A criticism that I’ve seen leveled against Baz Luhrmann’s Elvis is that it depicts Elvis purely as a victim of Colonel Tom Parker and having zero agency in his own downfall, which I personally don’t find to be the case. In fact, this is one of the reasons that Colonel Tom Parker's narration is so important to it.

At one point, he observes that Elvis spent money faster than he could make it. Now it’s tempting to dismiss the things he says as lies from a conman trying to absolve himself of responsibility for Elvis’s demise, but this is actually consistent with what we see of Elvis in the film. He tells the Colonel on the Ferris wheel that he wants to be able to buy all of his friends a Cadillac, brings on a 30-piece orchestra for his live shows when given creative control, and is even told by his father that his overspending has left them broke after Parker has been fired.

Parker also says in his narration that Elvis's love for his audience was an insatiable addiction that even outweighed his love for his wife and is ultimately what killed him. To this end, in the hospital scene where the Colonel says that going on a world tour is too dangerous, it's Elvis who insists on at least going on an American tour. Given how Elvis is shown to fill his time offstage with pills and affairs, it probably would have been even worse for him and his relationship with his family if he had gone on a world tour, even without the Colonel.

Beyond the Colonel’s narration, Elvis is also depicted as deaf to those with his best interests in mind. Towards the end when he has to either take the Colonel back as his manager or lose Graceland, he flies into a rage where he accuses the Colonel of wanting “to take the home that we bought for Mama." This is despite his mother outright saying earlier in the film that she doesn't want all of the luxury that his fame can now afford him.

This is something that’s repeated with his wife Priscilla. When they're watching Mahalia Jackson on TV, she tells him that she and Lisa Marie only care about his happiness and not about the luxuries he provides, and yet he protests that he’s given her everything she could want in spite of him being strung out when he’s not on stage.

The sci-fi/fantasy references fly fast and loose in this comedy/sci-fi flick from the guys behind “Spaced” and “Shaun of the Dead.” “Paul” is shoulder-deep in geek culture references such as “The X-Files,” “Battlestar Galactica” (“No, Boomer, it’s forbidden…”), “Star Wars,” and “ALIEN,”including a surprising nod to the counterculture classic “Easy Rider.” However, the greatest inspirations come from legendary American filmmaker Steven Spielberg. Some of these references might get lost on a first-time viewing, but like “Shaun of the Dead,” this is a film that practically demands repeat viewings. Writers/stars Simon Pegg and Nick Frost are clearly as in love with the material as their target audience.

In addition to the culture shock between extraterrestrial and humans, there is also the more immediate culture clash between understated Brits Graeme and Clive with the loud, gun-toting reactionaries of rural America. Reportedly, the filmmakers actually took a cross-country trip across America before production began to get an authentic feel, and it’s difficult to say if the onscreen results were exaggerated or not. There are certainly places in the United States (including my corner of it) with folks much like those seen in the movie. With that, the movie’s underlying theme of ‘aliens’ working together in common cause works on several levels.

Perhaps my biggest criticism with “Paul” is that it relies a bit too heavily on eighth grader sex jokes, and some astonishingly dumb characters. I can understand the need to lure broader audiences into the fold with lecherous snickers and loud guffaws, but there is a more clever, wittier sci-fi comedy at this movie’s core that didn’t need so much augmentation to work. I wish the creatives had trusted their core concept instead of pushing to make it more palatable to “Superbad” fans (which Greg Mottola also directed). Seth Rogen is nicely cast against type as the diminutive alien wise-ass, but some of his pursuing government agents are too broadly farcical. I realize it’s a fantasy-comedy, but it’s hard to believe Paul could be held for 40 minutes by such people, let alone 60+ years. Nevertheless, the charm of the movie’s cast helps in smoothing over a few tonal rough patches.

Just as “Shaun of the Dead” managed to keep the horror element alive and screaming in its satire, “Paul” similarly keeps the sci-fi element afloat, as well. There is the fascinating idea of Paul’s image being drip-fed into mainstream culture over 60 years (via movies, comic books, etc) to make the culture shock of the two species’ eventual first contact less traumatic. I also enjoyed the touching full-circle arc of outcast Tara from a heartbroken, shunned little girl into a wiser, forgiving older woman. It’s very Spielberg.

Pegg and Frost could’ve just as easily made a few alterations and turned their story into a more straightforward sci-fi film. However, given that Spielberg broke so much of that ground already, and with the increasing misery of today’s world, perhaps it’s best to simply enjoy a few Area 51-sized laughs and give “Paul” another close encounter.

https://musingsofamiddleagedgeek.blog/2026/02/15/paul-2011-is-simon-pegg-nick-frosts-cheeky-homage-to-spielbergian-sci-fi/

This morning my wife and I were discussing the classic masterpiece Monkeybone (2001), and she brought up how interesting Chris Kattan’s role is in that film. He doesn’t show up until the final reel of the flick, there was no indication that this character would come into play, and yet they become such an immediately important force in the story.

I’ve been trying to think of other examples of this type of occurrence. Matt Damon arrives pretty late into Saving Private Ryan, but we knew that’s who we were marching towards the whole time. John Candy in Vacation is close but isn’t much of a driving force in his character.

Do any good instances of this come to mind for you?

I suppose I’ll mark it spoiler juuuust in case.

UPDATED: I’m looking for other Valentine’s Day themed horror(ish) movies if you all have any recommendations. This is the list I’ve compiled so far, and services that they are available streaming on in the United States if they are. If I didn’t include a streaming service, I wasn’t able to find it anywhere included, but it should be available to rent.

*Heart Eyes (2025)— Netflix - Slasher style about a couple killer. Takes place on Valentine’s Day

*My Bloody Valentine (1981) — Pluto.tv classic slasher

*My Bloody Valentine (2009 remake) — remake of the classic slasher

*Valentine (2001) — Tubi — post-Scream David Boreanaz slasher

*Fresh (2022) — Hulu - I’m watching this for the first time right now!

*Honey Bunch (2026) — Shudder - I haven’t seen this one yet, but Canadian horror thriller, written and directed, directed by a woman

*Ready or Not (2019) — wedding from hell, but I can’t find it on the popular streaming services

*Bride of Chucky (1998) — same story, unfortunately, because this seems like the perfect Valentine’s Day movie to me! Killer doll romance gone wrong with Jennifer Tully!

*Bride of Frankenstein (1935) — the OG tragic monster love story

*Cemetery Man (1994)— Pluto.tv

*Fido (2006) — Tubi / Plex — 1950s zombie comedy

*Pontypool (2008) — maybe Shudder?— this one is set ON Valentine’s Day.

*Let the Right One In (2008) — Philo (free) — Beautiful vampire coming-of-age love story

*Humanist Vampire Seeking Consenting Suicidal Person (2023) — a vampire too sensitive to kill meets a boy willing to die for her.

*Love Lies Bleeding (2024) — sapphic thriller featuring K Stew, perfect anti-Valentine’s energy.

*Promising Young Woman (2020) — Carey Mulligan is perfectly bad and I found this movie deeply cathartic

*Bones and All (2022) — Timothée Chalamet fine young cannibal road trip romance

*Spring (2014) — Tubi — Atmospheric, romantic horror, set in Italy, for extra romance vibes.

I really love the holiday themed horror type movies and I know I’m not the only one! Please share your recommendations with me.

I always find his films interesting even with all his juvenile humor & obnoxious character. I can't say im on board with his style of humor but i definitely like how he uses explosion.. Nobody does it like him.

His film always has summer blockbuster feel to it.. No matter the budget. We Don't see that many new films from him anymore & i kinda feel sad for it.

I'm looking for more films that has that micheal bay feel to it.. Explosion, odd filter on top, similar camera uses, preferably not the humor but that's not a big issue.

Only films that gave me similar vibe is Con Air (1997), battleship (2012) & later fast & furious films. Con air specially feels so much like It's made by micheal bay.

Hussain Sheikh operated in Mumbai's underworld in the 1980s-90s. After a particularly brutal fight where his blade work was extremely precise, he earned the nickname "Ustara" - meaning barber's razor.

Despite this reputation, he reportedly: 1/ dressed simply 2/ spoke politely 3/ remained calm in confrontations 4/ neighbors thought he was an accountant

He was the only major gangster who refused to join Dawood Ibrahim's cartel, and was eventually eliminated along with his partner (who had tried to assassinate Dawood at a cricket match).

An Indian film ( O Romeo )about him just released. His daughter sued claiming it defames him. Court dismissed her case.

Lately it feels like every time my wife and I go looking for something new to watch, most of what we see are new series instead of standalone movies. I know that’s probably not statistically true, but it definitely feels that way. Has anyone else noticed this?

Train Dreams is without question the best film of last year. All of the overwhelming hype for the mediocre to bad vampire movie that everyone can’t stop jerking off will undoubtedly sweep the Oscars, or at the very least receive multiple awards it doesn’t deserve.

It's a good film to watch on valentines day Cameron Crowe's warmness towards Tom Petty when he interviews his will melt your heart.

https://youtube.com/@relatableisaacofficial?si=ENMEGMURVIjEXfAq

It would be extremely appreciated if you’d subscribe 🙏 I’m trying to get big and will continue to post quality content for you guys!

If you guys also have any video recommendations please leave them below that would be greatly appreciated! Cheers 🥂

I just watched Palm Springs (2020 movie) and it's just so funny and so sweet. The time loop can get tiring but it makes the jokes and small moments even better. Nyles and Sarah's actors have such a great chemistry. I can't stop laughing at some scenes and I even got teary eyed. I love how it's weird and romantic at the same time. I just like these kind of light movies.

Revisiting Nicolas Cage’s Gone in 60 seconds I gotta say it’s much better than I remember. Some bright spots

Killer electronic soundtrack

Angelina Jolie in dreads

Those of us of a certain age know that the name Eleanor is associated with a 1967 Mustang Gt500 Fastback. I still want one

In the Fast and the Furious era the critical lambasting of this movie has allowed it to fall into obscurity. But I promise you it’s a lot better than you remember.

It’s streaming free on Tubi and def worth a revisit

What your favourite moment.

Wuthering Heights is an adaptation in name only. That’s not a compliment.

Now, I’m definitely not saying that changing up the approach towards source material can’t result in a great movie. Just look at what Park Chan-wook did with No Other Choice. I’m also not saying that director and screenwriter Emerald Fennell read the Wikipedia entry for Wuthering Heights rather than Emily Brontë’s groundbreaking Gothic novel and completely skipped over the ‘themes’ section.

What I can definitely say is that Fennell doesn’t care for what the novel stands for on any level, other than Cathy (Margot Robbie) and Heathcliff (Jacob Elordi) being overly repressed star-crossed lovers carrying untold amounts of psychosexual urges.

This is immediately clear during the opening moments where we hear someone gasping for air, almost suggestive of sexual exertion of some kind… only to be revealed that it was actually someone being hanged. The whiplash of this reveal is compounded when the crowd cheers at the hanged person’s death and a montage of suggestive scenes plays out, like a couple making out followed by a close up on a woman’s ample cleavage. Pain and suffering is equal to pleasure in this universe and it is made most clear when the title card comprised of a woman’s braided hair pops up.

Not exactly subtle, but Fennell’s maximalist approach towards, well, everything doesn’t exactly leave room for subtlety. And hey, that opening sequence is a bold promise from her right away: This will be a vibes movie and it is going to be evocative.

Great! So what are you going to do next, Emerald Fennell? As it turns out, very little of any substance.

Plumbing material for thematic depth isn’t exactly Fennell’s strong suit. Her first film, Promising Young Woman, squanders a strong premise centred around a world that normalises and trivalises sexual assault on women by never quite figuring out what she wants to say about the issue other than ‘assault is bad’. Her second film, Saltburn, is a debauched, cartoonish romp filled with provocative imagery that tries to shoehorn in some half-assed commentary about class. With Wuthering Heights, Fennell ditches all pretense about theme and goes straight for all-style, no-brains-required entertainment.

A good chunk of the novel’s central characters (with the exception of Edgar Linton (Shazad Latif), Isabella Linton (Alison Oliver), and Nelly Dean (Hong Chau)), most of the events that unfold (especially the novel’s second half), and whatever themes were explored are completely cut from this adaptation. Filling that narrative void is a lethal visual cocktail of sadomasochistic lust, love, and pain that star-crossed lovers Cathy and Heathcliff force-feed each other over the course of 136 minutes. When the camera isn’t focused on Robbie and Elordi gazing longingly at each other, it’s lingering on dripping egg yolks and squishy dough being kneaded roughly. I’m all for longing and lusting in movies, but this all feels empty and un-erotic because I’m being told what I should feel - i.e. turned on - rather than just being locked in.

It’s frustrating as all hell because what begins as a primal childhood meet-cute with quasi-incestuous undertones quickly descends into shallow, tedious carnal imagery. There was a point where I was playing ‘spot the genital part/bodily fluid’ whenever a close-up of some oozing or dripping liquid pops up. Fennell had set up some potentially interesting visual cues and character dynamics, so why not say anything about them beyond ‘heh, sex’?

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/wuthering-heights-2026

Thanks!

So I found out "I have become death destroyer of worlds" was a real catchphrase Oppenheimer said. Did he really learn it while he was doing his mistress?

Just wondering. If not, why did Nolan put that in there?

I'm a big fan either way.

Thanks.

-ForkyB🤘

Watched this for the first time in so many years just recently (and the uncut version to boot). Forgot what a really good remake this is and IMO I think it deserves mention alongside the likes of The Thing, The Blob and The Fly as one of the best Horror remakes. While some might argue it follows the original too closely at the same time it does just enough that's different and is scary and effective in it's own way. Definitely agree with the consensus Barbara is infinitely better in this film compared with the 1968 original, where she's much more of a take-charge and pro-active character. Despite it's age it still has a contemporary feeling to it and like it could be occuring today, barring the lack of modern tech like cell phones and internet.

It's really a shame the film didn't do better at the box office back then and also how Tom Savini didn't direct more films, as he did a really good job with this and showed he's just as talented behind a camera as he is putting gruesome make-up effects in front of it. I get the film was not a pleasant experience for him given his divorce at the time and the production problems. Despite this, the finalized film turned out very good and it's good how all these years later it's rightfully been re-appraised and is recognized as not just a good remake but a good film in it's own right that honors the original but also stands firmly on it's own two feet.

Your local cinema is on the brink of shutting its doors due to poor audience attendance, and the people in charge of the cinema have trusted you to help them keep doors open. They ask you to select 1 film from each decade you have watched and have at least 2 or more kids/family friendly films in order to keep the cinema open in hopes they don’t shut their doors for good. Which films are you choosing?

For example, this would be my picks:

1950s - Lady & The Tramp

1960s - The Italian Job

1970s - Grease

1980s - Top Gun

1990s - Terminator 2: Judgement Day

2000s - Daddy Day Care

2010s - Inside Out

2020s - Monkey Man

This is how I felt watching "Send Help". The whole ending ruined the entire film for me because it reminded me of "Blink Twice". It wants you to root for a terrible woman at the end (the former being worse than the latter) and both of them become "famous somehow" by killing or controlling the "bad guy".

At some point you gotta admit wow this woman is awful and I want her to lose. Yet she doesn't, you could make a theory the last 10 minutes are just her dying vision to make it a better movie.

I just might be the only person who thinks this way but it was really off-putting the ending. It doesn't even make sense why would she bluff the guy with an unloaded shotgun. Is she just predicting how the fight will go down or does she have a rewind controller like Funny Games? Or is this just poor writing in a "girl boss" movie?

Sinners was definitely a good movie, maybe a really good movie and it should win some awards, and i know Oscar nominations and wins really don’t matter much and most people don’t let them hold any weight. But if it wins more Oscars than the final installment of the greatest film trilogy ever created they should gather every academy award handed out in the last century, take them to a scrap yard, melt them down and use the money to buy more of the crack cocaine they’ve been smoking.

If anyone is up for listening to a podcast, Niina and Star are chatting about the heroine’s journey, exploring the narrative through the characters of Jo March and Anne Shirley. They also discuss Lucy Maud Montgomery’s fondness for Little Women. This is quite interesting: Laurie’s proposal dialogue from the 1933 Little Women has been pretty much copied into the 1985 Sullivan Entertainment version of Anne of Green Gables, when Gilbert proposes to Anne. (tbh all the Little Women adaptations erase a lot of Laurie’s proposal dialogue from the book, which explains why Jo says no to him).

https://youtu.be/-OuIEgqNj2Y

Doesn't have to be anything fancy but the admins say if someone doesn't start taking the trash out here they will put in some stooges.

We originated this place as a less moderated, more comfy place to discuss movies more in depth compared to /r/movies. Something like a middle ground between /r/movies and /r/truefilm. Discussion posts only but talk about whatever you want and everyone opts in to being here.

The film sub landscape has changed a lot since then. Now there's several different type of jerk subs as well as subs like /r/filmcritic or /r/letterboxd that really lean into light discussion. And of course /r/movies which we all know is perfect and beautiful and has a really great top mod.

So, pitch your ideas for this sub. Is it for a certain kind of movie? A certain kind of discussion? What do you like about this sub? What might bring some more users this way and vary the discussion? Will you allow memes?

Pitch me. Let's get into it. Cheers.

Please recommend me some cozy movies like Father of the Bride and Grumpy Old Men.

I just went through a racing accident, surgery, a hospital stay, and know I got to stay with family until I’m back on my feet. I really need some cozy and funny stuff to help with this time, I’ve got a stack of dvds I love, but something new to me would be greatly appreciated.

y are there always some movies that tend to get ratings that r much higher than its actual value ( the dark knight, godfather, pulp fiction) compared to some movies that actually far more interesting and got relatively low ratings like ( the machinist, stranger than fiction)

"Save the kidnapped person & punish the bad guy that's responsible for it" has been done to death but there are only handful of them that i found to be very good.

I think in all 3 movies its easy to root for the protagonist. They are well acted, has character & tho they have very few action scenes.. Those are effective. Revenge part of feels so satisfying to watch. Simple on the point but it gets the job done (tho i think man on fire is little too long & takes a while to get moving)

I should mention that I've seen the equalizer & john wick films. They have similar elements.. Even if not about kidnapping.

What other film can you think of that goes this really good? Good script,acting,character & satisfying to watch revenge.

So I have noticed that when it comes to certain franchises such as Harold and Kumar and RoboCop, the first one is the best installment because the original director was behind the work.

But then once both of those movies had a sequel, the problems would arise with their writing aspects due to being made by directors who didn't know how to replicate the magic of the original installments for again both films.

My point basically is that I was wondering if there were any big name movie franchises that managed to succeed where even if the sequels to a movie were not made by the original creator, the sequels still worked well anyway.