Alexa Davalos in Defiance (2008)

I’ve just finished watching most of Wes Anderson’s filmography, and here is my ranking of his best films—what do you guys think?

Husband and I saw whalefall today. We are stunned. Incredible visuals. Incredible storytelling. The audio work - insane. We were prepared for a straight action/survival movie. We were surprised with a thriller that genuinely made it hard not to cry. Not going to post any spoilers here but if you are even remotely interested in this movie. Go see it in theaters, and if you can, cinemark d-box motion seats are 100% worth it.

I think it's because their all different and unique to characters, iconography, backstory, evolution and development of a large franchise, or 2, and timeless kills, big or small. I would personally say 80s or 2000s because they had horror icons that were interesting as characters, backstory designs, their purpose in the way of a philosophical lense, and human pain and suffering too. Plus, they have iconic ways of killing people in a creative or simple ways too, and as a viewer who want to see them get explored as beings who have either messed up, victims who've been hurt or mistreated and you want to see them, give those people or antagonist the blood and death they desverse. The other decades, like the 90s, 2010s, and 70s, also had some good ones too.

You can see everything in "You Can See Everything," and you still may not believe everything you are seeing. And maybe you shouldn't? Is that the point of this hypnotic, totally surprising film?

It's already generating so much discussion, and rightfully so. And while some say they can't discuss the film without spoilers, here's my attempt at a SPOILER-FREE review (below, after the poster image).

My rating: ****½ of *****

"The rich are different from you and me."
— F. Scott Fitzgerald

This can't be mere coincidence, can it? Less than three weeks into October, and the month has delivered three entirely different, extraordinary films that deal, in their own ways, with one of the foundational questions of existence: How do we know what we know? Can we really trust our eyes and ears?

The latest, following Digger and La Bola Negra, is the documentary You Can See Everything from Nathan Fielder and Lance Oppenheim, in which the often satirical, even-more-often ironic filmmakers make the most of the remarkable (and remarkably weird) opportunity to be flies on the wall in the last days before Elizabeth Holmes, the disgraced, convicted founder of Theranos, goes to prison for 12 years.

Theranos, you may recall, was the company that claimed it could run almost any diagnostic blood test off of one drop of blood. The story of the company and of odd, off-putting Holmes has been told before. You Can See Anything wastes precious little of is three-hour running time rehashing the story.

What it tries to understand is how Holmes let any of it happened, whether she was telling the truth at her trial, whether she really believed what she said, whether she deserved her prison sentence or is a victim herself — and, if so, of what or whom? Other people have done far worse and not gone to prison. It isn't hard to name them these days. But Holmes was different. Why?

It becomes clear right away in this mesmerizing, entirely unexpected documentary that Holmes is one of Fitzgerald's rich. She and her husband Billy Evans maintain over and over and over that Holmes never sold a single share, that money wasn't the goal for Holmes. It was for someone. But who? And how? And what if Holmes, with her unblinking doe eyes and her fixed smile, is lying? Or, even stranger, perhaps, what if she's telling the truth?

But the truth about what? The more Fielder, who is a constant on-camera presence, pushes Holmes, the more it seems she resists, even when she's acquiescing. This is an odd movie about an odd person. Holmes may not have been building Theranos for money, but she clearly has a lot of it. So do the people around her. It's just one of a thousand contradictions exposed, dissected, and turned inside-out in this film. These people are different, and this movie revels in this curiosity.

I could say "this documentary," but there are times when Fielder is aware that nothing in the film plays like a documentary. It's not even designed like a documentary. Can we believe those two shots? Can we trust every reaction shot? Should we take it as a matter of faith that cameras were everywhere, because they sure seem especially good at being in the right place at the right time.

The deeper Fielder gets into the story, and the closer Holmes comes to actually going to prison, the weirder, stranger and more complicated You Can See Everything gets. Fielder gets uncomfortably close to his subject. He seems to be everywhere, in a movie that is ostensibly a documentary and biography, and eventually we've got to ask if everything we're seeing is real. It seems to be, and yet it all seems ... convenient.

Then, when a traditional documentary would have been wrapping up, You Can See Everything does something that either solidifies its documentary classification or undermines it entirely. And everything about Holmes, her world, and her story becomes even stranger still. Evans turns into the movie's most loathsome figure (or is it character?), and almost every word out of his mouth seems to turn You Can See Everything back in on itself again.

It's all disorienting and captivating, unlike any documentary you've seen, and more akin to a psychological thriller in which the plot moves in byzantine ways.

By the end, it's hard to imagine that anyone who watches You Can See Everything will be neutral about Holmes. And there's every possibility that whatever opinion you came in with will have changed by the end of the movie. Not just your opinion about her, but about, well, almost everything.

----
You can also read this review or more of my movie writing on my blog at www.thereinthedark.blogspot.com

Ken Sanzel writes and directs the action thriller about rogue federal agents, a con man and a waitress caught in a deadly diner standoff. In theaters and on digital November 20.

We Need less Marvel and DC more films along the lines of Magic Sword, The Sinbad films, Jason. I remember how these films used to the kind of things that stir the imagination.

I loved these movies back in the 80s. This is the stuff I watched in my formative years. 9 years old watching Penitentiary III.

Anyone else a fan of these? great old school prison movies. Part 3 is my favorite when Too Sweet has to fight The Midnight Thud

I wanted to check in on people's thoughts towards one of my most favorite recurring moments in You Can See Everything, regarding Billy Evans and his faux-capitalist nepo baby persona.

I see a lot of people clowning on the guy for being this perfect representation of Silicon Valley soullessness that only speaks in corporate tongues and platitudes, and while I agree with that characterization, and I don't think this behavior is an indictment in and of itself, the way he was repeatedly shown 'watching' chemistry videos in hyper speed was HILARIOUS to me and displays a prominent Dunning Kruger like effect happening in real life.

As far as I know, he went to MIT for Economics and is now a sort of entrepreneur, which is all fine and maybe even impressive, but I would guess that he did not receive an equal education in a hard science like chemistry from MIT. To be fair, the doc did not go into why he was watching the videos, but it was definitely framed as self-education, given that he is pursuing a Theranos 2.0 kind of idea with the now-imprisoned Liz Holmes and a team of (actual) researchers.

But does anyone else get the feeling that that was all performative? How could anyone learn anything concrete or foundational in something as difficult as, say, molecular biology, to a point of being able to prototype a new Edison machine with cutting edge laser technology, from just watching youtube videos at 5x speed? Even as just an investor or business consultant, who are you trying to fool? The language he was actually using on calls and when talking about the product was all MBA jargon with a lot of 'circling back', 'maximizing throughput', and 'untangling communication channels', etc.

And yes, while I am a cynical nerdy guy who is repelled by those levels of greed and wealth-attachment at some base level of my being, I can't shake my personal belief that real domain knowledge like that, the kind that you need to actually know what you are talking about and truly revolutionize a field or technology within that field, at least partially comes from the dirt and mud? Like you have to fall in love with it almost, usually as a child or young adult, when there's no chance for greed to touch it, to actually get anywhere serious with it. And furthermore, are people that don't get to experience a relationship with knowledge like that, or find it boring or pointless, more susceptible to becoming professional 'deceivers' as adults? In the sense that when you get to be 25 for example, and have no skills to show for it, but you are desperate to seem as if you do, maybe it's easier to learn how to fake it rather than actually put in the work to become an expert? And what does that say about the people who fall for it? This is not to paint myself into a binary view of the world where people are simply experts or lying-experts, when in reality most people are neither and are just content surviving comfortably, but I do want to shine a ton of light on the latter of the two groups, especially the ones with seemingly unlimited resources, as very much dangerous in the way they pursue their own, most-likely-aggrandized, success.

I understand I'm finishing on a mainstream point now, and I think there's plenty of spotlights put on these types of people right now (albeit with little to no consequences in mind), but I just loved how that little detail in the film brought so much of this cultural moment into the front of my mind while watching. I'll be curious if anyone felt the same way or find that I am totally misreading these moments and should delete this post imminently.

18×30 acrylic painting of Spider-Man from a BTS shot of Brand New Day

Any suggestions for some Halloween time movies. My sister and nephew are going to be over to carve Jack o lanterns so more family oriented.

Sixth Sense

Unbreakable

Signs

Split

Glass

Trap.

Yes I wrote Trap, I think it’s really good. It’s a break from the supernatural stuff and Josh Hartnett’s performance is a career best for him imo. Very entertaining stuff.

Did I leave anything out?

{Reposted with corrected movie title)

I organized an AMA/Q&A with Adam Moskowitz, world-famous cheese expert and film subject of the new documentary THE BIG CHEESE, all about the world of cheesemongering, including the history of cheese, competitions, types of cheese, etc.

It's live here now in r/movies for anyone interested in asking a question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1x9wqk7/yo_reddit_im_adam_moskowitz_aka_mr_moo_from_the/

He will be back on Tuesday 10/20 at 3 PM ET to answer questions. I recommend asking in advance. Please ask there, not here. All questions are much appreciated!

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2k9gZuxN1Js

Synopsis: America’s greatest cheesemongers attempt the impossible: beating France at the Olympics of Cheese. The Big Cheese follows a scrappy U.S. team battling cultural clashes, self-doubt, and melting cheese in pursuit of a historic victory.

Thank you :)

My previous post was removed because it seems I broke one of the rules regarding politics. I'm sorry, but don't you think Digger addresses political issues?

Wanted to rewatch the first season before watching the new one. Still hits the same.

Let's pray that we dont get traumatized again. But wait, there are no happy endings in night city.

I have a theory about Fight Club that I haven't seen discussed enough: What if Marla Singer was just as imaginary as Tyler Durden?

We all know Tyler is a projection of the Narrator's mind, but what if Marla is another projection, representing a completely different part of his subconscious?

One detail that got me thinking was the kitchen scene, where the Narrator is talking to Marla while Tyler is around the basement stairs, talking to him. If I remember correctly, Marla seems to look in Tyler's direction, yet she doesn't appear particularly surprised by the Narrator's behavior.

I know this could simply be a result of the film's unreliable perspective, and I'm not claiming this proves anything. But it made me wonder whether Marla's interactions with the Narrator could be interpreted as another layer of his fractured perception of reality.

Maybe Tyler represents the Narrator's desire for power, freedom, and rebellion, while Marla represents his loneliness, emotional vulnerability, and need for human connection.

There's also the question of how we interpret scenes involving Marla when the Narrator isn't directly interacting with her. Could those scenes still fit the theory, or would they be strong evidence against it?

What do you think? Is there any scene that definitively proves Marla is real, or could the entire character be another Tyler-like projection? I'd love to hear counterarguments, especially from people who have watched the movie multiple times.

After a boy is taken by a group of mummers, his older brother spends years searching for him, eventually becoming the very thing that took him.