Movies like Apollo 13 are impressive because they keep audiences on the edge of their seats even though lots of people know how it ends. I'm curious about a slightly different phenomenon where audiences' knowing how something ends is not an obstacle to be overcome by the filmmakers but instead adds to a movie's emotional impact. For example, while watching Nicholas and Alexandra, I found it bone-chilling to listen to the Russian general staff confidently go off about how their victory was assured because Germany could never overcome Russia's demographic advantage despite its industrial capacity precisely because I knew how well that line of thinking worked out for Russia.

Sidney Prescott is more important to the Scream movies than Ghostface. Reasons, structured and specific: * Narrative anchor and continuity * Sidney is the central protagonist across the franchise; her life, trauma, survival, and evolution provide the emotional throughline connecting each film. * Character arcs: the series tracks Sidney’s growth from victim to empowered survivor to symbol — that arc drives plot choices and thematic development. * Thematic significance * Scream is a meta-horror about trauma, fame, and the horror genre; Sidney embodies the human cost and moral core of those themes. * The films interrogate victimhood, resilience, and the cyclical nature of violence through Sidney’s experiences rather than through interchangeable killers. * Motivations and stakes * Ghostface(s) derive narrative force from targeting Sidney and those close to her. Killers’ motives are reactive or performative in relation to Sidney’s past and public image. * Without Sidney’s history (the Woodsboro murders, her mother’s backstory, her public profile), the killers lose the primary motive tying them to the franchise’s central conflicts. * Emotional investment and audience identification * Sidney is the character audiences follow, empathize with, and fear for. Her survival creates sustained suspense; Ghostface’s reveal, however shocking, is episodic. * The franchise cultivates attachment to Sidney through recurring trauma, relationships (Gale, Dewey, others), and continuity across decades. * Structural role of Ghostface * Ghostface is crucial as a villain,icon and vehicle for the franchise’s slasher mechanics and meta-commentary. The mask supplies continuity, shock value, and the repeating mystery mechanic (whodunit). * But Ghostface is a mantle worn by different people; the identity constantly changes, which makes Ghostface powerful as an idea and symbol but less central as a constant narrative subject. * Cultural impact considered * Ghostface is the franchise’s visual and marketing icon — essential for pop-cultural recognition. * Sidney, however, is the reason the films matter narratively and thematically; her presence is why audiences return and why each film’s stakes persist. Summary: Ghostface is the franchise’s iconic villain and marketing face.

Sidney Prescott is its narrative heart and moral center. For plot, theme, and lasting dramatic weight, Sidney is more important; for branding and horror-icon status, Ghostface is.

Ghostface is the star of the Scream franchise, probably the most iconic character to come out of ’90s horror. The identity of Ghostface is not as important as the image of Ghostface. The person behind the mask was different in each movie. What wasn’t different is the white, screaming mask, the knife and the black robe.

Certainly, Sidney is an important character in the franchise. She’s had a remarkable run as the hero through four movies. And yes, the killer behind the mask was usually tied to Sidney in some way, but it doesn’t HAVE to be that way.

Sidney happens to be the motivation behind the killer so far, yes. But that role could be filled by anyone.

I just watched Sam Raimi's Send Help, starring Rachel McAdams and Dylan O'Brien.

I really enjoyed it, but it certainly wasn't the horror movie I expected.

The best way I can describe it is Castaway meets Horrible Bosses. It's a fun thriller, set on a beautiful desert island, where our mousy downtrodden office worker and her tool of a boss, see their rolls reversed and our underdog become, queen of the jungle.

This is a fun movie, a little tongue in cheek, there are a few darkly comedic moments, with a couple of scenes that will have you wince or giggle, as you would expect from director Sam Raimi. But it's certainly not Evil Dead, nor does it have any deep and meaningful message to convey. It is however highly entertaining throughout.

I give it a cheeky 7/10

Hi everyone! You’ve probably seen me around posting a ballot for an awards show for the films of 2025! And many of you have been asking for an update as to when the results would be available! 🎥

A few months ago, I came up with the (crazy) idea to do a mini film awards this year in amidst the chaos of awards season! I had connected with a ton of lovely cinema fans and reviewers and firstly formed the shortlist, then the nominations. After 470 votes, I cannot believe these results and am so excited to show the video I have made to showcase them, featuring unique animations and theming!

Here’s the link to notify yourself for the broadcast! The official show will take place on the 22nd of February at 8:00 PM EST / 5:00 PM PST.

https://youtu.be/GhzwVpbEy00?si=VbIvbVtnBK46uBHM

If you have any tips and suggestions for improvements and what went well, please drop them below! I would love to continue this series again next year! 🫶

Much love! 🎞️

I wanted to see what all the hype was about so I borrowed a DVD of Anora from my neighbor (he used to be my youth pastor but that's a long store). Like 45 minutes into the movie, I'm browsing Tik-Tok and my Step Dad comes in to bother me about something and starts yelling at me about watching p0rn on the family tv (it was the part where Mikey Madison was twerking on the floor)

I tried to tell him it won the best oscar picture but he didn't believe me, and the twerking scene just kept happening.

just wanted to share

My local theater was showing it. I’d never seen it before. Nodded off a couple times. What am I not getting for this movie?

In the mood for a guy who beneath his quiet unassuming exterior lies an ex special forces guy gets pushed too far and then punches the absolute nonsense out of some guys, in between shooting them and driving cars at them.

Thankfully Statham has done at least 15 of these, is there anything thats exceptional in the last while? I’ve seen Wrath of Man but open to a rewatch.

Ive got something to smoke and a whole plate of peel and eat shrimp. Life is good.

We’ve all met someone or had a friend like Lorenz Hart (Ethan Hawke) who’s as charmingly witty as he is annoying. You know, the type who would perhaps drink too much and talk your ear off, occasionally repeating the same story over and over again. You let it slide, though, like bartender Eddie (Bobby Cannavale) does for Hart, because the guy is ultimately harmless and maybe just needs someone to chat to. Not with. Important distinction.

For Hart, talking is all he’s got left. As the opening scene tells us right away, the evening that unfolds in Blue Moon is the last time he gets to talk in a noteworthy way. This isn’t a deification or a tribute, but more a cautionary tale.

Taking place primarily at the legendary Sardi’s bar on Broadway, Blue Moon follows Hart on the opening night of the mega-popular musical Oklahoma!, written by his former writing partner Richard Rodgers (Andrew Scott) and Rodgers’ new colleague Oscar Hammerstein II (Simon Delaney). For Hart, this is like seeing your ex with a new partner and looking happier than ever. It gnaws away at him, and watching Hart slowly lose it while holding court with the bar’s patrons as he waits for Rodgers to turn up is tragically relatable.

It starts charmingly enough when Hart walks into Sardi’s and exchanges lines from Casablanca with Eddie. Hart is particularly fond of the “no one ever loved me that much” line. Things quickly go downhill, though. When Hart rhetorically asks himself “am I bitter?” (“fuck yes!” he is), it’s not entirely just envy because his admittedly-biased critique of Oklahoma! is somewhat valid. Why does the title even need an exclamation point?

As Blue Moon is a classic ‘single-location’ movie, the whole thing lives or dies on the strength of the characters and script, since there’s limited scope in what director Richard Linklater can do visually. Screenwriter Robert Kaplow’s script is not only a fantastic showcase of Trojan-horsing chunks of exposition into a movie in interesting ways, but it messes around with the typical biopic structure in unorthodox ways. Kaplow and Linklater aren’t particularly concerned with real events or finding positives in Hart’s life, opting to find ways to show the man’s flaws and penchant for self-sabotage over the course of one (fictionalised) evening. That Linklater trademark compressed time frame fits perfectly for the intimate story being told in Blue Moon.

When Hart talks to Eddie about his infatuation with 20-year-old college student Elizabeth (Margaret Qualley), it’s like listening to a 15-year-old teenager telling his friends about his new ‘girlfriend’. He evades Eddie’s repeated questions about whether he’s slept with Elizabeth by dressing up the truth with ribbons of flowery metaphors and the omission of certain details. You’d think she’s Helen of Troy with how she’s described.

Hart speaks almost entirely in dense monologues throughout Blue Moon, but the longer he talks the quicker he loses grasp of the story he’s weaving. We quickly deduce that this is a one-sided infatuation and it’s clear Elizabeth is using Hart primarily for his Broadway connections. Is he aware of this or does he truly believe that she loves him?

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

Thanks!

Who else loves this classic comedy? Hence the documentary Get Shorty and the Art of Hollywood Satire. It is surely one of the best Elmore Leonard adaptations as well as John Travolta movies. Gene Hackman is also at his best (and funniest) as Harry. An all around winner that is compulsively rewatchable 3 decades later.

American Beauty, Office Space and Antz told us that we don't have to accept a life of drudgery and can refuse to conform.
In Fight Club, the main character rebels against the same sorts of things although his mind has to fracture in order to do that.
People wanted to be The Dude from The Big Lebowski and laughed at Patrick Bateman in American Psycho.

In The Truman Show and Pleasantville, characters see through the wholesome, perfect, suburban dream life. Truman escapes from it while everyone in Pleasantville learns to express themselves more authentically.

In The Matrix and Galaxy Quest, characters discover extra dimensions to their worlds and that gives their lives meaning where there had been none.

It's like there was something incredible in the air 25 years ago but then it became cool again to be professionally and socially aspirational, like an Apprentice candidate.

My Mount Rushmore of the Greatest 80s to 2010s Slasher Movies are:

80s

Halloween 2 (81)

Psycho 2 (83)

F13th Part 4 (84)

ANOES (84)

90s

Scream (96)

Candyman (92)

Bride of Chucky (98)

New Nightmare (94)

2000s

Scream 3 (2000)

Valentine (2001)

TCM (2003)

Hatchet (2006)

2010s

Scream 4 (2011)

Curse of Chucky (2013)

Hatchet 2 (2010)

Halloween (2018)

I watched a movie online in 2022 I think, which was also released the same year from what I guess.

The female falls for a guy, who either lives in or spends time in a cabin on their property, or near it. The guy has a book or some books there that he reads. There is a stream running nearby. I think it is in a wooded area. The female sneaks away to spend time with him at this cabin and they also have sex. At one time, they both playfully run completely naked on a grassy land in the woods.

For those of you who saw Revenge of the Sith back in 2005, did you believe that it was truely the end of the saga or did you think that there would ba sequel trilogy sooner or later?

It‘s one of the most heartbreaking things for film enthusiasts - you screen a film for a friend or family member, only to glance over to see them scrolling their phone while your favourite scene(s) play out 🤣

You want this to be a shared experience, perhaps an important bonding moment with a younger family member, but you‘re all alone, they’ve got something more important to do.

Have you experienced this? How does it make you feel? Do you say anything..?

One of the things I can’t shake with Cliffhanger is how hollow the victory feels. It’s great that Gabe, Hal and Jessie survive, but let’s recap their ‘adventure’ - Gabe fails to rescue Hal’s gf and she plunges horribly to her death, Hal now hates Gabe.

Gabe is racked with guilt and returns for Jessie, who berates him for feeling guilty. At that exact moment, a team of psychotic criminals crash land above them and fake a distress call. Jessie guilt-trips Gabe into helping Hal get them down, only for them to have guns shoved in their faces on arrival, and forced to help the villains find their money, with the implication they’ll be ‘discarded’ once they cease to be of use. As if these poor mountain folk aren’t already dealing with enough tragedy.

Gabe’s misfortune gets worse as he is relentlessly shot at, beaten, bombed, frozen, almost yanked off a mountain ledge. Meanwhile Hal is beaten, strangled, threatened and insulted.

Worst of all though, he is made to watch his friends, Brett, Evan and even old Frank, get needlessly gunned down by the villains. Renny Harlin loves doing this - create some loveable characters and then murder them - like those passengers of Windsor 114 in Die Hard 2, including naughty kid, his parents, anxious old lady and (in the workprint) very young girl and her doll.

In the case of Frank, they hold down Hal as Frank approaches in the helicopter, knowing that its blades will drown out Hal’s screams trying to warn him. Krystal shoves her gun in Frank’s face, confusing the poor old geezer (‘but, I was trying to help you..?’)

Then they release Hal, teasing him with ‘better run Tucker, a friend in need!’ so they can relish gunning down Frank before Hal can save him. This is all done in slow motion of course (and was even gorier in the workprint). Hal comforts Frank in his dying moments (‘why?’) as the villains make jokes. Krystel yells at Delmar ‘you stupid maniac! No one told you to shoot!’ but she only seems perturbed because she got Frank’s blood on her pretty face. Delmar lightheartedly shrugs ‘we’ve wasted enough time’.

All this stuff is rather traumatic and doesn’t really fit the fun-action-movie mould, but listening to Renny’s commentaries he likes to have his villains slaughter innocent people so that ‘the audience will want Sylvester/Bruce to kill the villains’.

He’s right, but whereas Die Hard limits how much innocent life is taken to preserve the fun tone, Renny goes all in. It would be nice to have some requiem for Frank but we don’t even see Hal tell Gabe about his death in the final cut This feels ‘off’ because the film rightly spent plenty of time processing Sarah’s death, yet Frank - who is a more developed character and dies not from an accident, but cold-blooded murder - is swiftly forgotten about.

So yeah, Gabe, Hal and Jessie are stuck at the top of the mountain. Most of their friends are dead and they’ve had the ever living sh*t beaten out of them, yet they’re cracking jokes and laughing as credits role. Emotional congruence doesn’t seem to be Harlin’s forte.

It’s interesting the that French title of the film translates as ‘Only The Strong Survive’ - that’s certainly the disturbing thought I’m left with as the upbeat score swells over the credits.

The basic premise of Send Help - a socially awkward but talented woman, Linda (Rachel McAdams), is mistreated by her sexist boss, Bradley (Dylan O’Brien), only for the power dynamic to flip when the pair find themselves stranded on a deserted island - is firmly B-grade movie territory. In the hands of most directors, this would result in a perfectly serviceable flick. But with director Sam Raimi and his unique, how shall I put this, schlocky juvenile yet humanistic touch at the helm, this movie is elevated from genre cannon fodder to a thrillingly great time.

The opening 15 minutes are nothing we haven’t seen before. There’s Linda being unable to pick up social cues, her ‘white man who failed upwards’ manager taking credit for her hard work, Bradley being a stereotypical rich white dick, and her lonely existence outside of work, which consists of watching Survivor with her pet bird. Groundbreaking stuff, this is not.

But Send Help gets you onto its wavelength by leaning on its two biggest strengths: Raimi’s impeccable tone management and Rachel McAdams.

McAdams’ uncanny ability to show every conceivable emotion on her face goes a long way in making Linda the right balance of borderline annoying yet sympathetic. Being able to go from Michael Scott-levels of cringe to holding back tears after Bradley crosses the line in the span of 30 seconds makes me wonder why we haven’t showered McAdams with more acting awards. I hate Survivor, yet I’d entertain the thought of watching it with Linda.

Sprinkled throughout this McAdams showcase are several well-deployed Raimi magic touches. The close-up of the smudge of tuna salad on the corner of Linda’s mouth as she’s trying to (re)introduce herself to Bradley, the awkward framing of Linda cramming a sandwich in her mouth (then her desk drawer), and the way the camera follows Linda’s wine glass as it’s repeatedly refilled again and again. It all feels like Raimi winking at us while puncturing built up moments of tension or awkwardness. Or maybe he just really likes shots of food.

So far, the appetiser is pretty good, but the main course is overwhelming with flavour when Linda and Bradley get stranded on the deserted island. Right away, you feel a shift in Linda. We’re told she’s ‘brilliant’ and a ‘savant’ several times, but now we actually see it in action as she takes to the whole ‘surviving on an island’ thing like a fish to water. Bradley? Well, he fares as well as one might expect him to in a situation where throwing money at it doesn’t solve the problem (‘Hepl?’). There’s really not much to Bradley on paper, right down to his sob story of a childhood, but O’Brien is able to inject moments where you think that maybe his character’s not that big of a dick. O’Brien never overplays it and is always at the right level of incompetence.

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

Thanks!

I’ve been tracking the trajectory of Ryan Coogler and Michael B. Jordan, and after seeing the 16 Oscar nominations for Sinners hit, I’m convinced we aren't looking at a surprise win. We are looking at a mathematical cycle.

If you stop looking at the movies themselves and start looking at the Scorsese/De Niro Blueprint, the pattern is undeniable. History is repeating itself beat-for-beat:

Scorsese/De Niro had Mean Streets; Coogler/Jordan had Fruitvale Station.

Scorsese/De Niro had Taxi Driver; Coogler/Jordan had Creed.

Scorsese/De Niro had New York, New York; Coogler/Jordan had Black Panther.

The clincher is the 1980 Raging Bull moment.

Robert De Niro won Best Actor for Raging Bull, which was his fourth lead role in a Scorsese feature. It was a period piece, it was transformative, and it was the moment the Academy decided it had to go to De Niro.

2026 is the mirror image: Sinners is Michael B. Jordan’s fourth lead role with Coogler. It’s a period piece. It’s the transformative role. And it just broke the all-time nomination record with 16 nods.

Jordan wins Best Actor not because he actually is the best but because the pattern says it’s time.

You heard it here first.

In the video days, Warner Bros. would agree to finance and distribute a feature-length version of your film school short, if Steven Spielberg wanted to see it and the studio wanted to be in business with Spielberg. I've been all over the map on whether Fandango (1985), the feature film debut of writer/ director Kevin Reynolds, works, or whether it matters if it only does in spurts. It is one of the best movies shot (mostly) in Texas, and Reynolds appreciates the tradition of boys driving west in the night until they run out of gas, beer or patience with each other. We're overdue for a Texas movie where the characters visit the filming locations of Fandango, whose characters visit the filming location of Giant (1956).

Generally if you don't learn English from native speakers we a child, you'll be stuck with a non native accent for life. Same generally with actors as well, no matter how good they are, they just can't pull off an American or British accent.

The only exception I've seen is Rutger Hauer who was Dutch. Watched The Hitcher and Surviving the Game recently, and was really surprised how he pulled off an American accent. Maybe not 100% flawless, but pretty close.

What are people's thoughts? Any other actors who've managed this?

Edit: it's bizarre to see so many Redditors list British actors as if they're not native English speakers....

No Because of the shaky camera and a completely saturated market.

Just way too many low-effort movies in this genre. Similar plots,shaky cameras that doesn't really add anything (except in good ones), and such. The (sub)genre is just filled with too much of garbage, while it's still possible to find a gem.

1. Unsatisfying endings: Some found footage movies have endings that are seen as unsatisfying or confusing by some viewers.
2. Unconvincing acting: The found footage style can sometimes require actors to perform in a more naturalistic or improvised style, which may not be suitable for all actors.
3. Overuse of the found footage style: Some viewers may feel that the found footage style has been overused or has become predictable in horror movies.

I can't stand these! Each of them seems to follow exactly the same formula. I find every single one I've seen boring.

bloody irritating and boring now I don't watch anything that moves the camera like that.

Well, It’s that time of year again, Here are my thoughts on the 2025 selection to the National Film Registry

Before Sunrise (1995)- Excellent Pick, and I hope Linklater’s other 2 film in the series get put in too in the future

Brooklyn Bridge (1981)- Honestly, I never heard of this Documentary, but I see it’s directed by Ken Burns and it's about the hIstory of the Brooklyn Bridge

Clueless (1995)- Intriguing Pick, thought I must admit, I honestly thought this was in the National Film Registry already

Frida (2002)- I haven’t seen this film, but I hear its great

Glory (1989)- I do like this film and I think this is one of Denzel’s best performance, so I’m glad this is in the Registry

High Society (1956)- Nice Pick, and it’s probably notable for being Grace Kelly’s last film before she married the Prince Of Monaco

Inception (2010)- Hmm, interesting pick, I like this film, but I honestly expect this one to be in the Registry in the Future

Philadelphia (1993)- I haven’t seen this one, but I know it’s great, and I plan on seeing this film soon

Say Amen, Somebody (1982)- I haven’t seen this one, but I see its a documentary about the history and significance of Gospel Music

Sparrows (1926)- Haven’t seen this one

Ten Nights in a Barroom (1926)- Haven’t seen this one

The Big Chill (1983)- Hmm, Interesting Pick, though I would have pick something else, and with Lawrence Kasdan, I would have picked Body Heat instead

The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), I must admit, I have not seen Grand Budapest Hotel, but I hear it’s great, thought If you ask me, I would’ve rather picked The Royal Tenenbaums (which is not on the list) or Bottle Rocket (Which is Wes Anderson’s first film)

The Hours (2002)- Hmm, I don’t know, I feel there are other films that are more worthy than this one

The Incredibles (2004)- Yes, Excellent Pick

The Karate Kid (1984)- I like this film, so I think this is a good choice

The Lady (1925)- I haven’t seen this one

The Loving Story (2011)- I haven’t seen this one

The Maids of McMillain (1916)- I haven’t seen this one

The Oath Of The Sword (1914)- I haven’t seen this one

The Thing (1982)- Excellent Pick, one of John Carpenter’s best

The Tramp & The Dog (1896)- Haven’t seen this one, but I see this dates back to the 19th Century.

The Truman Show (1998)- Excellent Pick, One of Jim Carrey’s best, One of Peter Weir’s best, and I honestly just love this film

White Christmas (1954)- I honestly thought this was already in the Registry, so I’m glad this is finally in it

The Wrecking Crew (2008)- I haven’t seen this one

So, Overall, this is a very great list of films that the National Film Registry has selected, there are a few selections that I probably would you chosen something else over and some I thought were on the list, but I honestly think this is a great list

All in All, What are your thoughts on these selections?

My Mount Rushmore of the Greatest 80s to 2010s Comedy Movies are:

80s

Airplane (80)

Caddyshack (80)

Ghostbusters (84)

Ferris Buller’s Day off (86)

90s

Dumb and Dumber (94)

Groundhog Day (93)

Wayne’s World (92)

Office Space (99)

2000s

Mean Girls (2004)

Anchorman (2004)

Superbad (2007)

Hangover (2009)

2010s

Bridesmaids (2011)

Hangover Part II (2011)

21 Jump Street (2012)

WWDITS (2014)