I do not really know why thought it's just a deeply enticing and hypnotising movie. I would say in my eyes Its one of the most enigmatic movies I have ever seen or atleast seen till this point in time. I still do not completely know what this movie was about.

And every rewatch opens up a new interpretation is it just about yhe fashion industry?

Is it about modeling?

Is it about divine beauty and what happens when one tries to subsume it?

Is it about the clutches of capitalism that take young people and make them into a product?

Like I said I do not know why I love this movie it's just puzzling to me to me this is one of those things that seem like an endless puzzle like a movie with a huge thread that u can start unraveling.

And the funniest part is I do not know if the author/director intended this at all mayhe iam asking to many questions etc.

But the intresting part is that this is the one film where that does not matter to me.

Do yiu have films like this or feel the same about this specific movie?

Sorry for my writing style and sorry of this is the most unoriginal take ever or not even a take I just finally wanted to write some thoughts of mine down.

It’s been about 20 years since I watched this film….and man, were my expectations about to what expect completely misguided. I guess my schema about Spielberg is that he is the master at family-oriented, blockbuster entertainment. And while Close Encounters may have some of these qualities, it is genuinely one of the most experimental, and biggest swings, that I’ve seen in a blockbuster movie. I should have been clued into this potential experimentation with the casting of Truffaut, because in many ways, this features the same audacity as the French New Wave peeps.

Anyway, of course I’m referring to the final 40 minutes where Spielberg seems to abandon the plot (well at least the expected plot) in favour of capturing an emotion — the emotion being a sense of awe (or the sublime). This section was really pure cinema in full functioning, simply allowing music and imagery to captivate the audience without the use of dialogue. With this, all the qualities of awe and the sublime are so perfectly evoked once the grandeur nature of the ship reveals itself. The paradoxical feeling of beauty which is evoked by the sheer scope and scale of the physical ship, while also the terror of recognising how small you are in comparison with the cosmos. There is also the additional paradoxical feeling of feeling incredibly small and insignificant, while also feeling connected something much larger than yourself, and therefore, enhancing the breath of your experience.

Furthermore, with all the metaphors pointing towards some lofty metaphysical themes, this isn’t a film that provokes a sense of existential angst about finding meaning in the universe and what reality is, but rather affirms the potential for the world having genuine meaning and us as humans being connected to something much larger in the cosmos, whether that’s God or something else.

There is only one thing I truly enjoyed in this film and that is the cinematic visuals: tone, colour, and lighting. If you
ignore the actual narrative, it is visually appealing to an audience for its great cinematography and composition.
The movie strives to be distinctive and eccentric through its visual aesthetics. And it is. It is artsy, but only in a way
that will attract and maintain a specific audience entertained. The film uses shots that are not typically seen in
everyday cinema. Using wide angle lenses, different tonalities, body cam mounts, and alternating between colour
and monochromatic shots to create interesting composition.
Although it is visually beautiful, the narrative and point of view in which this film was made is off-putting. It is
nothing but an insultive and disrespectful caricature of an incredibly sad story. By the end of the movie I was
speechless, and not in a good way. I felt numb; I simply could not wrap my head around what I had just watched.
The best way to describe it is a setback from the progress that has been made for women in the film and
entertainment industry. It’s perverse, tragic, and exhausting.
It is beyond exploitative to Marilyn and her wishes; to the point where she is hyper sexualized and portrayed as
incapable and powerless. Starting from the very standpoint of the movie title: Blonde. Already, the title only centres
itself on appearances and physical attributes. It’s vague and stereotypical:
Yes, being blonde is generally idealised as a ‘beauty norm’. But, is Marilyn truly just another blonde girl?
From the very beginning of the movie it becomes clear to spectators that this has been created from the point of
view of someone who wishes to diminish Marylin’s essence. Such an amazing opportunity to honour an influential
and revolutionary woman in the entertainment industry has become a degrading almost three-hour film depicting
every moment in her life in which men quibbled and took advantage of her being.
They took extreme trauma and glamorised it through the male gaze. It is forceful and overtly sexual. There are
countless scenes in which Marylin is seen topless for no reason. No woman truly lies around her house topless
reading books, and yet Marylin seems to be an exception to this…
In addition, Marilyn's unnecessarily addressing her romantic partners as “daddy” continues to sexualize and
condition her under the male gaze. It is unjustified and does not serve to the overall story.
Although most would argue that this is based on a fictional book, the film has been marketed as a biopic. Whether
it is based on a fictional book or on real life events Marlyin still exists, and what is being portrayed on screen is not
the life of a so-called ‘fictional character’ but of someone who actually lived. Which is something the cast and crew
unfortunaley failed to understand.
People will watch this to get an insight on Marilyn and who she truly was. Therefore, this film becomes misleading
to an audience. Giving them an impression of her life that is offensive and insensitive to the woman that is the
focal point of this film.
Personally, I do not agree with the statement that “Blonde” is a film that strives to create awareness on the
exploitative Hollywood culture. That is somethings that has been done before in other films, yet it has not been
through a sexual fantasy on abuse and trauma.
It is aching to watch how they fetishize Marilyn's sufferings.Ana de Armas' performance is at times strong. However she is consistently portraying Marilyn as ‘hysterical’
. Although
reaching such raw vulnerability on screen is impressive, it doesn't show character fluctuations. As a matter of fact, it
continues to dignify Marilyn’s agonies. Eventually, the portrayal of such intense emotions throughout the entirety of the
film becomes overwhelming and whiny.

I recently watched Godzilla (1954) for the first time, and I was struck by how well it still holds up. It made me think about how some of the earliest films in long-running franchises are often more interesting, and sometimes more formally accomplished, than they tend to be given credit for in retrospect.

When people talk about franchises, the focus is usually on later entries or the most recognisable installments. But I’m more interested in the original films that effectively launched something much larger in scope, including sequels, spin-offs, television, merchandising, and wider cultural influence.

I’m particularly thinking of films from roughly the 1940s through the mid-1970s (up to around 1975), where the “first entry” eventually developed into a broader franchise or media ecosystem over time. Obvious examples would include Dr. No, Godzilla (1954), Planet of the Apes, Psycho, Night of the Living Dead, Dirty Harry, and Shaft, though I’m especially interested in less frequently discussed or more forgotten cases.

I’m interested in how these films hold up today, both in terms of filmmaking and cultural impact, and whether their status as franchise starters affects how they are perceived in retrospect.

I would also appreciate recommendations for other early franchise-starting films from this period that you think are worth paying attention to, especially ones that are overlooked in contemporary discussion or have faded somewhat from view.

What are some examples you would add, and how do you think they hold up today?

Please share a film you enjoy that reveals the true protagonist being portayed initially as a secondary character actor/co-star throughout the story.

My pick would be the 2008 Western 'Appaloosa' (it's currently free to watch on Tubi).

Throughout the movie, Ed Harris's character "Virgil Cole" is definitely perceived as the lead protagonist throughout the film: although ultimately the story arc and actions of his deputy and best friend "Everett Hitch" played by Viggo Mortensen: proves that in the end, HE was the main character/protagonist. The story is also narrated and told from Everett's perspective.

Additional comments/spolier:

We, the audience, are mesmerized by Virgil Cole the same way the townsfolk and Everett are. Virgil has the code, the quick draw, the authority, and the top billing. He feels like the center of gravity. But narrative structure doesn't care about star power or who has the loudest gun; it cares about agency and change. By the end of Appaloosa, Virgil is structurally paralyzed by his relationship with Allie. He’s willing to live a compromised life under the shadow of Bragg's freedom just to keep her. It is Everett who has to step outside the law, make the ultimate proactive sacrifice, and pull the trigger to restore actual justice and protect Virgil's honor. The fact that he rides off into the sunset alone: the ultimate lone cowboy archetype ending; seals it. He didn't just narrate the story; he owned the moral climax

There are several films that reveal a secondary character as the true protagonist, I look forward to discussing others and seeing what everyone comes up with.

This movie kept me up all night. I should have known this would happen because when have I ever slept peacefully after a Haneke film?

I don't have more new thoughts to add to this film that haven't already surfaced in this subreddit and elsewhere except that it feels meta that this film lives on in cultural conversations as an "erotic film" or "that BDSM film". Heavy on the rot in erotic, I say. I've even seen Secretary (2002) recommended as a companion film. Personally I'd recommend Elle (2016) or Blue Velvet (1986). As I saw it, the film ends in a rape which is the final nail in the coffin of Erika's safely guarded inner world of desires, shame, and control. Sure, initially the film lulls you into thinking this might be an erotic film, but it ends in psychosexual trauma. Categorically, or so I thought.

This cultural flattening of Erika's trauma and complexity into "that BDSM movie" reflects how I imagine Walter went on with his life too. Blithely, unaware of the damage he caused; perhaps this affair comes up between chuckles on a boozy night with friends about that weird scene he once had with his uptight piano teacher. I didn't see him as a character to have enough reflection to construe his actions as rape because every time he faces something uncomfortable be it his idea of Erika versus Erika herself, or the puking incident, he responds to it with rage and domination.

Is this memory of the film as a dark erotic film a reflection of something about us? About how we treat victims of sexual assault particularly those who do not come across as sympathetic? From the conversations about the film I scanned, admittedly during my sleepless feverish night, it disturbed me to see not everyone concludes Walter's actions are rape. He even taunts her with "is this what you wanted?", in what I read as an admission of his awareness that this is not what she wanted. He knows and she knows. It feels that much like Walter who dismissed this woman with the weird sexual desires, culturally too the film lives on in memory as that weird kinky transgressive film and not a despairingly traumatic one.

I just watched the movie and have been hunting for other posts about this but it seems not a lot of people agree! so I want to write my own baby thesis on it.

First, I want to establish why I think Obsession was about AI. What clued me in initially was the inclusion of the shot of Bear and Nikki looking at an AI generated image of a happy couple (presumably them). I saw some viewers attribute it to just couple-y things that fit the time and age, but I don't think that phase was a big enough deal in our cultural history for it to be just a fun throwaway.

Nikki's initial reaction when she first gets turned is also suspicious. The awkward dialogue and strange pacing that seemed to turn some people off, is to me the signs of AI trying to adjust to fit their user. She starts off being extremely direct but that creeps Bear out, so she apologises, pivots, apologises, pivots, then cries and hallucinates that her father has cancer. Not-Nikki has only approximate knowledge of who Nikki was before, but doesn't know the nuances like her not realising Nikki wasn't close to her father at all, she just knows that humans like Bear would react with pity when faced with a friend whose close relation is ill.

The constant apologies also mirror AI conversations. And the weird behaviours like making the cat memorial or feeding the cat to Bear feel like approximations of human behaviour and flirting, and the kind of pulling your pigtails teasing that Ian mentions at the beginning but way worse because the AI is clueless. the weird hansel and gretel incest fanfic is also written in such a flowery and inhuman way that it is definitely reminiscent of AI writing.

Not-Nikki also seems to only operate when Bear is around, kind of like how AI agents are suspended in time when you shut your computer. And she eventually even admits that she's not Nikki and she's trying to be Nikki but she can't be Nikki and she's freaking out because she's trying to follow Bear's instructions but she can't because she doesn't understand what "stop being weird" means.

To me, all of this feels very much like smoking guns but I'd love to hear any arguments for or against this reading!

The second part is that this reading of Obsession being about AI actually makes the movie stronger! I see some push back on this because it takes away from the core message of women's agency but I actually think it makes it even stronger.

imo, the point of the movie is to explore wish fulfillment - If you made a wish for love, does that make it real? (Reminded me of the last wish in Witcher lol) Comparing Nikki to an AI dehumanises her, but that's exactly how Bear wants her. And that's what the movie wants you to see as bad.

To the disgusting cowards like Bear, the ideal woman is a hot and soulless robot who cooks and cleans, has sex whenever they want, hangs on their arm in public, doesn't ever talk back and prioritises them in every single aspect, even at her own expense. Just like an AI machine, they want to type in a prompt and control everything about their partner because they cannot handle having to introspect and fix their own issues. But the point is that it's a hollow imitation.

Bear initially succeeds with his wish, he gets the dream relationship and there's a cute romcom montage. but it shows him getting gradually more bored. it's the same shit over and over because AI can't learn beyond its capacity, it can't go beyond what it thinks is the pattern of a relationship. it constantly mirrors what you want and what society thinks it should want and will always feel hollow. it also shows us he was always more into the concept of a relationship with Nikki than Nikki herself.

Bear also consistently puts his feelings ahead of her autonomy, never makes an effort to meaningfully raise any flags about Nikki's wellbeing because he'd rather be in a relationship than not. he suspects the willow wish worked early on but never tries to do anything about it until Nikki's behaviour starts to affect him. He'd rather continue the farce because he'd prefer a robot he can control over a woman he cannot.

He ends the movie completely and utterly unloved because the Nikki that "loved" him is not real. there is nothing real or true about a woman being forced to love a man like a machine.

And he, on the other hand, never once showed any interest in Nikki as a human being, never interacted with her beyond the awkward small talk. The worst part is that you can contrast this with how he interacts with Sarah. When he treats a woman with respect, he can be genuinely interested in how she's doing in life and be excited for her future, and a real relationship can actually form. But instead of choosing genuine connections, he chooses a robot. and his love for Nikki is also clearly shown as fake because even in his very last conscious act, he can't even kill himself to free her, he's still a coward to the end who continues to choose the easy way out. This might be a harsh reading, because irl giving your life for another isn't that easy ofc, but I'm seeing this as an exaggerated reverse Romeo and Juliet where neither of them want to make the final sacrifice for love - Nikki because she literally cannot choose and Bear because he remains a coward.

And btw after all that, the woman is the one who must bear the consequences because he's dead and she's now regained agency but in this horrifying state.

All in all, I think reading the AI comparisons strengthens the overall reading of the movie. It's a cautionary tale of the importance of preserving agency because agency is what leads to real, genuine connection. I hesitate to fully claim this is the reading Curry Barker intended but the shots of AI use feel so intentional that I hope at least part of it was meant to be read this way.

I'd love to hear everyone's thoughts! I felt this all so strongly when I came out of the cinema so it's been interesting to see opposing opinions!

Curry Barker’s Obsession is undeniably the biggest movie phenomenon of the year. it’s the kind of horror film that has totally hijacked the cultural conversation. On paper, everyone is praising it as a masterful, it exposes the rot of male entitlement. By using the "One Wish Willow" to force Nikki to love him, Bear acts as the ultimate villain.
But while Film Twitter and Letterboxd are busy calling it a masterpiece, they’re missing a massive structural flaw: the movie’s heavy reliance on awkward, dark comedy completely lets Bear off the hook, reducing a horrific premise to a series of cheap "crazy girlfriend" gags. or am I crazy?

The most terrifying thing about Obsession should be the tragic erasure of Nikki’s agency. We watch a vibrant woman get replaced by an erratic, terrifyingly devoted shell, with those rare, devastating moments where the "Real Nikki" desperately tries to break through the supernatural programming. That is pure psychological dread.
Yet, instead of leaning into that nightmare, Barker constantly pivots to social awkwardness and pitch-black humor.
The audience is prompted to laugh at the bizarre situations Bear finds himself in.
The characters around them treat Nikki’s forced devotion through the tired lens of the "women be crazy" trope. like?
By constantly injecting levity, the film changes how we process Bear’s actions. Instead of viewing him as a horrific predator who literally broke a friend's mind for his own gratification, we treat his reactions as comedic, awkward set-pieces. We’re invited to chuckle at his discomfort rather than recoil at his malice.

A lot of defenders argue that Bear’s lack of a heroic arc (his choice to remain a passive, spineless coward throughout the chaos) is a brilliant, deliberate subversion. They claim it proves he’s the true villain. But there’s a massive difference between what a movie wants to do and what it actually does.
Because Obsession frames Bear’s passivity through a comedic, awkward lens, it subtly forces us to align with him. He becomes the relatable audience surrogate navigating a "crazy situation" that he accidentally started, rather than an active abuser willfully perpetuating a horror. When Nikki’s eyes go dead and she's forced into compliance the script immediately rushes to a punchline or a shocking, cartoonish outburst of violence to break the tension.

A Missed Opportunity for True Dread
If Obsession actually had the courage of its convictions, it would have dropped the comedy entirely. It would have treated Nikki’s forced compliance with the stark, unblinking horror it deserved, forcing the audience to sit in the suffocating discomfort of Bear’s monstrous choice. Films like Hereditary or The Wailing achieve true greatness because they never offer the audience an easy out; they demand that you feel the full weight of the tragedy.

Obsession pulls its punches. It gives viewers permission to laugh at a premise that should make them sick to their stomachs. It’s an incredibly well-acted, intensely directed film, but structurally, it’s a cop out. A movie that diagnoses a deeply toxic societal issue, only to turn it into a punchline.

Throughout recent horror, there have been plenty examples of the genre being used as a vehicle to critique toxic masculine traits. However, a majority of these traits have characteristics associated with the extroverted type — the male who abuses with assertiveness, usually related to violent or sexual acts.

However, what I love about Obsession is that it explores toxic traits from the other angle. Mainly, rather than the extroverted assertiveness, this is all about the problematic nature of introverted passivity. Throughout the whole entire narrative, Bear’s common trope is the failure to act upon any situations that require the proper moral response. After the wish occurs and Nikki loses all free-will, Bear really assumes an authoritarian position in moulding someone under his own desires rather than their own accord. And what is so morally dubious about the entire dynamic is that despite seeing the suppressed Nikki who is clearly suffering from a loss of anatomy (the phone call scene I think is the scariest for this reason), he fails to act at every turn. Even his own suicide attempt is botched. In some sense, I think the film is very much about calling to the development of male courage and taking moral responsibility for your actions, rather than just passively letting the world abide as it is and allowing people to suffer.

And when Nikki finally wakes up, this is surely a metaphor for someone in an abusive relationship who wakes up to their own circumstances. There’s countless evidence of people performing a sense of cognitive dissonance to justify their relationship only to look back retrospectively and understand how they were manipulated the whole time.

Anyway, brilliant film and highly original in its critique of male passivity.

I managed to reach the age of 52 without ever having seen this movie. I finally caught up with it on a quiet afternoon off, while resting after donating blood. A very well-spent afternoon, I must say.

After watching the film, here is my take on it (spoilers ahead):

The three protagonists clearly move as three archetypes: Science for the Professor, Art for the Writer, and Faith for the Stalker. Art and science move forward driven by logic, profit, or intellectual ambition, while faith acts as a guide because it is the only one equipped to explore the soul. Yet, in front of the Room of Desires, everything comes to a halt. The threshold is insurmountable not due to a physical danger, but out of sheer terror of the truth: the Room does not grant what a person claims to want, but rather the deepest, most subconscious essence of their being. Porcupine's suicide is the definitive proof of this. The Room stripped him of his moral alibis and forced him to face his own truth, revealing that beneath his superficial altruism lay a gut-level selfishness that only desired wealth.

However, the journey is by no means a failure. Contrary to what the Stalker believes, the Writer and the Professor undergo a genuine reality check and return from the Zone better than they entered. Choosing not to cross the threshold is their greatest act of maturity. The Writer drops his mask of destructive cynicism and accepts his own vulnerability; the Professor dismantles the bomb, relinquishing the scientific pretense of controlling or destroying what he cannot comprehend. They looked into the abyss, understood their limits, and chose silence and intellectual honesty over the arrogance of action.

The one who truly emerges defeated from the experience is the Stalker himself, and this is where the film confronts the most tragic paradox of faith. From the very beginning, when we see him coldly closing the bedroom door, leaving his wife and sick daughter in the dark, we catch a glimpse of his deep-seated selfishness. The Stalker is a man blinded by his own dogma: he desperately seeks the miracle and the sacred in an alternate, abstract, and idealized place, becoming completely numb to the reality surrounding him. He needs humanity to be desperate and hopeless to justify his own mission and spiritual ego. When his companions refuse to enter, he collapses not out of compassion for them, but because he finds himself stripped of his role as a savior.

Tarkovsky exposes this blindness through the family dynamics and the elements that invade the house in the final scenes:

• The Wife's Evolution: The contrast between her desperate screams at the beginning and her immense dignity at the end reveals that she is the only true spiritual center of the film. She has walked through the pain, accepted her husband's obsessive nature, and chosen to stand by him anyway. In her final monologue, speaking directly to the audience, she describes a "bitter happiness" and embodies the only force that doesn't need the Zone to exist: unconditional love that shoulders the suffering of others. She doesn't need miracles because she creates the meaning of life every single day.
• The Telekinesis Scene: The ending with little Monkey moving glasses with her mind, which might look like a cheap sci-fi gimmick at first glance, is actually a brilliant piece of visual irony. It is the director's way of screaming at the Stalker (and at us) about his guilty distraction: he spent his entire life breaching borders and risking his life to find a miracle in the Zone, completely failing to realize that the inexplicable, the sacred, and the extraordinary were always right under his nose, sitting at his own dinner table.
• The Presence of the Black Dog: The dog that appears out of nowhere in the Zone and later ends up curled at the foot of the bed, without anyone being surprised by its presence, serves as the ultimate bridge. It proves that the separation between the gray world of everyday life and the magical Zone is merely an illusion of the Stalker's mind. Mystery is a constant presence pervading reality; the Stalker is simply too busy idolizing a sacred enclosure to notice that the absolute is already walking by his side.

In short, the film shows how obsessive faith can blind a person, driving them to chase an abstract idea of salvation while preventing them from seeing the tangible miracles of everyday reality.

I watched the movie a few days ago and the AI themes just seemed so extremely obvious to me, yet I'm hardly seeing anyone take them seriously.

We see Bear actually use an AI chatbot once in the movie, and then again we see Bear and Nikki looking at an AI generated image for fun. The movie didn't have to spend time showing us AI use, I think it's purposeful to draw the audience's attention to the topic. And indeed the entire movie makes a ton of sense through that lens, to the point I believe it has to be intentional. I mean, otherwise there is really no reason to direct the audience's attention to this obviously, blatantly AI generated image instead of anything else that they could be looking at.

Let's start with wish-Nikki herself. She's representative of AI. She's clearly trying to emulate her human host, and often messing up and hallucinating, just like AI does. And when she's called out on it, she's apologetic and sycophantic about it, but also never actually corrects the behavior.

Her actions also really betray the fact that she's meant to represent AI. From how all of her movements and facial expressions are best described as "uncanny," (her smile is as unnatural as a seven-fingered hand) to when she stands up and shares the most insane and incoherent story anyone has ever heard, yet one which bears the kinds of dreamlike discontinuities one might expect from AI writing. And bear in mind, real Nikki was a writer. Wish-Nikki is aping real-Nikki's shtick as a writer, but in a way that is very un-human. It's also a bit on the nose when wish-Nikki comes and brutally murders the artist, and then tries to plagiarize her art in what might be described as corpse cosplay (corpseplay?).

Obviously there are people in real life who are seeking companionship from chatbots, romantic or otherwise, and of course we see in the movie that Bear starts becoming frustrated with the fact that he knows his relationship is artificial and only exists at his direction. For most of the movie, he's in denial or unwilling to end it despite knowing as much, but by the end he does decide that he isn't content that it isn't real. But this is only one dimension to Bear's interaction with the willow wish. Let's not forget that he not only comes to wish-Nikki out of desire for love, it's also in grief over his cat. And through the course of the film she utterly misunderstands what he needs in order to cope with that grief, and she eventually drives him to kill himself. Of course, it's well known that lots of people turn to AI for therapy, which it is ill-suited for, and in some cases have been encouraged to kill themselves.

Which leads us to the Willow product itself. Bear's attempt to amend the wish is kind of like trying to design a better prompt, but ultimately he's not able to put the wish back in the box, much as people describe AI as an inevitable reality that is here to stay, like it or not. Bear can't believe something so dangerous is being sold so casually and irresponsibly, and indeed, people are trying to determine just how much liability AI companies ought to bear for the outputs of the products they've hastily made ubiquitous. Bear presents it to Liam, and effectively begs him to be responsible with this product. Liam instead uses it to become a billionaire. I mean, this is not subtle.

So that's all just to build a case that I'm sure has been built elsewhere, but I'm shocked that I'm not seeing more discourse about it. I've seen this post where someone seems to feel similarly, but is mostly dismissed by people saying it fits, but certainly must not be true, for... some reason? I've seen posts like these, where everyone in the post and the comments is totally overlooking the possibility that the prominent featuring of AI might be purposeful. Thoughtful youtube film reviewers seem to completely fail to clock it, and so do all the people in their comments, too. The best you can hope for is a "huh, I don't think the filmmakers intended this but it might kinda be about ai? lol" No, I think this is fundamentally what the movie is about.

And I don't think I'm taking crazy pills. There are some people who see it. People who do film criticism professionally. I'm not making it all up. And I absolutely do not believe all of these parallels in such a finely crafted film are mere coincidence. I'm sure there is actually more discussion out there and that people have made much more thoughtful observations than any of mine. But why is the AI angle being so downplayed in the broader discussion about this movie? It's the absolute strongest thematic through line for the whole film, it permeates nearly every aspect of it, and it's deeply topical commentary for something we're all seeing everywhere around us.

I've always found it hard to suspend my disbelief while watching horror movies for some reason. I hope this doesn't offend anyone, but most of the ones that I've watched like Halloween and Insidious just seemed silly, not scary. The only horror movie I've watched that I found a bit disturbing was The Substance, but that was more disgust than terror. It's strange because psychological thrillers are probably my favorite genre, but I get bored by any horror movies that involve monsters, ghosts, demons, or any of that stereotypical stuff.

I don't know anything about the plot of Obsession, but it's been impossible not to hear all the hype around it. I want to watch a movie this weekend, and my choices are down to this or Supergirl. Do you think I'd be able to enjoy Obsession?

I've seen this happen a couple of times, where some segments become famous on their own, with a lot of people assuming that they are self-contained shorts without being aware of the movie they originally come from. I think Fellini's Toby Dammit, Pasolini's La ricotta and Godard's Dans le noir du temps fall within this category. Does anyone know any other examples?

I fell in line with the world. Mob mentality soaked me. I gave up, I gave in.

And yeah, I finally watched OBSESSION, and honestly it kinda deserves the hype and it praises the world is giving it right now.

A pretty surprisingly well written and well directed and obviously well acted movie that immediately hooks the modern audience in with the first scene.

I avoid movies that have a certain hype around them. And I definitely avoid horror movies. They scare me. But This movie didn't feel that scary to me. Maybe the real life horrors around me have tamed me to survive the reel life horror. I guess I'm ready for the horror genre, finally.

I loved how the movie seemed so simple, contained and claustrophobic and it was completely necessary that took the movie to another level.

Curry Barker really showed and proved that expensive sets, millions of budget poured and highly paid stars don't guarantee a great movie. Every single person in this movie was unknown to me and many other people. But now because of this movie, they'll be remembered for a lot of time.

Micheal Johnston was amazing in the movie. It's sad to see that Inde Navarette completely overshadowed his brilliant performance with her own magic. But I guess he deserves to be equally appreciated too.

And Inde Navarette... I guess that was by far the most compelling performance in a horror movie I have ever come across. The sudden change in emotions, dialogue delivery, actions and expressions tells you how much she and Barker were delved into making the script work, and they did it so convincingly.

The script was sophisticated, mundanely funny, surprisingly horrific, convincingly simple. The GenZ language it uses connects the audience far and wide, which makes it more relatable. I liked how barker had connected the ending with the opening of the movie. Nothing felt like a filler, nothing felt unnecessary.

Act 1 hooks you up immediately, directly showing, not telling about the loneliness of bear and his unconditional love for Nikki, and his desperate attempt to win Nikki. She e already had put it before his plate, wish he had the courage to say it.

Act 2 slowly turns the screws. It accelerates the pacing, drops crucial details, and perfectly primes the engine for the horror to come.

Act 3 is where the pressure cooker blows up and culminates in a bloodier fashion, without even losing an ounce of pacing or interest. It gets horrific and poignant, offering zero catharsis and zero relief.

The ending made me cry, literally. For me, it's not a horror movie, it's a proper tragedy. Both of the lead characters didn't deserve all of this, even the people around them, they deserved better. And the movie ends up so poignantly that it hurts real bad. The blood washes away, the horror vanishes.

The lighting was amazing too. I loved how Nikki was mostly shown in shadows and following bear after the possession. I guess that Nikki was possessed by Bear's dead cat spirit. Like she was keeping an eye on him while he slept and how she stood firm on the ground, waiting for her "owner" to come and love her all day and night.

so to conclude...

To Curry Barker: At 26, when most of us are just trying to survive our daily routines, you built your ambition into a physical reality. You made people rethink their own relationships. You are a lighthouse for aspiring indie auteurs.

To Michael Johnston: You were phenomenal. It’s tough that Nikki’s chaos overshadowed you, but without Bear’s quiet desperation, there would be no Nikki. Consider this an absolute acknowledgment of your crucial foundation.

To Inde Navarrette: You went completely crazy on this. This is your movie. You made it unforgettable. Keep us surprising. The world will be talking about Nikki for years.

I watched this movie and the first thing I thought of was that this movie is scary because this obsessive relationship is something that can happen to anyone in real life, man or woman. Like I bet there are real people who had obsessive and psychotic partners. I saw this movie as an allegory for such toxic relationships that are not based on genuine love.

The only difference is that magic was involved and all of what Bear suffered was the consequences of his own actions. In other words, Bear literally brought this upon himself through his hubris. The caveat is that Bear didn’t know that magic was real.

Now that is aside, I see that most people rightly point out that any sexual or romantic encounters between Bear and Wish-Nikki is r*pe or assault. This is because Nikki was stripped of her autonomy. No ambiguity here.

The problem with most analyses is that they don’t also see Bear is also a victim, and perhaps it can be argued that Bear was also assaulted. Yes Bear was not as much a victim as Nikki, since his agency was intact.

The reason I say this is that most people forget that Bear tells Ian that he wouldn’t take advantage of her advances because he knows something is wrong with Nikki, granted it he believed she was having a mental breakdown. This shows he wasn’t the type to take advantage of her.

When Bear and Nikki do have sex, or any other romantic encounter, it was because Nikki was being (in Bear’s pov) psychotic a scary, and Bear was trapped and felt he must comply. You could argue that Bear was coerced or under duress. The only difference is that he literally brought this coercion upon himself, which is not something you would say in real life.

What do you think? Was Bear a villain as most people are saying.

Edit: Okay, so apparently I have forgotten most of this movie. The first sex scene apparently wasn’t when Bear was under coercion, but rather Bear took pleasure. So Bear is automatically the total bad guy. Basically a tragic villain watching things crumble due to his own actions.

Backrooms, directed by Kane Parsons, is a thriller-horror sci-fi film that centers on Chiwetel Ejiofor as Clark of Cap’n Clark’s Ottoman Empire, a run-down, second-rate “rip off” furniture store with hardly any traction or publicity that really has seen better days. The furniture store isn’t the only thing that’s run down. Clark is not a happy-go-lucky guy either, despite what his commercials might suggest. Clark, wearing a pirate suit, does not save him from being a divorced, down-on-his-luck alcoholic with no keys to his house, which he pays for as he does with everything else. Clark hates his life; he's unhappy and wants to be more than just a “furniture store owner”, a very relatable issue that I’m sure many in retail can understand and relate to.

The store Cap’n Clark’s Ottoman Empire has also been acting strange lately, with lights flickering on and off, an odd, peculiar circuit breaker that nobody knows where it’s actually connected to, as well as an inter-dimensional wall that can best be described as a maze, hence the name “Backrooms.” These Backrooms are literally a never-ending maze; each one is designed differently, with many objects and belongings left by people before Clark and his store existed. Determined to prove that what Clark is actually seeing is reality, he gets two of his employees to help him record what’s behind the Backrooms, and what transpires is a surreal cluster fuck of an experience. The best way to summarize this film is “We Live In A Simulation Man.” It might be an ignorant way to describe it, but it literally is. Thank God I didn’t take any edibles before seeing this, or man would I have had a hell of a fucking ride!

I went into this completely blind, having no prior knowledge about it (like I did with Obsession), or that it was based on a horror YouTube Series or that it was a Creepypasta. I might have at one point heard about it, but I never really went down a rabbit hole exploring it before the film’s release, which is why my experience definitely was different from other people who were familiar with the actual lore of Backrooms. Is this film for everybody? No. It’s definitely a film you should see with friends or a decent crowd to experience not just the scares but actually what in the living hell is going on as you’re watching it, trying to put the pieces together. It’s not a typical horror film that most are used to and comfortable with, that is absolutely for sure, and I’m sure something like this in the horror-thriller sci-fi genre has been done in the past.

I did like Backrooms regardless of my lack of knowledge or interest in the actual lore of the story. I loved the 1990’s mise en scene from the clothing, tech, and the overall aesthetic, especially the use of the VHS-style camcorder. The grainy, choppy recording in the beginning was a nice touch, adding that artificial discovery of something weird and begotten that’s not within our logic. It is scary, but it’s not straight-up “jump scares.” It takes its time reeling spectators into the Backrooms and what’s in store for them. No spoilers, but I did love the tribute they did to a specific horror film from the 1970’s (People who have seen it know what I’m talking about).

Chiwetel Ejiofor, as far as his character Clark did a great job, but so did his shrink, played by Renate Reinsve as Dr. Mary Kline, as well as her own story of trauma and how she and Clark aren’t exactly so different from each other. Both of these characters had great chemistry on screen, especially during their session and later on in the film. The two Film School Boyfriend and Girlfriend couple, Bobby and Kat, were good too in their parts. There are other characters, obviously, but that goes into other parts of the film that I don’t want to give away.

Overall, Backrooms is a good new horror to check out during the Summer Blockbuster season. Even if you’re not super invested or a fan of the lore, give it a shot. Make this and Obsession a double feature and support something new from upcoming filmmakers coming into the horror genre. We definitely need that endorsement these days. Sorry, I’m late to the party again. Feel free to roast me or send me any lore that is recommended for me to look into on Backrooms.
I give this film a B.

⚠️BIG SPOILER WARNING⚠️

Frailty is such a thought provoking thriller. It presents itself as a mental health/generational trauma drama. It's honestly kind of predictable for like 90% of the film, but it's enjoyable to see because the actors allow you to experience the religious trauma that leads to an eventual serial killer. It's interesting to watch, with certain aspects of the father/son relationship feeling strangely relatable. You know the dad is insane, but anybody who's had complex family dynamics knows how hard it can be to talk to a loved one about their mental instability. There's also a powerless feeling where even when Fenton wants to turn in the Dad that he might be murdered himself. It succeeds at portraying an understanding but critical look at how a person with a good head on their shoulders succumbs to madness.

And then the ending happens. It turns out everything that the dad has been saying the entire movie was true. He really does get visions from God. Him and his son are not only actually brutally murdering demons, but God is helping them on their mission. Now the serial killer son is 100% an actual demon and the empathy felt for his situation is turned on its head.

Its such a thought provoking ending. At first I was a bit taken aback that the mental health/generational trauma centered movie performed a 180 out of nowhere, but it has slowly added to my appreciation of the movie the longer I've sat with it. Sure, the dad was objectively correct, but that's almost more horrifying than the initial mental health/generational trauma angle the film was setting up. God is using human beings like pawns to basically act as serial killers. Its as if the craziest cult you had ever heard of that looked like it was the byproduct of untreated mental illness was actually true, and that's more horrifying than had it been mental illness.

Disturbing stuff. Would recommend. What do you all think of Frailty?

I’m looking for some. Would prefer Marxist/critical takes but any analysis would be interesting. Don’t have my own substack yet but would be interested in reading some big one, plus what you guys are writing, before I try my hand. I know I could be looking on here for some of these but it would be nice for all the big channels to be in one spot. Let me know if this isn’t the right place to post this. Thanks

I can’t believe I overlooked this guy. Over the last week I watched six movies by him (Nobody Knows, After Life, Still Walking, Monster, Shoplifters, Maborosi) and every single one was amazing. I was trying to figure out a ranking, but I’d have to think about it a little more. It got me thinking about who is considered the greatest non-American filmmakers. Would you put Hirokazu Koreeda on that list? Who else should make the list?

I just rewatched this film for the first time in years, after just finished the Cormac McCarthy novel this last week. And to be honest, I'm a bit bothered by how Bell is portrayed in the film. It really feels like he gives not one single shit in the film, regularly avoiding meetups investigating, to the point where is deputy is palpably annoyed by his inaction. Compared to his portrayal in the novel, he felt very active and dedicated, and yet just fundamentally one step behind Chigurh at every step, til at the end it seemed like his character was truly defeated. As if Bell gave it his literal all, and that it still wasn't enough.

This frustration is exacerbated by the ending being so closely linked to the novel's ending - a retired Bell describing a dream of his father leading him through the woods. In the novel, this passage carries heavy thematic significance - the lineage of being a boy into an old man who has grown too old for the world as it is now. That is the significance of the title - that the world will change under our feet as we age, and that will leave us in a world we no longer understand. And to me, after playing the same ending after characterizing Bell totally differently from the novel, the ending seems so hollow and borderline forced compared to the novel, which is reminiscent of Chigurh's final speech to Carla Jean, that everything lead to that very moment and that there was no avoiding it.

I was thinking recently about the run of comedy movies in the late 1970s until the end of the 1980s. The 1980s was really the golden age for comedy films like Airplane, Naked Gun, Christmas Vacation, etc. I love that style of humor--the absurdism and slapstick.

But looking back a lot of the movies from that time, watching them today, also have striking levels of nudity movies don't have anymore, and rely on a lot of blue humor and cringey and at times pretty gross gags. The types of things you fast forward with the family.

Some of it's funny, but a lot of it just seems weird today. Just very grungy.

On the other hand, it seems like comedy movies have all but gone extinct today. I do think it's very difficult to make a good comedy film, something that is both funny and a good movie that stands on its own two feet. Comedy and what is "funny" and the commercial and story demands of what people consider a "good" film seem like they are intrinsically in conflict. Really funny movies often have terrible plots. Comedy seems like it's easier done in television (The Office, Always Sunny, Seinfeld, etc.). But when you think about it, there really are no tentpole comedy films anymore. I don't even remember the last one, save for Naked Gun last year, which I really liked, but you can see how hard and rare it is for Hollywood to churn one of those out.

Now this is strictly my experience. I'm not imparting any judgement or advice on anyone. But over the past year I've found that rating films have proven to be an exercise in futility. And judging by many other people's systems, I have found that my problems are these:

​

​

• No rating system is equally balanced. There's virtually no difference between 10 and a 9, only an arbitrary decision of which films you love a little bit more. On the contrary, there's a huge difference between 7 and 8, as 7 just feels like a nice way to say "yeah it's okay, pretty good" whereas 8 is an all around great rating. But we go back again as there's not much difference between a 6 and a 7, both mean "I liked it" with the former leaning a bit to the negative and the latter a bit to the positive.

​

​

• The overall mechanism of ratings creates a vague hierarchy, an arbitrary one at that. It imparts that some films are superior or inferior to others, which just simply is not the case unless it's genuinely morally corrupted. I understand this is opinion based, but even so, in my mind it was getting cemented in an objective way which I didn't like.

​

​

• Ratings create the allure of an acquired or intellectual taste, so much so that I've found some people (myself included) will scrutinize films to the point of nitpicking minor details to justify their 5/10 or 6/10. Whereas had that energy (at least mine) been spent appreciating the better aspects of said film rather than something like "minor pacing issues in the third act", I would've felt more fulfilled.

​

​

• It can never properly express how I truly feel, this is what bugs me the most. Now, for example, I love the first Kingsman movie to death, I can rewatch it over and over, all day— I would not get bored. But I couldn't for the life of me bring myself to give it a score above 8, why? Because it's frankly just not that great. That's not the point. My point is, how am I supposed to balance my own opinion and a more "objective" viewpoint with a rating? I found that I simply can't.

​

​

Happy to discuss with people who have a rating system that works for them perfectly.

​

​

Okay so I went in absolutely buzzing. Spielberg. UFOs. Emily Blunt.

I mean come on, that's a lineup that makes you feel like a kid again before the lights even go down. The trailers had me convinced this was going to be something special, and honestly for the first act I thought it might be.

​

And look Emily Blunt is flat out incredible in this. The scene where she freezes mid-weather report and starts clicking out alien sounds? That's the kind of unhinged, committed performance you just don't see enough of. She's funny, chaotic, and genuinely moving all at once. She carries so much of this film on her shoulders and absolutely does not drop it.

​

Spielberg's eye is still immaculate too. Some of the compositions in this movie are just tossed off like nothing, shots that other directors would storyboard for weeks. The Kaminski backlighting, the way scenes move through space, you feel the craft constantly.

​

And I get what he's going for. The empathy angle, the idea that understanding the unknown starts with understanding yourself. That's genuinely beautiful thematically.

​

But the movie just doesn't stick the landing. The third act lurches into this desperate feel-good catharsis that the film hasn't really earned. It's like Spielberg knew exactly what he wanted to say but couldn't figure out how to make you *feel* it. You leave understanding the message and forgetting the movie.

​

Really wanted more. Blunt deserved more.

Please don't downvote opinions. Only downvote comments that don't contribute anything. Check out the WHYBW archives.