinion hasn't changed. I don't like the movie any more or less. I think what would push the rating up is if I watch it with a bunch of people and roast it with them. Kurt Thomas obviously was a fantastic gymnast, but whenever he wasn't doing that, he was awful! Weak line delivery, no charisma, stiff as a board. Sometimes those flaws made me laugh, but his gymnastic fighting, the "Gymkata," was even funnier! Richard Norton tries to carry the film and does a nice job. Not much to the character, so he only excels in fighting and looking like a hard bastard. In many of his films, Norton was one of the best fighters, competing with his co-stars such as Sammo Hung and Cynthia Rothrock. In Gymkata, there's no such competition, he's easily the best fighter. That's shown in the fight scene with Kurt Thomas, but because they had to make him win, Norton jobbed out, and it was embarrassing. Compare the strikes of Norton with Kurt Thomas, it's no question who was the better fighter. Norton even choreographed the fight scenes and talked about how Kurt Thomas struggled in that department. Speaking of fighting, shout out to Tetchie Agbayani kicking ass. She was a model who had no martial arts experience, but she delivered some great high kicks and karate chops! Hell, she was kind of better at fighting than Kurt Thomas. I must also shout out the third act of the movie, namely when Kurt Thomas goes to the "village of the crazies." That section of the movie was pretty much Resident Evil 4. That was pretty creepy with great atmosphere. But then it became stupid and funny when Kurt Thomas fought a bunch of people for almost five minutes with the help of a conveniently placed pummel horse! Yeah, this movie's very stupid, but fun if you like shitty action films like Samurai Cop and Miami Connection. Those films offer more to the viewer, but Gymkata is still rather special. 8/10
The last time I saw the X Files was right before watching an episode of "Sabrina the Teenage Witch" in which the Backstreet Boys appeared singing.
That was in 1997 if I recall correctly.
Post automatically merged:
This time aliens were illegal I assume?
Last edited by JuanMena,
Since August 2, I've watched at least one movie a day. At first, I just wanted to binge the Evil Dead films, but then I had the urge to follow that up with movies that had certain links to them, like Lee Cronin's The Mummy and SOULM8TE. It's now gotten to a point where I'm too conscious of this apparent movie viewing streak. I'm anxious in breaking it. At least most of the movies I've watched have been entertaining. Here are the movies I've seen so far this week.
The Invite
I was very excited to watch this after seeing a lot of praise. The cast of only 4 actors appealed to me. I didn't watch Olivia Wilde's previous films as a director. I heard The Invite is her best, and I think I would agree if I watch the other two. It seemed that everyone involved with the film had the same goal. That goal is to make a nearly 1 hour and 50 minute movie with only 4 actors in an apartment, a great dramedy. Everyone understood the assignment and brought their A game! Olivia Wilde as the director seemed so inspired and in sync with the cinematographer. That resulted in a wide variety of camera shots that show the characters in various ways. Mirror shots and reflections in general were pretty prominent. The position of those shots would differ. You'd see those shots in the center or at the far ends of the frame. That makes up the cinematography in general, with actors standing either dead center or taking up one end of the frame. The blocking in this film also felt so precise. The set building was so impressive, as this was a very physical movie, which was a major element to the performances of Seth Rogen and Olivia Wilde. The camera is often still, but it never felt stale. Olivia Wilde and the DP, Adam Newport-Berra, just knew where to put the camera.
The composer was so locked in, providing music that matched the vibe of a scene perfectly, often enhancing it. You'd get very dramatic music for the chaotic or intense scenes, veering into soap opera sounds. You also get lovely, romantic music, but quite a bit of that was used for scenes about reminiscing or pretending, mainly for the characters played by Wilde and Rogen. There weren't a lot of needle drops. A very noteworthy one was Sade's "By Your Side." Sade was mentioned in the movie. Two very striking scenes in the movie featured a piano instrumental. The sound design even goes pretty hard, specifically through a deep rumbling sound that would fit in a thriller or horror film! It's the kind of sound that would play for a scene that's supposed to convey a scary kind of silence. The editing was very sharp. Not one wasted moment in the film, no scene went on too long or too short. The 1 hour and 47 minutes went by nicely. The movie also feels cleanly split in half, with the first half being very propulsive, and the second being more reflective, moody, and dramatic. The comedy value was high in both halves, though I think the movie does tone it down for the 2nd half, especially the last 10 or so minutes. All these choices with the film trace back to Olivia Wilde, who was seemingly very inspired by this film. She dedicated the film to Diane Keaton, who I think would've fit this movie so well if the cast was older or if the movie was made 30-40 years ago. I should also credit the writers, Will McCormack and Rashida Jones. The dialogue was very crackling, sharp, funny, and very mature. This movie is definitely for adults, there was nothing juvenile that hurt the story. Rogen's character would be immature at times, but that was handled well by the script and Rogen himself.
The four actors were fantastic. Each one had multiple show-stealing scenes, and all of them had such strong chemistry. I think the first half of the movie is when the craft is at its most energetic, as if the movie is trying to invite the viewer into this crazy, dramatic, and even alluring world. Then in the second half, the actors are pretty much left alone and have to carry the whole movie on their backs. The bells and whistles take a backseat, they had to go acapella. All actors were up to the challenge. Determining who gave the best performance is way too difficult for me. It comes down to preference. It's kind of easy to say who would be 4th place. This is only by comparison, and the gap between 4th and 3rd is very small, but my pick would be Edward Norton. What definitely makes that gap very narrow was an incredible monologue that he delivered in the second half. It was a monologue he wrote, which is even more impressive. You can tell he wrote it because his description of a traumatic event sounded so different from what the script likely would've created, but it still fit the whole movie. Penelope Cruz was the most alluring character, someone you wanted to hang out and flirt with. She came off as a very confident, powerful, and loving spirit. Cruz had the natural charm to make such a character work. She gave the most layered performance.
Olivia Wilde was very neurotic. Part of me wonders if her acting was a reflection of her directing. The anxieties of directing a film may have been channeled into her performance. Either way, it worked so well. She gives the flashiest performance. Wilde would be very loud at times, riddled with anxiety, restless, nervous, and seemed like she couldn't be calm for more than 1 minute. It all worked very well for the character and the film. Then there's Seth Rogen. Man, this guy is kind of on fire. Between this and The Studio, I think he has proven to be the best comedic actor of his generation. Many of his contemporaries have fallen off, but this guy not only can be consistent, but often delivers something more revealing and stunning. I would go as far as to say that this is Rogen's best film performance. I can't say it's his best performance overall, because I think The Studio is the winner there. Rogen doesn't really do anything out of his comfort zone, it's just very refined and perfectly attuned to this movie. On top of that, he definitely was one of the funniest in the film. All of them delivered hilarious moments, but the comedy from Rogen was more pure and physical. Seriously, I think Rogen's been in the game long enough and has delivered so many entertaining performances in his career that he's worthy to be on a comedy Mt. Rushmore. Now, after saying that, I think I'm going to go with Rogen as my favorite actor in the film! 2 would be Penelope Cruz, 3 would be Olivia Wilde, though I could easily change my mind and switch them around. 4 would be Edward Norton, and I mean that with love.
Yeah, this movie is great! It exceeded my high expectations as I thought the acting, directing, and writing would be the biggest strengths of the film. I was really not ready for how strong the score would be! I also didn't expect the movie to be so touching and even heartwarming toward the end. As far as critiques, the only one I have is that once things die down, it becomes rather predictable. Thankfully, the acting carried for the rest of the film, making obvious moments still effective. That's a minor critique, the movie has a lot more twists and turns. I tried to avoid giving any details about the characters. It's best to go in blind. It felt like every 5-10 minutes was a major reveal about the characters. By the end, you know quite a bit about them, some more than others, namely Rogen and Wilde's characters. I think Cruz's character is the one you know the least about. Part of me would've liked to learn more, but there's enough to make analyzing the character very stimulating. The Invite is easily one of the best movies I've seen this year. I won't say it's my favorite so far. That honor still goes to The Furious, which would make this number 2. That's still high praise, it's the 2nd movie of 2026 to get this rating.
9/10
Backrooms
I took way too long to watch this. I finally did on Tuesday. Every week since the movie landed on digital last month, I would scroll through Instagram and see a clip from the movie that I had to turn away from because I feared being spoiled. By the time I finally watched the movie, I already knew what Pirate Clark looked like. I also already knew the person who played him is the same guy who played that tall monster in Alien: Romulus, Robert Bobroczkyi. A lot of the IG clips were memes of a scene where Clark is sitting at a table, with the camera pretty close to his face. He looked so miserable. So yeah, I wish I watched this weeks before, but, you know, better late than never? Thankfully, I wasn't spoiled on the sheer scope of the production design. I thought it only extended to the standard backrooms look. The unsettling yellow color and the low-humming ceiling lights. But there turned out to be more, even going beyond the Backrooms. The production design was also very strong with how Cap'n Clark's Ottoman Empire and Mary Kline's childhood looked. I was also mesmerized by the sky and backdrops. They looked like matte paintings because there was no movement in the background. The clouds didn't move, and there was such a stillness with the hills behind Clark's store that seemed artificial. The movie's also very vibrant and bright with its color palette. It's idyllic, which makes the horror of the backrooms very effective. I assume Kane Parsons was partially inspired by David Lynch. Having an idyllic setting with a disturbing underbelly was something Lynch perfected with Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks. The punishing, but dialogue-light atmosphere that was in Eraserhead was kind of in this film.
I think most of the best sequences in Backrooms were when a character goes through the backrooms. There would be little to no dialogue, and you're following the character. The camera would often not show the actor, so it's like you're Clark, for example. This would go on for a long time until they finally cut to Chiwetel Ejiofor. It was less the case when Maria Kline entered the backrooms, but that made sense because she went through familiar sections at first. The sequences where it was all about the backrooms proved to be an incredible display of the production design. Every single bit of the backrooms in the film was built. More than 30,000 square feet of Backrooms sets were built across four sound stages! Such an endeavor could only happen when the studio gives carte blanche to the director. Kane Parsons, despite being 20 during the production of the film, was able to flex so much creative muscle. He not only directed the movie, but he scored it along with Edo Van Breemen. His score choices were great, with haunting music that never went over the top. This is a movie that never really went over the top, grounding itself confidently. The sound design is so grand that the subtitles I used were so loaded. Shout-out to whoever made the subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing. It must've been painstaking to pretty much transcribe all the sounds in the movie, even the most faint stuff. For example, toward the end of the movie, the subtitles said that the hilarious Cap'n Clark's commercial was playing. I didn't hear it when the subtitles indicated it, but then I kind of heard it when I tried to listen very closely. The subtitles even noted all the languages said on a certain audio cassette tape. They didn't write down every single word. For example, "(Speaking in Burmese)" wasn't followed up with actual Burmese words. But more often than not, those words were shown in the subtitles. The movie is void of intentional comedy. I did laugh from a minor silly thing early in the movie. The only other laugh was from the subtitles, "(GOOEY PLOP)." I chuckled at first, and then it grew to a loud laugh when I read the subtitles out loud.
The cinematography was very nice. A good chunk of the movie is through a video camera, so it qualifies as found footage. That was certainly the case with the opening sequence. What a strong opener, a great way to introduce and sum up what the backrooms are about. Hardly any dialogue, the person finding some strange stuff, and then being spotted by a dark entity. I'm not a big fan of found footage, but it was very effective. It was a way for the movie to be POV, to have the viewer be in the shoes of the character. The aesthetic fit the movie. That said, I do prefer when the POV wasn't facilitated by video cameras. Clark's first trip in the backrooms is a great example of that. I felt like I wanted to be a backseat gamer, telling Clark where to go. That stems from me thinking the backrooms originated from video games. It was a nice form of immersion.
Up there with the production design, sound design, score, cinematography, and overall sense of dread, was the acting. It's a very small cast, but two actors frankly carried the movie, making it work despite some script issues. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve showed why they were nominated for Best Actor Oscars, the latter's nomination was this year! Despite this being a genre film based on a 4Chan creepypasta, they took the material so seriously and made the characters feel very real. Clark (Ejiofor) is an alcoholic and failed architect. Ejiofor made the character an effectively miserable sack of shit. The facial expressions he pulls, the slight slouch he had on his shoulders, and his vocal delivery all scream experience. The guy knew what he was doing and frankly elevated the script. Renate Reinsve did as well. I will say that Ejiofor was better overall. Reinsve is up there, but the script kind of messed her up a few times. The biggest example was when Mary raised her voice at Clark. The final part of her outburst sounded so weird. I actually thought Kane Parsons wrote the script, and it would've made sense that this kid wrote something that sounded...a little childish. But I just learned that the writer was Will Soodik, first time writing for a film. He wrote episodes for Homeland, Borgia, Ash vs. Evil Dead, and Westworld. Interesting resume. Anyway, Renate Reinsve was still able to make the character work. There was a serious risk of her character fumbling when she stepped into the Backrooms. But her reactions felt real, not going for the overly dramatic and loud horror movie acting one might expect. This movie isn't so much about loud volume, but a buzzing vibration that was mostly consistent. I also loved Reinsve's fit. I wondered if she had say over what she wore. In the second half of the movie, she wore very baggy high-waisted slacks and a blazer. The blazer would come off, fully showing a floral button-up shirt. Famously, she wore the suit her Sentimental Value costar Stellan Skarsgard wore, and that was baggy for her. Similar fashion sense, and it worked for me. Anyway, like Chiwetel Ejiofor, I think she elevated her character, giving her a quieter sadness. Quick shout-out to Mark Duplass, who I thought was one of the many producers. But nope, purely an actor, and he did a nice job. He was only in a few scenes, but some actors were only in one scene. For example, Katharine Isabelle, who was one of the two main girls in the amazing Ginger Snaps, was only in one scene, blink and you'll miss her. Clark's 2 young employees were only in a few scenes. So it's really 2-hander with Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve.
I mentioned the script a few times. That's one of my main gripes with the film. The dialogue can be a little clunky at times. I wish the film had some intentional humor. There is something weirdly funny about exploring this pocket dimension, for lack of a better term. I think Chiwetel Ejiofor would've delivered on the comedy since his character basically goes insane. Bigger than those issues is the movie explaining the backrooms too much. The third act kind of stumbles because of that. It's a very slow movie at 1 hour and 50 minutes. Contributing to that slowness with a long exposition dump was not a good decision. The hints they gave before the full explanation felt so on the nose. The repetition of certain lines made me think Kane Parsons and the screenwriter were too focused on having the film appeal to Gen Z and people with "TikTok brains." Some of the best atmospheric horror films had no extensive exposition. Eraserhead is a good example of that. The movie doesn't tell you what it's about, and the viewer is required to make up their own mind. The explanations ground this concept a bit too much. I praised the movie for other forms of grounding. This is an exception. The storytelling felt a little anchored down when it should've been as crazy as the production design. I'm not too mad with this flaw, I think it's something Kane Parsons and the writer can improve on as they do more films. Kane Parsons said he's down to make more Backrooms films. I hope so. This movie shows that the young man has so much potential.
Now that I think about it, the script wound up holding a slightly unfavorable mirror to the production design. Once it was explained what the backrooms are, I felt that the production design became less wild and more limited, squeezed into a box. The sets shown toward the end of the movie were too...solid, too much of a clear image. Still, I was very impressed with the construction of it all. This movie featured a pet peeve of mine. Shortly after Clark discovers the backrooms, he draws a map and shows it to Maria. Later, when Maria goes to Cap'n Clark's, she sees the map on a big whiteboard. They then flash back to the map Clark drew earlier. That was unnecessary! That is indicative of a script issue, but it's also a directing flaw. It's a little insulting to the audience's intelligence. But again, this film clearly had a default appeal to Gen Z, and it's been reported that people of that generation are less intelligent than their predecessors. As a millennial, I'm inclined to believe that's true. The movie is set in 1990, but the filmmaker wasn't even alive in the 90s. I think that kind of shows in certain points, which affected the movie.
Again, these issues don't bug me a lot. The main attraction of the film was the production design, and the movie succeeded big time with that. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve carried the movie, helping me stay engaged with the story more than the script did. The cinematography and score were also crucial in the immersion. The makeup work was very impressive, certain individuals looked spooky and bizarre. The visual effects were very interesting. I read that Kane Parsons used Blender and Adobe After Effects. I thought the tall dark entity looked off. Not in the sense that the CGI was bad, but like it was a sentient shadow. Oh, and Pirate Clark looked amazing. Seeing pictures doesn't do it enough justice. Watching the creature move was a whole other experience. The sounds it made were very unsettling. The editing could've been tighter, but it was still fine. Obsession opened in theaters the week before, and the massive success of both films has made them an interesting pair. I think Obsession is easily superior, but the craft and two leading performances in Backrooms keep the film from being so obviously weaker. I thought about giving the movie a 7.5, so that the gap between that and Obsession, which I rate an 8.5, would be bigger. But I'm putting too much stock on the movie's strengths, trying to wave away the very notable flaws. Hell, one surprisingly major strength of Backrooms is the end credits song! It's The Word Becomes Flesh by Boards of Canada, a Scottish electronic music duo. I was vibing a bit to the song at first, but as it went on, I grew to enjoy it. Close to 24 hours since watching the movie, I've now listened to that song about a dozen times! Off the top of my head, I think it's the best end credits song of 2026. Its only competition is One Way or Another by Blondie, which was used in Send Help. Oh wait, there's also In the House - In a Heartbeat from 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, but that's pretty much the theme song of that franchise. Okay, I'm still going with The Word Becomes Flesh. Unlike those great songs, I didn't get the urge to replay the songs incessantly. Plus it matters that I already knew those songs very well. The song and Boards of Canada in general were a very pleasant discovery. Yeah, that song actually nudges this film to...
8/10!
Exit 8
This is based on the video game of the same name. I never played it, but I watched gameplay footage years ago. It was very interesting to watch, so a film adaptation sounded cool. Thankfully, the movie adapts the source material well. It captures the liminal horror and anomaly gimmick through solid production design, great editing that made everything seamless, and smooth cinematography. Because there is no main character, just the player, the story could really be about anything. Co-writer and director Genki Kawamura's allegory is easy to identify and can be very on the nose, but I think there's earnestness and the movie never abandoned the vibes from the source material. I've seen the movie brought up alongside Backrooms, and for good reason. Some of the biggest strengths of Backrooms are present here, including strong sound design, a somewhat chilling score, and some great acting. That said, it is a step down from Backrooms. It is more limited, but that's not an issue. What bothered me was how stupid the main character was at times. It was also frustrating how he and another character never bothered trying to open or even thoroughly check the doors. It took way too long for them to depict a door as an anomaly. The CGI is also rough at times, specifically during the biggest sequences in the movie. I wish the movie had humor! There could've been a wild and scary image that ends up being funny. This film took itself very seriously. That shows respect for the source material, but even that had funny bits. Unlike Backrooms, Exit 8 is short at 94 minutes. It was close to overstaying its welcome as it took a while until the main character made some progress. Too many failed runs basically. But I enjoyed the film overall. It definitely pairs well with Backrooms. One major strength it has over Backrooms is that they never bothered to explain this mysterious subway section. An explanation is secondary to the arc of the main character. The liminal horror and the character's story were one, and that's better than any explanation.
7.5/10
Maddie's Secret - I heard about this from a friend a few weeks ago. It's an indie comedy written and directed by John Early, a comedian who I wasn't familiar with. He also stars in the movie, playing the titular Maddie. A cis man playing a woman. I must admit that I was worried about that premise, but John Early took the role very seriously. It wasn't drag, and the character wasn't punched down for cheap comedy. John Early treated the character with respect while telling a story that goes through a few stages. At first, the movie is very funny, featuring some satire on cooking and food content on social media. As the story cooks, you realize that John Early is an ally. Maddie entered a queer gym and asked her lesbian friend Deena if they would be willing to accept an ally. That question stuck out. I interpreted it as a question Early directly or indirectly asked and answered for this movie. As an ally, he made something that respects women with eating disorders. There's nothing glamorized or exaggerated, it seemed that a lot of research was done. I think you have to suspend some disbelief as certain moments happen really fast and there are other little logical questions. It was easy to do that because of how earnest the film is. There's so much love and care in the subject matter. The comedy would veer into drama in the 2nd half, and that's when the movie really won me over. That transition worked so well, building to a rather heartwarming ending. John Early succeeded on all fronts, writing a fun but dense screenplay, confident directing, and a very lovely acting performance. I think this might be a grower, as in I'll like this more on repeated viewings. It's very contemporary, very Los Angeles, but very good. I definitely recommend this for LGBTQ people, as they're represented quite nicely, for women of course, and for those who want a silly comedy with strong messages.
8/10
The Invite
I was very excited to watch this after seeing a lot of praise. The cast of only 4 actors appealed to me. I didn't watch Olivia Wilde's previous films as a director. I heard The Invite is her best, and I think I would agree if I watch the other two. It seemed that everyone involved with the film had the same goal. That goal is to make a nearly 1 hour and 50 minute movie with only 4 actors in an apartment, a great dramedy. Everyone understood the assignment and brought their A game! Olivia Wilde as the director seemed so inspired and in sync with the cinematographer. That resulted in a wide variety of camera shots that show the characters in various ways. Mirror shots and reflections in general were pretty prominent. The position of those shots would differ. You'd see those shots in the center or at the far ends of the frame. That makes up the cinematography in general, with actors standing either dead center or taking up one end of the frame. The blocking in this film also felt so precise. The set building was so impressive, as this was a very physical movie, which was a major element to the performances of Seth Rogen and Olivia Wilde. The camera is often still, but it never felt stale. Olivia Wilde and the DP, Adam Newport-Berra, just knew where to put the camera.
The composer was so locked in, providing music that matched the vibe of a scene perfectly, often enhancing it. You'd get very dramatic music for the chaotic or intense scenes, veering into soap opera sounds. You also get lovely, romantic music, but quite a bit of that was used for scenes about reminiscing or pretending, mainly for the characters played by Wilde and Rogen. There weren't a lot of needle drops. A very noteworthy one was Sade's "By Your Side." Sade was mentioned in the movie. Two very striking scenes in the movie featured a piano instrumental. The sound design even goes pretty hard, specifically through a deep rumbling sound that would fit in a thriller or horror film! It's the kind of sound that would play for a scene that's supposed to convey a scary kind of silence. The editing was very sharp. Not one wasted moment in the film, no scene went on too long or too short. The 1 hour and 47 minutes went by nicely. The movie also feels cleanly split in half, with the first half being very propulsive, and the second being more reflective, moody, and dramatic. The comedy value was high in both halves, though I think the movie does tone it down for the 2nd half, especially the last 10 or so minutes. All these choices with the film trace back to Olivia Wilde, who was seemingly very inspired by this film. She dedicated the film to Diane Keaton, who I think would've fit this movie so well if the cast was older or if the movie was made 30-40 years ago. I should also credit the writers, Will McCormack and Rashida Jones. The dialogue was very crackling, sharp, funny, and very mature. This movie is definitely for adults, there was nothing juvenile that hurt the story. Rogen's character would be immature at times, but that was handled well by the script and Rogen himself.
The four actors were fantastic. Each one had multiple show-stealing scenes, and all of them had such strong chemistry. I think the first half of the movie is when the craft is at its most energetic, as if the movie is trying to invite the viewer into this crazy, dramatic, and even alluring world. Then in the second half, the actors are pretty much left alone and have to carry the whole movie on their backs. The bells and whistles take a backseat, they had to go acapella. All actors were up to the challenge. Determining who gave the best performance is way too difficult for me. It comes down to preference. It's kind of easy to say who would be 4th place. This is only by comparison, and the gap between 4th and 3rd is very small, but my pick would be Edward Norton. What definitely makes that gap very narrow was an incredible monologue that he delivered in the second half. It was a monologue he wrote, which is even more impressive. You can tell he wrote it because his description of a traumatic event sounded so different from what the script likely would've created, but it still fit the whole movie. Penelope Cruz was the most alluring character, someone you wanted to hang out and flirt with. She came off as a very confident, powerful, and loving spirit. Cruz had the natural charm to make such a character work. She gave the most layered performance.
Olivia Wilde was very neurotic. Part of me wonders if her acting was a reflection of her directing. The anxieties of directing a film may have been channeled into her performance. Either way, it worked so well. She gives the flashiest performance. Wilde would be very loud at times, riddled with anxiety, restless, nervous, and seemed like she couldn't be calm for more than 1 minute. It all worked very well for the character and the film. Then there's Seth Rogen. Man, this guy is kind of on fire. Between this and The Studio, I think he has proven to be the best comedic actor of his generation. Many of his contemporaries have fallen off, but this guy not only can be consistent, but often delivers something more revealing and stunning. I would go as far as to say that this is Rogen's best film performance. I can't say it's his best performance overall, because I think The Studio is the winner there. Rogen doesn't really do anything out of his comfort zone, it's just very refined and perfectly attuned to this movie. On top of that, he definitely was one of the funniest in the film. All of them delivered hilarious moments, but the comedy from Rogen was more pure and physical. Seriously, I think Rogen's been in the game long enough and has delivered so many entertaining performances in his career that he's worthy to be on a comedy Mt. Rushmore. Now, after saying that, I think I'm going to go with Rogen as my favorite actor in the film! 2 would be Penelope Cruz, 3 would be Olivia Wilde, though I could easily change my mind and switch them around. 4 would be Edward Norton, and I mean that with love.
Yeah, this movie is great! It exceeded my high expectations as I thought the acting, directing, and writing would be the biggest strengths of the film. I was really not ready for how strong the score would be! I also didn't expect the movie to be so touching and even heartwarming toward the end. As far as critiques, the only one I have is that once things die down, it becomes rather predictable. Thankfully, the acting carried for the rest of the film, making obvious moments still effective. That's a minor critique, the movie has a lot more twists and turns. I tried to avoid giving any details about the characters. It's best to go in blind. It felt like every 5-10 minutes was a major reveal about the characters. By the end, you know quite a bit about them, some more than others, namely Rogen and Wilde's characters. I think Cruz's character is the one you know the least about. Part of me would've liked to learn more, but there's enough to make analyzing the character very stimulating. The Invite is easily one of the best movies I've seen this year. I won't say it's my favorite so far. That honor still goes to The Furious, which would make this number 2. That's still high praise, it's the 2nd movie of 2026 to get this rating.
9/10
Backrooms
I took way too long to watch this. I finally did on Tuesday. Every week since the movie landed on digital last month, I would scroll through Instagram and see a clip from the movie that I had to turn away from because I feared being spoiled. By the time I finally watched the movie, I already knew what Pirate Clark looked like. I also already knew the person who played him is the same guy who played that tall monster in Alien: Romulus, Robert Bobroczkyi. A lot of the IG clips were memes of a scene where Clark is sitting at a table, with the camera pretty close to his face. He looked so miserable. So yeah, I wish I watched this weeks before, but, you know, better late than never? Thankfully, I wasn't spoiled on the sheer scope of the production design. I thought it only extended to the standard backrooms look. The unsettling yellow color and the low-humming ceiling lights. But there turned out to be more, even going beyond the Backrooms. The production design was also very strong with how Cap'n Clark's Ottoman Empire and Mary Kline's childhood looked. I was also mesmerized by the sky and backdrops. They looked like matte paintings because there was no movement in the background. The clouds didn't move, and there was such a stillness with the hills behind Clark's store that seemed artificial. The movie's also very vibrant and bright with its color palette. It's idyllic, which makes the horror of the backrooms very effective. I assume Kane Parsons was partially inspired by David Lynch. Having an idyllic setting with a disturbing underbelly was something Lynch perfected with Blue Velvet and Twin Peaks. The punishing, but dialogue-light atmosphere that was in Eraserhead was kind of in this film.
I think most of the best sequences in Backrooms were when a character goes through the backrooms. There would be little to no dialogue, and you're following the character. The camera would often not show the actor, so it's like you're Clark, for example. This would go on for a long time until they finally cut to Chiwetel Ejiofor. It was less the case when Maria Kline entered the backrooms, but that made sense because she went through familiar sections at first. The sequences where it was all about the backrooms proved to be an incredible display of the production design. Every single bit of the backrooms in the film was built. More than 30,000 square feet of Backrooms sets were built across four sound stages! Such an endeavor could only happen when the studio gives carte blanche to the director. Kane Parsons, despite being 20 during the production of the film, was able to flex so much creative muscle. He not only directed the movie, but he scored it along with Edo Van Breemen. His score choices were great, with haunting music that never went over the top. This is a movie that never really went over the top, grounding itself confidently. The sound design is so grand that the subtitles I used were so loaded. Shout-out to whoever made the subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing. It must've been painstaking to pretty much transcribe all the sounds in the movie, even the most faint stuff. For example, toward the end of the movie, the subtitles said that the hilarious Cap'n Clark's commercial was playing. I didn't hear it when the subtitles indicated it, but then I kind of heard it when I tried to listen very closely. The subtitles even noted all the languages said on a certain audio cassette tape. They didn't write down every single word. For example, "(Speaking in Burmese)" wasn't followed up with actual Burmese words. But more often than not, those words were shown in the subtitles. The movie is void of intentional comedy. I did laugh from a minor silly thing early in the movie. The only other laugh was from the subtitles, "(GOOEY PLOP)." I chuckled at first, and then it grew to a loud laugh when I read the subtitles out loud.
The cinematography was very nice. A good chunk of the movie is through a video camera, so it qualifies as found footage. That was certainly the case with the opening sequence. What a strong opener, a great way to introduce and sum up what the backrooms are about. Hardly any dialogue, the person finding some strange stuff, and then being spotted by a dark entity. I'm not a big fan of found footage, but it was very effective. It was a way for the movie to be POV, to have the viewer be in the shoes of the character. The aesthetic fit the movie. That said, I do prefer when the POV wasn't facilitated by video cameras. Clark's first trip in the backrooms is a great example of that. I felt like I wanted to be a backseat gamer, telling Clark where to go. That stems from me thinking the backrooms originated from video games. It was a nice form of immersion.
Up there with the production design, sound design, score, cinematography, and overall sense of dread, was the acting. It's a very small cast, but two actors frankly carried the movie, making it work despite some script issues. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve showed why they were nominated for Best Actor Oscars, the latter's nomination was this year! Despite this being a genre film based on a 4Chan creepypasta, they took the material so seriously and made the characters feel very real. Clark (Ejiofor) is an alcoholic and failed architect. Ejiofor made the character an effectively miserable sack of shit. The facial expressions he pulls, the slight slouch he had on his shoulders, and his vocal delivery all scream experience. The guy knew what he was doing and frankly elevated the script. Renate Reinsve did as well. I will say that Ejiofor was better overall. Reinsve is up there, but the script kind of messed her up a few times. The biggest example was when Mary raised her voice at Clark. The final part of her outburst sounded so weird. I actually thought Kane Parsons wrote the script, and it would've made sense that this kid wrote something that sounded...a little childish. But I just learned that the writer was Will Soodik, first time writing for a film. He wrote episodes for Homeland, Borgia, Ash vs. Evil Dead, and Westworld. Interesting resume. Anyway, Renate Reinsve was still able to make the character work. There was a serious risk of her character fumbling when she stepped into the Backrooms. But her reactions felt real, not going for the overly dramatic and loud horror movie acting one might expect. This movie isn't so much about loud volume, but a buzzing vibration that was mostly consistent. I also loved Reinsve's fit. I wondered if she had say over what she wore. In the second half of the movie, she wore very baggy high-waisted slacks and a blazer. The blazer would come off, fully showing a floral button-up shirt. Famously, she wore the suit her Sentimental Value costar Stellan Skarsgard wore, and that was baggy for her. Similar fashion sense, and it worked for me. Anyway, like Chiwetel Ejiofor, I think she elevated her character, giving her a quieter sadness. Quick shout-out to Mark Duplass, who I thought was one of the many producers. But nope, purely an actor, and he did a nice job. He was only in a few scenes, but some actors were only in one scene. For example, Katharine Isabelle, who was one of the two main girls in the amazing Ginger Snaps, was only in one scene, blink and you'll miss her. Clark's 2 young employees were only in a few scenes. So it's really 2-hander with Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve.
I mentioned the script a few times. That's one of my main gripes with the film. The dialogue can be a little clunky at times. I wish the film had some intentional humor. There is something weirdly funny about exploring this pocket dimension, for lack of a better term. I think Chiwetel Ejiofor would've delivered on the comedy since his character basically goes insane. Bigger than those issues is the movie explaining the backrooms too much. The third act kind of stumbles because of that. It's a very slow movie at 1 hour and 50 minutes. Contributing to that slowness with a long exposition dump was not a good decision. The hints they gave before the full explanation felt so on the nose. The repetition of certain lines made me think Kane Parsons and the screenwriter were too focused on having the film appeal to Gen Z and people with "TikTok brains." Some of the best atmospheric horror films had no extensive exposition. Eraserhead is a good example of that. The movie doesn't tell you what it's about, and the viewer is required to make up their own mind. The explanations ground this concept a bit too much. I praised the movie for other forms of grounding. This is an exception. The storytelling felt a little anchored down when it should've been as crazy as the production design. I'm not too mad with this flaw, I think it's something Kane Parsons and the writer can improve on as they do more films. Kane Parsons said he's down to make more Backrooms films. I hope so. This movie shows that the young man has so much potential.
Now that I think about it, the script wound up holding a slightly unfavorable mirror to the production design. Once it was explained what the backrooms are, I felt that the production design became less wild and more limited, squeezed into a box. The sets shown toward the end of the movie were too...solid, too much of a clear image. Still, I was very impressed with the construction of it all. This movie featured a pet peeve of mine. Shortly after Clark discovers the backrooms, he draws a map and shows it to Maria. Later, when Maria goes to Cap'n Clark's, she sees the map on a big whiteboard. They then flash back to the map Clark drew earlier. That was unnecessary! That is indicative of a script issue, but it's also a directing flaw. It's a little insulting to the audience's intelligence. But again, this film clearly had a default appeal to Gen Z, and it's been reported that people of that generation are less intelligent than their predecessors. As a millennial, I'm inclined to believe that's true. The movie is set in 1990, but the filmmaker wasn't even alive in the 90s. I think that kind of shows in certain points, which affected the movie.
Again, these issues don't bug me a lot. The main attraction of the film was the production design, and the movie succeeded big time with that. Chiwetel Ejiofor and Renate Reinsve carried the movie, helping me stay engaged with the story more than the script did. The cinematography and score were also crucial in the immersion. The makeup work was very impressive, certain individuals looked spooky and bizarre. The visual effects were very interesting. I read that Kane Parsons used Blender and Adobe After Effects. I thought the tall dark entity looked off. Not in the sense that the CGI was bad, but like it was a sentient shadow. Oh, and Pirate Clark looked amazing. Seeing pictures doesn't do it enough justice. Watching the creature move was a whole other experience. The sounds it made were very unsettling. The editing could've been tighter, but it was still fine. Obsession opened in theaters the week before, and the massive success of both films has made them an interesting pair. I think Obsession is easily superior, but the craft and two leading performances in Backrooms keep the film from being so obviously weaker. I thought about giving the movie a 7.5, so that the gap between that and Obsession, which I rate an 8.5, would be bigger. But I'm putting too much stock on the movie's strengths, trying to wave away the very notable flaws. Hell, one surprisingly major strength of Backrooms is the end credits song! It's The Word Becomes Flesh by Boards of Canada, a Scottish electronic music duo. I was vibing a bit to the song at first, but as it went on, I grew to enjoy it. Close to 24 hours since watching the movie, I've now listened to that song about a dozen times! Off the top of my head, I think it's the best end credits song of 2026. Its only competition is One Way or Another by Blondie, which was used in Send Help. Oh wait, there's also In the House - In a Heartbeat from 28 Years Later: The Bone Temple, but that's pretty much the theme song of that franchise. Okay, I'm still going with The Word Becomes Flesh. Unlike those great songs, I didn't get the urge to replay the songs incessantly. Plus it matters that I already knew those songs very well. The song and Boards of Canada in general were a very pleasant discovery. Yeah, that song actually nudges this film to...
8/10!
Exit 8
This is based on the video game of the same name. I never played it, but I watched gameplay footage years ago. It was very interesting to watch, so a film adaptation sounded cool. Thankfully, the movie adapts the source material well. It captures the liminal horror and anomaly gimmick through solid production design, great editing that made everything seamless, and smooth cinematography. Because there is no main character, just the player, the story could really be about anything. Co-writer and director Genki Kawamura's allegory is easy to identify and can be very on the nose, but I think there's earnestness and the movie never abandoned the vibes from the source material. I've seen the movie brought up alongside Backrooms, and for good reason. Some of the biggest strengths of Backrooms are present here, including strong sound design, a somewhat chilling score, and some great acting. That said, it is a step down from Backrooms. It is more limited, but that's not an issue. What bothered me was how stupid the main character was at times. It was also frustrating how he and another character never bothered trying to open or even thoroughly check the doors. It took way too long for them to depict a door as an anomaly. The CGI is also rough at times, specifically during the biggest sequences in the movie. I wish the movie had humor! There could've been a wild and scary image that ends up being funny. This film took itself very seriously. That shows respect for the source material, but even that had funny bits. Unlike Backrooms, Exit 8 is short at 94 minutes. It was close to overstaying its welcome as it took a while until the main character made some progress. Too many failed runs basically. But I enjoyed the film overall. It definitely pairs well with Backrooms. One major strength it has over Backrooms is that they never bothered to explain this mysterious subway section. An explanation is secondary to the arc of the main character. The liminal horror and the character's story were one, and that's better than any explanation.
7.5/10
Maddie's Secret - I heard about this from a friend a few weeks ago. It's an indie comedy written and directed by John Early, a comedian who I wasn't familiar with. He also stars in the movie, playing the titular Maddie. A cis man playing a woman. I must admit that I was worried about that premise, but John Early took the role very seriously. It wasn't drag, and the character wasn't punched down for cheap comedy. John Early treated the character with respect while telling a story that goes through a few stages. At first, the movie is very funny, featuring some satire on cooking and food content on social media. As the story cooks, you realize that John Early is an ally. Maddie entered a queer gym and asked her lesbian friend Deena if they would be willing to accept an ally. That question stuck out. I interpreted it as a question Early directly or indirectly asked and answered for this movie. As an ally, he made something that respects women with eating disorders. There's nothing glamorized or exaggerated, it seemed that a lot of research was done. I think you have to suspend some disbelief as certain moments happen really fast and there are other little logical questions. It was easy to do that because of how earnest the film is. There's so much love and care in the subject matter. The comedy would veer into drama in the 2nd half, and that's when the movie really won me over. That transition worked so well, building to a rather heartwarming ending. John Early succeeded on all fronts, writing a fun but dense screenplay, confident directing, and a very lovely acting performance. I think this might be a grower, as in I'll like this more on repeated viewings. It's very contemporary, very Los Angeles, but very good. I definitely recommend this for LGBTQ people, as they're represented quite nicely, for women of course, and for those who want a silly comedy with strong messages.
8/10
Similar threads
-
- Portal
-
- Portal
Site & Scene News
New Hot Discussed
-
-
10K views
ROM Hack Ocarina of Time 3D gets huge mod to enable single-screen play
Ocarina of Time is back in style as the upcoming Switch 2 remake looms on the horizon. But what's a fan of the game to do over the next few months? If you've been... -
7K views
ROM Hack Better Super Mario Sunshine Online released, adds online co-op and custom hide and seek game mode to play
If you've been waiting for an excuse to replay Super Mario Sunshine and happen to have up to nine friends, do I have some good news for you. Released earlier today... -
7K views
Pokemon Yellow added to first generation recompilation library, voxel mod updated to support "3Dish battles"
It's a good time to be a first generation Pokemon fan. But when was it not a good time to be one? In recent weeks we've seen a native LOVE2D recreation of Pokemon Red... -
7K views
ROM Hack Pokemon Timeless Diamond and Spaceless Pearl released, enhances original Sinnoh releases with quality of life changes and new events
For fans of Sinnoh, the pickings are slim. If you want the best experience you're left deciding between the updated region in Platinum, or the somewhat controversial... -
6K views
Homebrew app PS2 emulator NetherSX2 gets a Switch port
The Switch 2 has been out for a year now, but you shouldn't count the original system out yet! Released a few days ago, popular PS2 emulator NetherSX2 has found its... -
6K views
Homebrew app Wii U emulator Cemu gets a homebrew Switch port, Wind Waker HD shown running at full speed
Hot on the heels of their NetherSX2 port, @Nagaa is back with another hugely anticipated release: a Switch port of the popular Wii U emulator Cemu. We've got more... -
6K views
ROM Hack Pokemon Emerald EX released, features new routes and towns alongside eight new gyms
Hoenn to the ROM hacking scene is like Kanto to the official games. It's everywhere. At this point you've probably played through Pokemon Emerald with a party of... -
5K views
Homebrew app GameCube and Wii emulator Dolphin gets a native Switch port, supports RetroAchievements and loading from USB storage
The golden age of emulation on the Switch continues as a native Dolphin port was released by @Nagaa earlier today. Included in this port, we're looking at cover art... -
5K views
ROM Hack Pokemblem is the best spin off Game Freak never made
The Pokemon series is known for its vast assortment of spin off titles, with the majority being well-received. We've had an assortment of Mystery Dungeon titles, a... -
5K views
Nintendo Direct announced for the 4th of August, set to feature 20 minutes of the new Fire Emblem game
With the latest entry to the Fire Emblem series, Fortune's Weave, set to launch in September, Nintendo have today announced a new Nintendo Direct to put it soundly in...
-
-
-
84 replies
Limited Edition Zelda-themed Switch 2 images have leaked online
Images for the rumoured Zelda-themed limited edition Switch 2 for The Legend of Zelda's 40th Anniversary have started to leak online. The leak shows only the... -
67 replies
ROM Hack Ocarina of Time 3D gets huge mod to enable single-screen play
Ocarina of Time is back in style as the upcoming Switch 2 remake looms on the horizon. But what's a fan of the game to do over the next few months? If you've been... -
62 replies
Nintendo Direct announced for the 4th of August, set to feature 20 minutes of the new Fire Emblem game
With the latest entry to the Fire Emblem series, Fortune's Weave, set to launch in September, Nintendo have today announced a new Nintendo Direct to put it soundly in... -
47 replies
Pokemon Yellow added to first generation recompilation library, voxel mod updated to support "3Dish battles"
It's a good time to be a first generation Pokemon fan. But when was it not a good time to be one? In recent weeks we've seen a native LOVE2D recreation of Pokemon Red... -
37 replies
It’s decent enough - an early look at Oblivion Remastered on Switch 2
So I got pretty lucky on this one. Having ordered the physical version of Oblivion Remastered on Switch 2, I had it delivered earlier today, beating out the official... -
37 replies
Remasters for Fallout 3 and New Vegas announced, Fallout 5 still in development
Amidst news of layoffs and cancellations in the wake of Xbox's larger changes, Bethesda has today come out with a statement discussing their active projects. In this... -
36 replies
ROM Hack Pokemon Timeless Diamond and Spaceless Pearl released, enhances original Sinnoh releases with quality of life changes and new events
For fans of Sinnoh, the pickings are slim. If you want the best experience you're left deciding between the updated region in Platinum, or the somewhat controversial... -
27 replies
ROM Hack Pokemon Emerald EX released, features new routes and towns alongside eight new gyms
Hoenn to the ROM hacking scene is like Kanto to the official games. It's everywhere. At this point you've probably played through Pokemon Emerald with a party of... -
25 replies
Banjo Kazooie PC port "Lighthouse" released, includes built-in randomiser and ROM hack support
Harbour Masters were cutting it close with this one, promising a release of their Banjo Kazooie PC port "Lighthouse" by the end of this month. And they did not... -
25 replies
ROM Hack Better Super Mario Sunshine Online released, adds online co-op and custom hide and seek game mode to play
If you've been waiting for an excuse to replay Super Mario Sunshine and happen to have up to nine friends, do I have some good news for you. Released earlier today...
-
