But why is that a bad thing?

In a world where right-wing politics is rising everyday and misogyny is becoming increasingly dangerous, why should feminist messages be whispered? Feminist messages have been subtly slipped into numerous films over the years which is brilliant, but sometimes the message needs to be said plainly and there isn’t a better time politically then now.

Barbie at its core is a film about a doll associated with young girls. Naturally, this means that a large proportion of its audience was going to be young girls, some of whom may have been introduced ideas of feminism, gender expectations and the patriarchy for the first time. So for the elements that adults might consider “too on the nose” could instead be seen as clear and accessible for young girls, thus very important.

2 years after its release, Netflix’s popular miniseries Adolescence is released which explores the manosphere and its effects on young boys. It was widely praised for bringing these issues to light in such a direct way, congratulated for not ‘tiptoeing’ around sensitive topics. Adolescence was on the nose. Barbie was on the nose. So why are we capable of praising one for putting these issues front and centre, while criticising the other for doing the exact same thing?

The desensitisation of the masses to the issues women face has been a fight for centuries, but have we finally reached its peak? As mentioned previously, right-wing politics and conversations surrounding women’s rights have become more prevalent in society than ever, with abortion rights, women’s roles and even basic freedoms being threatened. When misogynistic men hold powerful political positions, such as presidency, the influence of their beliefs inevitably extends beyond the political world and into wider society. The fact that we are still fighting for these conversations makes the need for loud films like Barbie even more important.

Barbie’s feminist message was surface level and basic, but it is precisely this basic message that so many members of society have missed or chosen to ignore. Greta Gerwig chose to shout her feminism rather than hide it beneath subtle metaphors or an underlying message. It was a message that was loud and clear to the young people watching it, while also serving as a reminder to the adults watching alongside them.

So yes, Barbie was on the nose but misogyny speaks louder daily, and strong feminist messages are what we need to disempower these discriminative voices!!

Let me know what you think!!

Longlegs (2024)

Longlegs is the horror mystery starring Nicholas Cage as a serial killer. This film doesn’t fit the cult classic ‘requirements’ as commercially it made decent profit, grossing $128 million worldwide from a budget of around $10 million. However, I feel that the film was made into a meme with the Longlegs ‘cuckoo hand dance’ and his song. So instead of appreciating it as a film it was watched more as a joke, even though it is actually a good film! I know many people didn’t like it but I thought the concept was interesting, some of the shots were incredible and the way it builds tension is superb. Is it the best film ever made? No. But it is still a great film that I think people will come to appreciate more now that the memes aren’t as popular. Also Osgood Perkins is a great director and deserves more praise!!

Lisa Frankenstein (2024)

Lisa Frankenstein is a comedy that follows Lisa (Kathryn Newton) and her developing a relationship with a revived Victorian corpse (Cole Sprouse). It is a camp masterpiece and has everything you could want in a film: romance, makeovers, comedy and lots of blood! Lisa is the embodiment of a weird girl and I am so annoyed that this film isn’t recognised as much as it should be. It is just an odd, gothic film that is overall a lot of fun. When a film doesn’t take itself so seriously this is the product and it is perfect. Also the 80’s setting and costuming, mixed with a Victorian zombie is absolute cinema and I need more like right now. I think people will revisit or even discover it and realise how fun it is!

Dinner in America (2020)

Are you looking for a romantic drama with two punk rock love interests? If so, Dinner in America is perfect. It follows Patty (Emily Skeggs) , a young punk rock obsessed woman, who falls in love with Simon (Kyle Gallner) and the two go on an unexpected journey together. I watched this film after seeing an edit of it on tik tok (this is how I decide on most films I watch 😛) and it exceeded my expectations greatly. It is an unconventionally romantic film that fills a hole in your heart. It has themes of acceptance and overcoming conformity all while finding the right person for you. This film does not get the flowers it deserves, but I think it has potential to become a well loved film amongst romance, punk rock loving people!

Bottoms (2023)

Now this is very touch-and-go because in my world this film is popular as anything, but in the rest of the world it isn’t as recognised. In summary, the film follows two loser lesbians who set up a fight club in their highschool in order to date these two girls. It has a great cast with Rachel Sennott (I Love LA), Ayo Edebiri (The Bear), Ruby Cruz (Willow) and Nicholas Galitzine (Red, White & Royal Blue) who all perfectly fit the absurd nature of the film. Again this is another camp and fun film that does not take itself serious. Dare I say it is a better version of Fight Club! As I said this film is loved by many already but I think it will develop an even larger cult following as time goes on.

Babylon (2022)

Babylon was Damien Chazelles (La La Land, Whiplash) most recent film and unfortunate flop. It is a comedy drama that explores 1920s Hollywood as it begins to transition from silent to sound film. The cast of this film is no joke with Margot Robbie, Diego Calva, Brad Pitt, Samara Weaving and Tobey Maguire. With a cast of big names and a director like Chazelle, this film should have been as successful as his past projects but it sadly wasn’t!! I know some people found it overly pretentious and messy but if that isn’t an accurate representation of Hollywood, then what is?! It had some absolute gorgeous cinematography with equally great acting, it should have been a hit. I think that this is a film that people will revisit in a few years and realise how good it actually is and understand the vision behind it. Damien Chazelle, you will be avenged!

Monkey Man (2024)

Monkey Man is well-loved actor Dev Patel’s directorial debut and I loved it. However, it was sadly dismissed as just another John Wick wannabe and whilst there are similar elements in aesthetics like the fight scenes and black suits there are also glaring differences. The main difference being that Monkey Man is much more political than John Wick. As well as being an action revenge film, Monkey Man heavily critiques the corruption, poverty and religious nationalism in India. Its story involves elements of police brutality and exploitation of marginalised groups. By ignoring this film because it seemed like a John Wick clone was a mistake made by many, but I think that in time people will come to appreciate it and separate the two completely. The political themes alongside the well choreographed fight scenes, brilliant acting and compelling narrative makes this a film worthy of a cult following!

Bugonia (2025)

I added this film last minute to this list because I just assumed it had done well at the box office and was well loved. I have only just found out that it wasn’t!? Yorgos Lanthimos is genuinely one of the best directors currently working, he directs hit after hit. However, I must say that Bugonia is definitely my favourite out of all of his projects. The story follows two conspiracy theorists who kidnap the CEO of a major company under suspicion that she is an alien. Not only does it have a great cast with Emma Stone and Jesse Plemons but it has such an absurd storyline which makes it incredible. Additionally, the score of the movie is breath-taking and one of my favourite scores of all time. Bugonia was one of the best 2025 releases and I am actually shocked it wasn’t universally loved! This is definitely a film people will watch and realise how great it was. It is a fun but dramatic film that everyone should watch!!! I am claiming my place as an OG Bugonia cult member. <3

Honourable Mentions

These are films that I think are worthy of being classics but may not fit the specifics of cult classic as they were successful but maybe not loved as much as they should have been!

• Tick, Tick…Boom!

• Nice Guys

• Bullet Train

• Joker 2 (there must be an audience out there somewhere for this film)

• The Holdovers

• Do Revenge

• Saltburn (this was popular but mainly for the sex scenes rather than the actual film)

Let me know your cult classic predictions!! <3

Visually, the film was a feast for the eyes. There were some absolutely gorgeous shots and I was in awe of the Thrushcross Grange set design. Emerald Fennels films are always visually brilliant, it is just as shame that every other element is often weak. Another positive, is Martin Clunes!! He was great as Mr Earnshaw and personally was the saving grace for the performances throughout the cast. He delivered a compelling Mr Earnshaw portrayal, get him in more Hollywood films asap! A final positive (yes…a 2 1⁄2 hr film and there are only 3 positives) is the soundtrack, I am a Charli xcx fan so one of the only good things to come from this film was a new album. And the songs are great, Chains of Love is incredible, and encapsulate the relationship between the characters.

Okay, now onto the rest of the film. One of the main criticisms is how far it drifts away from the book. I understand that Fennel claims this is her interpretation of the novel from when she was 14…but that isn’t an excuse for the exclusion and changing of crucial elements. I will list some of these now:

• Hindley Earnshaw was cut out, yes a whole main character!

• No ghost story element.

• Heathcliff’s race and experience of racism is non-existent.

• The 2nd generation is not mentioned (this is common in adaptations sadly).

• Nelly’s role changes from narrator to villain.

• Isabella is not Edgar Linton’s sister but her ward.

• The ages of the main characters are increased.

• A few kisses turns into sex everywhere.

Fennel reduces a book about race, class and abuse to a smut-stricken fanfiction. The casting of Jacob Elordi has been discussed since its announcement, and it is so incredibly shocking that we are still whitewashing characters in 2026?? Even worse so that Fennels argument for the casting was that she was creating a version that she imagined whilst reading the novel. All that shows me is that she can’t imagine a person of colour as a love interest but can happily imagine them as the ‘other woman’ character (Edgar Linton) or as the servant (Nelly). Filmmaking is a form of art and I understand creating a piece of art that personally resonates with you. However, what I don’t understand is misrepresenting and removing themes that you don’t directly identify with.

Another point to make is that the casting of Shazad Latif (who was great might I add) as Edgar Linton is so so bizarre to me. In the book Heathcliff literally states "I wish I had light hair and a fair skin, and was dressed and behaved as well, and had a chance of being as rich as he will be!" in reference to Edgar. So casting a person of colour in the role of Edgar but not for Heathcliff, almost a race swap, is just odd to me. Once again it undermines the character of Heathcliff and the themes that Emily Brontë purposefully wrote into her novel. You can’t disregard the race of a character when it so crucial to the story just because it doesn’t fit your own interpretation, that’s not how it works!!

Alongside the whitewashing of Heathcliff, another element that is heavily being spoken about is the sexual nature of the film. Listen, I am all for erotic cinema especially with a female lead but the way this film utilises sex is wrong in many situations. The nature of Catherine and Heathcliff’s relationship is more spiritual and obsessive rather than a sexual affair. The couple rarely kiss in the novel, leaning into their more unattainable love. In addition, the novel isn’t simply a romance it is a comment on society and the inequality/mistreatment of different classes and race. Are any of these themes communicated in this film? No of course not! But don’t worry, to make up for it there is a scene of Jacob Elordi licking Margot Robbie or if that isn’t your style there is BDSM included. There is something for everyone…unless of course you are interested in the social commentary aspect of the story.

The misrepresentation of many characters is something that really caught my attention whilst watching. The main ones being Mr Earnshaw, Isabella and Joseph. Mr Earnshaw is portrayed as abusive and cruel towards Heathcliff, which is the complete opposite to the novel where he favours Heathcliff. He pretty much loves him more than his biological son ,Hindley, which fuels Hindley’s future hatred for Heathcliff. This isn’t shown in the film…because they removed Hindley and combined his character with Mr Earnshaw. Hindley isn’t a side character, he is arguably one of the most important as his cruel treatment of Heathcliff and dehumanisation makes the social divide between him and Cathy even larger. Removing Hindley and merging him with Mr Earnshaw is genuinely so stupid and one of the parts I dislike most about this adaptation.

Isabella…what did they do to you? Why did they portray Isabella to be a stupid and comic relief character? I must of missed the part of the novel where she was lobotomised! The movie turns Isabella into a submissive wife interested in dog play, where as Brontë wrote her as an independent, strong willed woman who is unknowing of Heathcliff’s plans to use her as a pawn in his game against Cathy. She begins off as naïve but her character’s strength develops due to her horrific experience of abuse from Heathcliff. And the film presents Heathcliff’s abuse almost as a kink, especially with the dog play. Undermining domestic violence to make a film seem more erotic is not cool Emerald Fennel!

Joseph, the bible preaching servant, can be seen in the film having sex in the barn and involved in BDSM. It is such a 180 for his character, and whilst it did make his character much less boring, I just don’t see the need for the change. The change served no purpose other than the BDSM scene. Out of all characters in the novel, Joseph is the most comic relief like out of them all whilst maintaining his zealot persona. Additionally, amongst those who have read the novel, Joseph’s dialogue is infamous for being difficult to understand due to his heavy Yorkshire accent. I was hoping this would be included in the movie but of course it was not and I was honestly quite disappointed as I was looking forward to hearing this performed!

I promise I am coming to end of this review soon there are just a few things left to discuss. One of them being the Yorkshire accents…yikes! None of the accents from any of the actors are convincing, especially not Jacob Elordi’s. I think that Elordi is one of the best working actors currently, with his incredible performance in Frankenstein, however his portrayal as a Yorkshireman was not persuasive in the slightest. Even Owen Cooper’s accent didn’t sound explicitly Yorkshire, more just Northern. I saw a review that pretty much said that Fennel saw that Yorkshire was in the north and thought that any Northern accent would be good enough, and this is such an accurate review! Fennel’s projects often try to be deeper but end up being very surface level projects which slight hints of ignorance.

I’ve said this in one of my other posts but I believe that Fennel saw the success of Saltburn caused by its ‘shocking’ sex scenes and tried to replicate this hype with Wuthering Heights. It is all performative freakiness!! Instead of producing positive shock, people are disappointed. Annoyed at the misrepresentation of the characters and confused on the focus of sex when it isn’t a straight forward romance novel. And dare I say the sex scenes in Wuthering Heights aren’t even that shocking, literally something you can see in a casual Bridgerton (2020) or Rivals (2024) episode! If you market a film as raunchy and sexually provocative, you better make it the most shocking stuff ever to deserve all of that emphasis.

This film was trying to be an artsy and modern adaptation of a literature classic and failed miserably. The focus of injustice and the important themes are completely disregarded all in pursuit of shocking the audience. Wuthering Heights is not a simple romance novel but a commentary on family dynamics, abuse, racism, toxic relationships and generational trauma. All of these are not given the light of day in Fennells adaptation, they are replaced with affairs, sex and licking (why did Heathcliff lick Cathy so much…?). If Fennell wanted to adapt a romance novel she should have chosen a A DAMN ROMANCE NOVEL not Wuthering Heights. But in saying that, Emerald Fennell please please stay away from Pride & Prejudice, I will die before seeing Mr Darcy partake in BDSM!

In short, if Emily Brontë decided to haunt Emerald Fennell over this I wouldn’t be shocked.

Letterboxd review:

★.5/5

“There’s something for everyone in this film: pretty dresses, BDSM, sexy actors, nice landscapes…unless of course you are interested in the social commentary aspect of the novel, in that case you are out of luck! This film does not mention any of the themes that Emily Brontë purposely put in her novel and instead disregards them in pursuit of shocking the audience with its relatively tame sex scenes.

Also removing Hindley is so wild to me like he was not a side character that you could just exclude without it changing anything??”

Rewatching these films after not watching them about 3 months made me realise how many characters I liked more than I realised. To name a few: Faramir, Eomer and if you couldn’t tell by the title, Éowyn.

Éowyn is genuinely one of my favourite LOTR characters, I adore her and everything she represents. The LOTR books were wrote in the late 30s-early 40s, so Éowyn is a progressive character for the times. A fearless, independent, feminine warrior. Something I adore is the fact that Tolkien made her feminine, he didn’t make her trade in her femininity for valour. The two can coincide and Tolkien portrayed it brilliantly.

Éowyn represents empowerment, more specifically female empowerment. She is a complex character who seeks for glory in battle and a life beyond societal constraints. After her parents and cousin’s death, the corruption of her uncle and Eomer’s banishment, Éowyn is left completely alone. Her isolation is made even worse by the presence of Grima Wormtongue. She is cut off from genuine connection and general society, and this drives her to seek purpose. She finds her purposed in battle, fighting for her kingdom and family. This representation of women is seen more often in contemporary media, though none of them compare to the excellence of Tolkien’s portrayal.

What is Éowyn’s biggest fear? A cage. The cage is the patriarchy, she was already living her biggest fear. In a way she saw dying in battle as an escape, the only way to leave the cage by her choice. She is ready to embrace death and hopes that she will die a glorious death instead of withering away in her constrained life. After defeating the Witch-king, she had accomplished something that helped her escape the cage…alive. Although the wider battle with Sauron continued, Éowyn’s battle with society and her identity had ended. She is one of the few characters who wasn’t fighting the war for internal reasons but more personal. Similar to Faramir, fighting the war because of his duties to Gondor but more personally to provoke his father to love him.

Obviously, Eowyn’s infamous scene is her defeating the Witch-king of Angmar. Seeing this on the big screen was incredible!! ‘I am no man’ is genuinely one of the coolest scenes I have witnessed in cinema. They way she rips off her helmet and delivers the line is all perfection. An aspect I love of this scene is the role that Merry plays. Merry is the first to stab the Witch-king, which ultimately allows Éowyn to stab him in the face. Some fans take this as Merry killing the Witch-king, when in reality they both did. Éowyn may have had the final blow but the both of them together conquered the demon. It shows how Éowyn developed from being an isolated princess to a glorious shieldmaiden working with all species. Also, having Éowyn give the final stab on the Witch-King is again just perfection and shows her strength and just overall awesomeness.

One of the most debated topics surrounding Éowyn’s character is her relationship with Aragorn. Love or admiration? On the surface it sure does look like love with their lingering looks and gentle touches. However, I never interpreted it as romantic love, but one rooted in deep mutual respect. Aragorn is madly in love with Arwen, and I always saw it as Éowyn admiring Aragorn’s battle skills and privilege that she, a woman, can never have. Aragorn enters battle without question, while Éowyn must fight for the right to do so. They both also share extreme personal losses, including parental deaths. It allows them to find moments of vulnerability and comfort in one another. Additionally, as discussed earlier, Éowyn’s deep isolation and yearning for freedom most likely led her to view Aragorn (someone who understands her) as a symbol of escape from the societal constraints enforced upon her.

Another area of debate is Éowyn’s ending. Many argue that Éowyn marrying Faramir undermines her development as an independent warrior. And I’m afraid I have to completely disagree!! Faramir understands Éowyn, arguably much deeper than anyone else. Both experience profound grief and trauma throughout the story, experiences that allowed them to connect on a deep and personal level. Moreover, marriage to Faramir gives Éowyn more freedom than she would achieve with any other character. A marriage with Aragorn would have placed her under the pressures of being a queen, where as life with Faramir offers her independence alongside privilege. Together, they both share courage in battle and a mutual recognition for the need of a peaceful life after battle. They just go together so perfectly. Eowyn’s ending granted her everything desired: freedom, love and understanding.

A final point I want to highlight is that Eowyn is 24 years old. Although she is not a teenager, she is still a young woman navigating grief, isolation and struggles of identity within a patriarchal society, largely without guidance. She was orphaned at a young age meaning that Éowyn was forced to mature quickly, causing her to skip over the crucial period of self discovery. Whilst warriors in Middle Earth are encouraged to prove themselves in battle, Éowyn is confined to demonstrating her worth through caretaking and domestic roles, despite possessing the courage and strength of a warrior. She should be on the battlefield killing Orcs!! She is old enough to understand the consequences of war, but young enough to yearn intensely for purpose and meaning which she ultimately finds in war.

Éowyn holds a special place in my heart. She is such a complex character that she goes beyond the conventional female warrior character stereotype. Her refusal to subvert to patriarchal demands makes her so incredibly awesome. She isn’t defined by her relationships with Aragorn or Faramir, they are merely footnotes in her story of empowerment and independence!

Lord of the Rings: Return of the King

Letterboxd review:

★★★★★/5

‘Knowing that there is a Faramir and Éowyn wedding scene out there that I will never see kills me everyday. We need a directors cut of the trilogy’

Does a film having an Oscar make it definitively good, just like does a film not being nominated make it bad?

The beauty of film is that it is an art making it subjective. So no, a film winning an Oscar does not automatically make it great. For example, Titanic (1997) won the Oscar for Best Picture, do I like the film? No! I find it boring, but I accept the fact that other people love it. I don’t feel forced to say I like the film just because it won an Oscar.

Film awards do not establish a films quality. Instead it should celebrate the creatives behind it, from editors to actors. Film awards allow us to acknowledge the level of work and art constantly being made in the industry by choosing a select few to represent the effort.

Another point worth mentioning is that it was only in 2025 that a rule was introduced requiring Oscar judges to watch all of the nominated films. If that doesn’t reveal how hollow award shows can be, I don’t know what does! If judges haven’t watched all of the nominated films, what exactly were they judging - hype, profit, cast??

It raises serious questions about the credibility of award shows. When films are judged without being seen, the results of these awards feel more like a reflection of industry politics and popularity rather than an evaluation of artistry. Winning can boost careers and draw attention to films, but it should not be mistaken for a definitive judgement of the quality of a film.

A final point I will make is that award shows often aren’t exhibiting small, independent films. These films usually lack the financial backing, leading stars, and marketing to reach the needed criteria to compete in these awards. Award shows focus on the big blockbuster movies, with the occasional small breakthrough movie winning. By overlooking these smaller projects, award shows create a narrow definition of success and further distance themselves from representing the full range of creativity and artistry within the industry!

This is not to dismiss award shows entirely, as they still serve as meaningful celebration of creativity and collaboration. But perhaps the true value of a film is not decided in a voting room, but in the moments that quietly remain with the audiences.

What are your thoughts?

Hamnet is able to portray a tragic and life altering event in one of the most cinematically beautiful ways I have ever seen. Every shot seemed like something out of a dream. Grief is presented in numerous different ways in films, though the way Hamnet presents it potentially my favourite representation. Hamnet’s death is not a footnote in the story of Shakespeare, Shakespeare is not even the main character of the film. His death completely changes the feel of the film from being a childlike love tale to a heart-breaking woe story.

The performances were incredible all throughout from all actors. Paul Mescal portrayed a new side of Shakespeare, arguably a more humane version. Often portrayals show Shakespeare to be arrogant, though Hamnet shows him as an emotionally complex individual with all his highs and lows included. Mescal has multiple infamously heart-breaking crying scenes and Hamnet is no exception to this. Every tear he shed, the audience felt. His portrayal was exceptional and authentic.

Alongside Mescal, Jessie Buckley stole the show with her breath-taking portrayal of Agnes Shakespeare. It felt as though Buckley fully embodied that character of Agnes, embracing every element of her. I didn’t feel like I was watching Buckley but Agnes Shakespeare revived. There were so many scenes that showed her amazing performance from when she gave birth to the death of Hamnet. Buckley’s screams of grief were harrowing and heightened the emotional impact of the already devastating scenes. She was incredible and if she doesn’t win the Oscar I will be very very shocked.

The supporting cast’s performances were all amazing, the child actors particularly. All of the children perfectly portrayed their childlike innocence which was soon taken after Hamnet’s death. Their exceptional performances made the film so much more impactful as it allowed us to actually immerse ourselves into the film as if they were real. I want to specifically mention Jacobi Jupes who plays Hamnet because his performance was outstanding. It was devastating and so impressive, I mean an 11 year old performing like that!

As I mentioned earlier, I don’t really understand Shakespearian English however, as Paul Mescal said ‘If Shakespeare is performed right, you don’t have to understand what they’re saying. You feel it in the body.’ And I have never heard a truer statement. I didn’t fully understand what was being said in the Hamlet play but I felt the grief and sorrow laced in the monologues. Getting someone to feel emotionally connected to a film can be challenging but Chloé Zhao (director) did this was ease. I don’t have children but I have felt like I had lost one alongside Agnes. The performances, the score and cinematography just made the scenes so impactful and beautifully devastating.

The films sets were all done so well and once again it just allowed me to become fully immersed in the setting and ultimately the story. The contrast between the bright energetic countryside and the depressing city made the message of family importance 100x more effective. I want to live in the forest and sleep in the grass just as Agnes does. The countryside town matched the quiet feeling of the film flawlessly.

Despite the film dealing with a large topics of death and grief, it was a quiet film. It is one that resonates with you, where you practically leave the cinema non-verbal. The ending was awe-inspiring and so incredibly hard hitting. Agnes reaching out her hand and the rest of the audience following was stunning. I adore it, a true representation of raw human connection. Shakespeare immortalised his son and now the whole world holds his grief with him. 400+ years worth of generations have taken on his grief in different forms and that is beautiful.

The story of Hamnet is poetically heart-breaking as grief tears loved ones apart but the acceptance reunites them. Little Hamnet walking into the darkness as Agnes says her final goodbye as she knows that he will not be forgotten by her or anyone had me weeping. It was just so God damn beautiful.

Hamnet is a masterpiece and has restored my faith in film as an art form. Every shot has so much passion and emotion within. The performances brought these historical figures into the present and made everyone resonate with their emotions. This is a beautifully devastating work of art.

Letterboxd review:

★★★★.5/5

“This one of those films that is so beautifully devastating that I will never watch again”

I am in no way, shape or form interested in ping pong but Timothee Chalamet playing an egotistical narcissistic ping pong player? Sign me up! Marty Mauser is an incredibly insufferable character who puts himself and ping pong above everything and everyone.

Lets start with the performances.

Timothee Chalamet you WILL win that Oscar. I am a Chalamet fan already, so I expected a great performance but I will say that this might be his greatest performance yet. The way he embodied Marty’s ego and arrogance was incredible, I didn’t feel like I was watching someone act but a real person. I also became heavily invested in Marty’s character, praying that he was going to have a character arc. Additionally, from my (little) experience of watching ping pong I felt that Timothee Chalamet played incredibly realistically. It sounds stupid!! But sometimes you watch a film and it is clear that they don’t play that sport or maybe an instrument. Though, I could not detect this with Chalamet. So again…HE WILL WIN THE OSCAR!!!!!!!

The supporting cast and ensemble was varied in experience, ranging from Oscar winner Gwyneth Paltrow to singer Tyler, The Creator. Despite the varying experience they all gave great and applaudable performances. Tyler, The Creator played an actually likeable character in a film filled with many unlikable ones. Paltrow did a good job, as you would expect, though I can’t help feel that she plays different variants of the same character in most films she is in. Odessa A’zion was absolutely brilliant, she perfectly played a quite unlikeable character at times in an almost sympathetic way. Despite all the crappy things that Rachel did I felt bad for her and eventually quite liked her. So well done to Odessa!!

I want to talk about one actor by himself for one reason…Kevin O’Leary. Yes, that Kevin O’Leary from Shark Tank. I was genuinely shocked at how good of an actor he was considering he is and never has been an actor! I mean Josh Safdie must have some magical intuition because how do you look at O’Leary and go ‘I want him in my film’?!?! But as I said, he was surprisingly really good and again played a highly unlikeable character well.

The story of Marty Supreme was such an insane ride. You go in expecting a film about a ping pong player but you walk out stressed and shamefully inspired. There was so much going on in this film, not just ping pong but affairs, murder, kidnapping, arson and spanking! It’s a really well thought out plot, that perfectly represented Marty’s viewpoint towards life. All of the insane events most likely could have been avoided if Marty wasn’t such a narcissist.

Moving on to the character of Marty Mauser. I mean where to begin? He is a manipulative and arrogant narcist who believes he is a God at ping pong. There were so many moments where I felt genuinely disappointed in him as if he was real?! Going to Tokyo after your baby mama has been shot…I was livid. But despite him being horrifically unlikeable, you can’t help but root for him (well at least I couldn’t). You have seen everything Marty has caused and sacrificed to get to his final match and so I just really wanted him to win because in a way he kind of deserved to…? It sounds weird to root for a borderline evil manipulator but there was something about his passion and determination!

As I said earlier, you leave the cinema feeling ‘shamefully inspired’. I say this because Marty Mauser is not a character to idolise or to base your personality off of. But his passion and motivation to win made me feel inspired. Like hell yeah, dream big! However, at the same time as feeling inspired, you have to quickly recognise that his method of determination is also something not to live by because they are manipulative tactics that ultimately were what made him a horrible person. So the take away is be passionate, just don’t be a passionate prick.

This film had many memorable scenes but the one that has stuck with me is the ‘Honey Scene’. This scene stuck with me not because I found it weird (as many have) but because I thought it was an ingenious way of revealing Marty’s character in a subtle way. Béla Kletzki (Géza Röhrig) is telling a story of the highest form of selflessness, he sacrifices his dignity in order to feed his fellow prisoners, ultimately keeping them alive. But Marty see’s this as a story of worship, it reveals that he only thinks of himself and how he will look. His narcissism and need to be the centre of attention is revealed in a quick ‘Hey tell that story’. Another point to add is that he told Kletzki to tell this story as if it was a casual fun tale and not a deeply traumatic experience. He only does it so he can sneak a long look at Kay (Gwyneth Paltrow), he sacrifices those around him to achieve his aims and desires.

I just want to touch on the pacing and rhytmn of the film. Lets be honest, ping pong isn’t notroious for being an overly exciting sport but Marty Supreme made it seem to be the most gripping and exhilarating sport ever! I’d argue that alongside the great performances, the editing helped the rhthmn of the film and specifically these scenes be as incredible as they were. The quick cuts and unique transitions kept the film riveting and insanely captivating.

Another point is that the music and score was incredible. Brilliant song choices, including ones such as Forever Young and Everybody Wants to Rule the World. The score was beautiful, if you have read any of my 2025 review you will know I am a sucker for a good score. So I was so happy when I heard Marty Supreme’s, Daniel Lopatin (composer) I tip my hat to you.

And finally, the dialogue was perfect. There were some insane lines in this film, one that stood out to me was ‘I’ll finish what Auswitchz couldn’t do’ (Marty talking about his Jewish opponent). It’s important to note that Josh Safdie is Jewish and Jewish themes often show up in his work. But I mean it is genuiently a wild line but it perfectly sums up Marty Mauser’s outlook on life. He is able to joke about a horrific event (which only ended 7 years before the films beginning) in order to boost his ego.

There is another, much less extreme, line which did make me giggle, ‘You want to get physical. Like an ape?’. Typed out it doesn’t seem that good, but the way Chalamet performed it and the context of the situation made it perfect. I think that the sharp and entertaining dialogue certainly helped with the rythmn and exemplified an already great film.

So in short, Marty Supreme is an incredible film. Josh Safdie was already an established director but after this he has officially secured his place in Hollywood. I can’t wait to see what his next project will be. And for one final time…TIMOTHEE CHALAMET WILL WIN THE OSCAR!!!!

Letterboxd Review:

★★★★★/5

Marty Mauser you are a little shit but I have never rooted so strongly for someone to win, genuinely felt proud of him by the end...
Timothee Chalamet you will win that Oscar

The most common argument I see is that ‘she needs to get over Glenn’. That criticism has always baffled me. Glenn wasn’t lost quietly, he was brutally murdered in front of his pregnant wife. They were surviving in an apocalyptic world, surrounded by constant death and still managed to find love. Expecting her to simply move on from that kind of trauma is not only totally unrealistic but also just kind of wild!

I would argue that disliking a character because she is still mourning her husband says more about the audience than the character. However, despite how this may sound, this post isn’t just about defending Maggie. Instead, I want to look at the deeper reason as to why her character attracts so much resentment, and what that potentially says about the fandom itself.

One of the strangest contradictions in The Walking Dead fandom is the idolisation of Shan. Shane is often praised as being realist or ‘ahead of his time‘, but he is not a character meant to be admired. He manipulate Lori, assaults her, and ultimately attempts to murder Rick. His behaviour is repeatedly excused or reframed, while Maggie’s grief and anger are treated as flaws.

The contrast is hard to ignore. A woman who survives unimaginable loss is told to move on, while a man who commits acts of violence and abuse is elevated as misunderstood or iconic.

Female characters in The Walking Dead are often punished by the audeince for exhibiting traits that are celebrated in male characters. Ambition becomes arrogance, strength becomes cruelty, and grief becomes weakness. Maggie’s leadership style is criticised as being ruthless or morally compromised. Yet ruthlessness is trait repeatedly praised in male leaders within the series. When Rick makes brutal decisions, he is seen as doing what must be done. When Maggie does the same, she is framed as cruel or overreacting.

The misogyny in the fandom is glaring. What’s especially telling is how often Maggie is described as ‘unlikeable’. This word is rarely applied to male characters with the same intensity. Likeability is a gendered expectation, fictional women are expected to be agreeable and forgiving. Maggie rejects all of these, she is not designed to be comforting. She is designed to be realistic.

Maggie also challenges that idea that healing must look neat or redemptive. Her grief does not culminate forgiveness or closure. In an apocalyptic world, closure is a rarity. The show presents an honest depiction of loss. The discomfort viewers feel towards her reflects an unwillingness to engage with that reality.

At a certain point, it becomes impossible to ignore that much of the hatred directed at Maggie (and many other female characters) is rooted in misogyny. Male characters in the series are allowed to be violent, unstable and emotionally closed off without being dismissed entirely. While Maggie is reduced to being ‘unlikeable’ the moment she refuses to be gentle or forgiving. The expectation is clear: women in this world must suffer quietly, lead softly, and heal on schedule. Maggie refuses all of this, and this rejection is exactly why she unsettles so many viewers.

Maggie is not meant to be easy to love. She is meant to feel real in a fictional world where survival is not ensured. If her anger, grief and power make the fans uncomfortable maybe that says more about them.

Maggie Rhee stands as a reminder that female rage and endurance are still deeply misunderstood.

I have created 5 film related New Year resolutions, so I can officially call myself a cinephile.

1. Watch more foreign films

   I am guilty of primarily watching films from the USA and UK, the two biggest countries for film exports. But I don’t explore beyond that. Really the only non-English speaking films I have watched are City of God and Pans Labyrinth which I barely count as they were for my film class. I didn’t willingly choose to watch them!! Foreign films are gorgeous and just as good as USA/UK films, yet I have never felt inclined to watch them. This changes, 2026 me is going to be indulging foreign cinema like a delicacy. I will start off mainstream to ease myself in but as the year progresses I will find films that fit my taste more. By the end of 2026 I want to have watched at least 30 foreign films (a small amount in the grand scheme of things but it’s a start!!).

2. Watch older films

   Just like foreign films, I don’t often venture out of the mainstream classics. It is only recently that I have began to watch older films, though this is mainly due to a James Stewart obsession. I want to specifically focus on more black and white films as I feel that I don’t appreciate them enough. Only this month have I watched numerous B&W films, and they are great!! I don’t know why it has taken me so long but at least I am there now! By the end of 2026 I want to have watched at least 50 older films. Again a small number but if my Stewart obsession continues I will have watched 50 oldies before 2026!!

3. Watch long silent films

   The most recent film we have studied in my film class is Sunrise: A song of two humans (1927) and I thoroughly enjoyed it! I think I always stayed away from silent films because I didn’t know if I would enjoy the no dialogue aspect. But after watching Sunrise, I can happily say I did not mind at all! It has inspired me to watch more silent films in 2026. I will watch short silent films but I want to watch feature length silent films. One that I will be definitely watching is The Passion of Joan of Ark (1928), I have been wanting to watch for ages but again was put off by its silent nature. By the end of 2026 I want to have watched at least 10 feature length silent films.

4. Finally watch the classics

   Alongside these 3 resolutions, I need to actually watch the Hollywood classics that everyone but me has watched! I don’t mean niche ones, I mean Jaws, The Godfather, Schindler’s List. Genuinely some of the biggest films ever produced and I am yet to watch them. By the end of 2026 I want to have watched these films and many more:

   • Star Wars franchise

   • The Godfather trilogy

   • Schindler’s list

   • E.T.

   • The Silence of the Lambs

   • Lost in Translation

   • Any Scorsese films

5. Watch all of IMDb’s Top 100 films

   I am always struggling with what to watch…so why not pick from a list already made with guaranteed good films?! I want to watch all 100 films, as of now I have watched 33 out of the 100. Not only will this ensure I have watched the classics, it will broaden my horizons. I will never run out of things to watch (until I finish the list).

These are my 5 film related New Years resolutions. I might actually be able to stick to these ones rather than my non-film related resolutions. If you have any recommendations, especially for silent or foreign films, please comment them!!!

And if you have your own film resolutions let me know what they are!!

In 2025, our movie stars simply aren’t the same. We don’t have a Marilyn Monroe or an Audrey Hepburn, at least not in the same sense. But why?

Don’t get me wrong we certainly still have a glorification of actors and a high praise for their art. There are undeniably incredible performers working today. When a new film is released you can indefinitely recognise the main stars, whether its Leonardo DiCaprio or Timothee Chalamet. Big names still exist in Hollywood. Yet, they don’t carry the same weight or mystique as an old movie star.

I think the main reason for this is social media. Yes, I know it is a boring and cliché answer…but it is true!

In the past, audiences had no idea what Marilyn Monroe was eating for dinner on a random Tuesday. Today, I know what my favourite actor did the night before. Social media has created a sense of ‘closeness’ between fans and actors that simply just didn’t exist in the earlier eras.

This access to a celebrities personal life creates the illusion of intimacy. Seeing these peoples posts about recent activities or behind the scenes makes it feel as though we know these people. In old Hollywood, actors were placed on a pedestal, distanced, glamorous and almost unreal. They existed in a different world to their audiences. And today parasocial relationships are not just common, they are encouraged.

Social media allows fans to see actors as real people, complete with personalities and opinions, rather than constructed ideals. In the past, what the public knew about film stars came from studios or the press, often exaggerated or fake. While social media is still a performance in its own way, it feels more immediate and personal than a newspaper headline ever could.

And perhaps that is the cost of being seen. When stars become relatable, they become ordinary. The mystery fades, and with it the idea of the untouchable movie star.

As I study Nazi Germany, I knew quite a bit about the trials and Goering before watching. Honestly, I think this made my experience much better as it allowed me to focus on the actual film instead of being confused about the events occurring and those that led up to it. However, my pre-existing knowledge may have had its negatives as I was able to point out some historical inaccuracies.

But nevertheless, I enjoyed Nuremberg and thought they presented a significant and extensive event in an entertaining yet informative way.

The first part I want to draw attention to is the use of real footage from the concentration camps. During part of the trial, a 6 minute film is presented which shows the horrific reality of the camps. Personally I think that this decision made by James Vanderbilt (director) to use real footage was the correct one to make. If you are going to make a historical film, using real footage is key to making it more impactful, especially when dealing with topics such as The Holocaust. Additionally, it’s important that we use real footage so that reality isn’t forgotten or eventually replaced with re-enacted versions of events.

Vanderbilts’ use of real footage made the film more impactful and gets the overriding message across in an extreme but necessary way. I also like how the reactions of the characters in the film were the true reactions of the actors. This technique makes the film more authentic and powerful.

The performances from the main cast were brilliant and made the film as great as it was. I want to specifically focus on the 2 main stars, Rami Malek (Douglas Kelley) and Russel Crowe (Hermann Goering).

Russel Crowe played Goering brilliantly. Goering was such a complex individual, a narcissistic mass murderer yet called charismatic by many. Crowe embodied Goering insanely well and performed him in an authentic way. He was able to present that deceitful charismatic personality that Goering held until his death. Even just the way Crowe held himself was practically identical to Goering. He did a brilliant job at playing such a complex and heavy role.

The other star, Rami Malek, played his role of Douglas Kelley incredibly. I’ll admit before watching this film I didn’t know much (if anything) about Kelley, but the way Malek performed as him was incredible to see on the big screen. Kelley is such an interesting person to me because as a psychiatrist he looks at people from all different perspectives and he did exactly that with Goering. Seeing his relationship with Goering grow was honestly uncomfortable. Malek did a brilliant job at portraying both the resent and interest that Kelley had towards Goering.

One of the scenes that stood out to me was Kelley confronting Goering after seeing the footage from the camps. This scene forced Kelley to confront the ugliest of truths that Goering was definitely aware and involved in the camps and the genocide that took place. The tension between Kelley and Goering during this scene was brilliantly portrayed by Malek and Crowe. Malek perfectly captured the anger of everybody who knew of the Nazis heinous crimes, while Crowe brilliant expressed the disturbing views of Goering.

However, despite this scene being brilliantly performed and filmed, there was one aspect that rubbed me the wrong way. It was a piece of dialogue said by Kelley in relation to the American bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Kelley refers to the victims of these bombings as ‘collateral damage’, and this line honestly unsettled me. 210,000 - 246,000 deaths is not collateral damage. I understand in the context of the scene that Kelley was defending the fact that these bombings were nowhere near as extreme as the Holocaust. But again just simply dismissing the thousands of deaths as ‘collateral damage’ caught me off guard. Another point to add is that there is no record of Kelley directly referring to these victims as ‘collateral damage’.

Just like any historical film there were inaccuracies. To list a few :

• The film implies that all 22 Nazis were hung when in reality only 11 were. 7 of the Nazis were given prison sentences, 3 were acquitted and 1 was sentenced to death in Absentia.

• Kelley is dismissed for interacting with Goering’s wife and daughter, in reality Kelley chose to leave Nuremberg willingly.

• Kelley is present in the trials when Goering takes to the stand, the truth is Kelley had already left Nuremberg by this point.

• By the end Goering has turned on Kelley, but in reality when Kelley left Nuremberg Goering ‘wept unashamedly‘ (according to Kelley’s notes).

(source for these points) + Kelley’s own recollection

Even with all the inaccuracies, I still enjoyed the film. For having to condense such a long event into a two-hour film, I think they did quite a good job.

Finally, I just want to mention the overriding message of the film. Nuremberg is not just a telling of events, just like how the book was not the retelling of Kelley’s work. It’s a warning about authoritarianism and the signs for it. The ending sequence of Kelley being kicked off of a radio show because he highlights the truth that individuals like the Nazis exist everywhere and focusing on America was a perfect ending. Considering the political climate of the world and especially America (who are definitely beginning to show a few danger signs), this film was released at the perfect time. Everyone needs to be aware that a dictatorship like the Third Reich can happen anywhere and at any time, we just need to know how to spot the signs so we can prevent them from taking form.

No one listened to Kelley when he wrote his book, but hopefully this film will make people heed the warning so explicitly given.

“The only clue to what man can do is what man has done” - R.G. Collingwood

Letterboxd Review:

★★★.5/5

This film couldn’t have come out at a better time. Kelley was warning everyone about America and yet no one listened, I hope people that watch this film understand the overriding message of it. It goes much deeper than the retelling of a historical event.

“The only clue to what man can do is what man has done” was the perfect quote to place at the end.

But what actually is queer subtext and why is it a thing?

Well to put it simply, queer subtext is when a piece of media has hidden meanings that suggest a queer identity or theme. It is seen through small interactions between characters or even visual symbols (IT is a great example for both of these). Queer subtext can be done both intentionally or unintentionally. It can often be the product of viewers finding pieces of their identity hidden between the lines of stories.

Queer subtext has been used for decades, especially during eras when LGBTQ+ representation was not allowed or risky. During the 1930s the Hays Code was created, these were a set of guidelines that all film studios had to follow. It included rules such as no graphic violence, drug use or explicit relationships. Another element of the code was that “any inference of sex perversion,” including homosexuality, was prohibited.

And thus queer subtext was utilised. It was a way for creative individuals to express their views and create representation without making it too obvious. Audiences that were able to ‘read between the lines’ could pick on these hints of queerness. Though those who did not seek for it most likely didn’t, allowing subtle queer representation to stay under the radar.

Sometimes queer subtext is fully interpreted by the audience and was unintentionally created. This is just an example of individuals seeking comfort and identity in media and characters that they may relate to.

An example of an older film with queer subtext is Rebel Without A Cause (1955). It is a classic which stars the infamous James Dean. Plato can be heavily interpreted as being queer, through the adoring gazes he gives Jim or through him having Alan Ladd taped inside his school locker. Nowadays Rebel Without A Cause is widely recognized for it’s queer coding and Plato is often cited as being one of the first gay teenage characters in film history.

The fact that Nicholas Ray (director) was able to include quite explicit queer subtexts, for the time, in his film and managed to work around the Hays code is applaudable.

Fortunately, society has progressed and LGBTQ+ representation does not need to be supressed to queer subtext. There are countless successful films with queerness at the centre of its plot, such as Call Me By Your Name, Waves or Brokeback Mountain.

However, many contemporary films still use queer subtext!

My favourite and most widely accepted example is Richie and Eddie from IT Chapters 1 & 2. The queer subtext in these two films goes hard. In IT, Pennywise confronts Richie saying he has a ‘dirty little secret’ and whilst it isn’t confirmed what this secret is, many audiences have interpreted it to be linked to Richie’s sexuality. Additionally, Richie and Eddie are the closest pairing in the Losers’ club. Whilst they are close with the other members, the two seem to have a closer and deeper bond, this is seen explicitly in Chapter 2.

The most explicit piece of evidence we have for their relationship being less platonic is Richie engraving their initials (R+E) onto the back of a fence. Whilst this could be seen as platonic, the context with the other pieces of evidence pushes their relationship to be more romantic.

But why do contemporary films still use queer subtext?

It could be for numerous reasons, it honestly depends upon the directors/writers. Using subtext can be a way for directors to build a connection with their queer audience, who are able to pick up on subtle hints and are actively seeking out queer narratives.

Another potential reason, is that subtext allows for deeper and more layered artistic interpretations of themes beyond the simple and explicit storylines. If we look at The Dead Poets society, this can be seen clearly.

The Dead Poets Society is an incredibly deep film which focuses not only on the beauty of words but also mental health, connections, influences and aspirations. However, this film can be interpreted to an even greater depth when looking at the relationship between Neil and Todd.

On the surface they are close friends, but it is heavily inferred that their relationship goes beyond that. If you accept this interpretation then a whole new perspective can be taken on the film. Neil’s acting and his fathers disapproval for acting can be seen as metaphors for queerness and homophobia. The interpretation of Neil and Todd’s relationship going deeper then just friends adds a whole knew depth to the film.

The reasons for using queer subtext are unlimited, it is all dependent on the director. And again, queer subtext can sometimes be unintentional and be found in unconventional texts.

Queer subtext has always been more than hidden meanings, it’s a quiet act of resistance and recognition. In eras where queerness couldn’t be spoken, people found ways for it to still be seen and felt. Even as representation becomes more explicit today, the art of subtext reminds us that queerness has always been present in shaping stories even if it was done subtly.

Mainstream films with potential queer subtext:

• IT Chapter 1 & 2 (Richie and Eddie)

• The Dead Poets Society (Neil and Todd)

• Rebel Without A Cause (Plato and Jim)

• Rebecca (Mrs. Danvers and Rebecca)

• The Lord of the Rings trilogy (Sam and Frodo)

• X-Men franchise (Magneto and Professor X)

• Death Becomes Her (Madeline and Helen)

• Point Break (Johnny and Bodhi)

• Bride of Frankenstein (Themes more than characters)

• Luca (Luca and Alberto)

• Jennifer’s Body (Jennifer and Anita)

• Pitch Perfect (Beca and Chloe)

• Captain Marvel (Carol and Maria)

Wait a second…you don’t need to picture it! This happens every time you visit a British cinema! It used to just be one Royal Navy advert and that was it, now it’s a minimum of 4.

Like most people I love the cinema. I’m obsessed the experience of sitting in a room for 2 hours with no other thoughts except for film.

Though the experience of being bombarded with British military adverts can sometimes ruin the immersive nature of the cinema.

The adverts show the military experience as fun and exciting almost as a lifestyle club. I’m sure that many parts of military experience are enjoyable and exciting. However these adverts always strangely forget to mention the danger, moral complexity and political context of military life. Isn’t that weird?!

No, it’s not! Obviously, they aren’t going to show you the horrors of military life if they are trying to provoke you to enlist. If they did show you the whole truth everyone would be deterred and they would have no one to fight for the nation.

They create messages that joining the military will give you a sense of purpose or belonging. Or it will transform you as a person, hence the phrase “I was born in England, but I was made in the Royal Navy.” Yes these adverts can be seen as marketing strategies (which they are!!) but the propaganda undertones are glaring.

If you look at England’s history with military propaganda the same type of phrases are used ‘your country needs you’ ‘Step into your place’ or ‘Britishers you’re needed’. Whilst the Royal Navy adverts aren’t as explicit, the way they use phrases like ‘I was made in the Royal Navy’ begins to make them seem more propagandistic.

Over the course of history, propaganda has evolved from posters to radio and to film. The adverts we see in the cinema are just the product of the development of technology. The messages shared in the modern day propaganda are the same as the past ones. Propaganda is and always will be a part of society.

But why are the adverts shown in cinemas? Whilst there isn’t a definitive answer, I can take a well educated guess. The cinema is a relaxed environment and holds large captivated audiences. This is perfect for advertisers and military propaganda that wants to provoke emotional engagement through sounds and visuals.

Additionally, if you’re about to watch an exciting, heroic action film, seeing military adverts beforehand naturally links the two, putting them on the same level of excitement and ‘coolness’.

I know that a lot of people reading this might be thinking ‘Aren’t these just normal marketing strategies and not propaganda?’. And yes, you would be correct in half of your thinking. They are using common marketing techniques like fast/cinematic editing, avoiding negative elements and persuasion. Companies have been using these methods for years, however the military isn’t selling a product, they are selling a lifestyle and a true commitment with actual consequences.

A final point to make is that the adverts celebrate national pride, which isn’t inherently propagandistic. It can be seen as a way to celebrate those in service and to express a shared identity they have. But national pride is exactly what propaganda exploits most effectively. When pride becomes linked to military service the risk of equating patriotism with enlistment occurs. It begins to created messages that in order to truly love your country you need to serve militarily. It is a subtle but powerful message which has been used for years.

Whilst these adverts may serve a legitimate recruitment purpose, their cinematic style and emotional messaging blurs the line between persuasion and ideology. They may not fit the traditional and explicit mould of propaganda that we all learnt in history class, yet their power still lies strong. Whether or not it is intentional, these adverts are propaganda disguised as marketing.

What are your thoughts?

I have only been introduced to Paul Thomas Anderson (director) recently through his film Licorice Pizza which I discovered due to my latest obsession with Cooper Hoffman. All I have to say wow, PTA is an incredible director. And One Battle After Another is no exception to his brilliance.

I wasn’t too sure what to expect when I sat down in the cinema. I had heard everyone praising the film so my expectations were high. Though I wasn’t certain on the overall plot or feel of the movie.

And honestly, I am kind of glad I didn’t. I was able to be surprised by every bit of the gripping plot, which doesn’t happen too often in new releases (because they are normally remakes with the same predictable plot!!!).

My favourite part of the whole film was that it was undeniably and unapologetically political!! Have you ever watched an apparent political film but the producers are too scared to actually criticise stuff? Yes of course you have! This is why One Battle After Another was such a nice change to witness.

PTA has openly and loudly criticised the immigration deportation situation occurring in America at the moment and especially the camps that they are forcing the families to stay. PTA also criticises white supremacists and just overall bigotry. The best bit? He makes it satirical, which is brilliant because it does just truly show the ludicrousness of it all.

PTA isn’t afraid to use his film to speak out against the government and their impending dictatorship.

The acting seen from all of the actors involved was incredible. Obviously, Leonardo DiCaprio is brilliant in it as he is in most of his projects. Though, I personality felt that this may have been his best role. He wasn’t playing a cool and calm character like his past roles (say Jordan Belfort) but instead he was portraying a high, stressed out dad trying to find his daughter in his bath robe. And it was such a great change to see, I loved it!

I have to say that my favourite performance was definitely from Teyana Taylor who plays Perfidia Beverly Hills. She is genuinely one of the most badass characters ever. Like yes my girl did wrong but c’mon have you seen the state of society? She was awesome, and a special mention to her running scenes because it was honestly impressively fast and potentially my favourite running scene from any film!

Another performance I want to mention is Chase Infiniti who portrays Willa Ferguson. This is Chase Infiniti’s first film acting role, I mean what! Imagine your first film role is with Leo DiCaprio and directed by PTA?!? There is no doubt that Infiniti deserved to be there, she was incredible! She was able to capture the innocence whilst also fearless, perseverance of Willa perfectly. One Battle After Another was a brilliant start to her career and I cannot wait to see her in future projects!!

The final performance I’ll mention is Sean Penn as Sergeant Lockjaw. Firstly, lets address the elephant in the room…the tightness of that mans tops. Sgt Lockjaw did not need to be doing all that! Sean Penn was brilliant in this film and was able to actually freak me out when he was on screen, which I did not think was going to happen. There are just so many layers to his character that make him so interesting and make me appreciate Penn’s performance even more so. Sean Penn was able to perfectly summarise the foolishness and scary reality of white supremist bigots.

As I mentioned earlier all of the supporting casts performance was applaudable. They all added so much to the film that made it as great as it is. A special mention to Benicio Del Toro because I absolutely loved him in this film playing a comedic but morally strong Sensei.

One of the last things I’ll mention is the cinematography. I swear there is something in the water that the 2025 cinematographers are drinking, because most of the cinematography is incredible this year. And One Battle After Another did not miss. I want to specifically mention a car chase scene that occurs and the way the camera follows the dips of the roads bumps. It was so satisfying and if you have watched the film you will know exactly what I am talking about. I think from now on PTA should direct every car chase scene ever. Throughout the film the cinematography was incredible and some scenes were exceptionally brilliant like the one mentioned above.

Finally, I want to touch on the score. My Lord! It was actually incredible. I am so excited for the Oscars next year literally just to see who wins the Best Score because The Long Walk Vs One Battle After Another is going to be close!! This might be one of my favourite scores ever. My favourite part is that in some scenes the score sounded so out of place but it also perfectly fit the overall feel of the film. It is a strange thing to describe but it was absolutely fantastic and I adore it.

My only minor criticism would potentially be the ending. I feel that all of the film was fast paced but the ending was abruptly slower. However, I do appreciate that the ending showed that the battles weren’t over and that as the title states it is one battle after another. Nevertheless, the film was incredible and it was only a minor criticism because I wasn’t too pressed about the ending.

Overall, One Battle After Another is a spectacular film that undeniably deserves all of the hype it is receiving. It is successfully able to tackle important issues like racism and immigration in a both genuine and satirical way. PTA is an incredibly talented director who’s work I will definitely be exploring more since watching this!

If you can watch One Battle After Another in the cinemas, go do it!!

Letterboxd review:

★★★★.5/5

‘Finally an actually political film that isn’t afraid to openly criticise stuff!!

Also you don’t understand my excitement when Alana (Licorice Pizza) appeared. ‘- LizFilms

When I first watched Saltburn I did think it was freaky, but not as much as everyone made it out to be. Yes someone has sex with a grave and yes someone does drink another persons bath water. But was it actually that freaky?

I’d argue that Saltburn’s freakiness was performative, a method to shock viewers to get it spoken about. And it worked! If you heard anyone talking about Saltburn they weren’t focusing on the good plot or depth of characters but on the freaky stuff. Because sex stuff sells, especially in Hollywood.

The time that Saltburn was released (2023) there were already freakier films released such as The Secretary (2002). So the level of eroticness was already high in cinema, Saltburn was a just a needle in the freaky haystacks.

The freakiest part of the film was making a working class character the main villain who’s whole role was stealing from the wealthy, but that’s a conversation for another post!

I think the success and popularity of Saltburn can be credited to the ‘shocking’ erotic scenes. And I think Fennell was aware of this and is trying to do the same technique for Wuthering Heights. And it is has worked…just not in the way she hoped.

Instead of people being shocked in a good way, they are disappointed. Annoyed at the miss casting of the characters and confused on the focus of sex when it isn’t a straight forward romance novel .

However, I could be wrong maybe Saltburn was truly freaky. Recently, there has been a rise in conservative values (especially in America) where people are put off at the mention of sex let alone a man drinking another mans bath water! So maybe it was that freaky and I’m the odd one out.

I hold the belief that the freakiness was performative than reflective of the true soul of the film. A shock method that did work but took away the focus from the genuinely good plot and detailed characters.

So no, Saltburn was not that freaky.

Letterboxd review:

★★★/5

‘I mean it’s Jacob Elordi, can you blame him?’ - LizFilms

Because on the surface it is fair…which is the main issue.

Before discussing why it is an issue, lets talk about they ways that it is fair.

Firstly, the competition is voluntary to sign up for and when people do sign up they know the main rule: you stop walking, you get shot. They even have multiple chances to back out of the competition. This is will be the main aspect of this blog post today but we shall return to this in a bit.

Secondly, all of the competitors are given water when they need it. Throughout the film we see multiple characters asking the military personnel for more water. On the surface, this is fair as they are giving them access to one of the main necessities to live.

Finally, all of the competitors have the same chance. Even if you prepare for the walk it doesn’t help (as we see with Hank Olson) and even if your dad is the the Major it will not benefit you (as we see with Stebbins). Additionally, as they are all living in an impoverished, war effected society they are all most likely surviving on the same weak diets. Again this means that no one has the upper hand, making it fair.

So if all of these aspects are included within the competition how can it be unfair?

The unfairness of the walk is larger than the competition itself. It is all to do with the society they live in.

Lets tackle the first ‘fair’ aspect : the competition is voluntary…or is it? It is quickly established that people sign up for the competition in order to win money and a prize which most people desperately need as they are all living in poverty. When living in poverty as bad as they are, people will do whatever it takes to get money, to survive. So everyone signs up, because everyone’s desperation makes them believe in the slim chance that they will be the winner. If the government was truly ‘fair’ they would have the competition but with no killing, or even better no competition at all and just implementing welfare policies!

If everyone eligible in the country signs up is it really voluntary or is it made to feel voluntary when in reality the state of society forces them all to? As the government don’t help their people in ethical ways but instead through the competition they are practically forcing people to join as they have no other option. The government uses the competition as a means to control the people and to make it seem as though they are helping when truly they aren’t.

In the film they actually discuss this topic, with Ray giving a great speech about how it isn’t truly fair if everyone signs up (like my point above). The system relies on the desperateness of young men and their need to survive.

Additionally, the element that they have multiple chances to pull out of the competition links directly to the point of why would they? Physically, yes, they could leave the competition before it begins, but mentally, they can't bring themselves to do it because their financial need for the prize money outweighs their desire to walk away. Reiterating my preceding point, the state of society is preventing them from leaving because they know that they’ll die either way. It will just be through walking instead of starvation or sickness.

Lets discuss the second ‘fair’ element: they are given water. Personally, I think that this aspect can be looked at from 2 different ways:

1. By giving them water, they are manipulated into thinking it is fair and that they have a solid chance in winning. It pushes more people to sign up.

2. Giving them water means that they are less likely to die of dehydration meaning that the competition will go on longer making it more interesting for those who watch it on TV.

If viewers at home see water being given out and no one dying of sickness or dehydration they are more likely to sign up. They think that they have a higher chance of winning. It doesn’t just manipulate the present walkers but those watching who may become future walkers. The manipulation keeps the cycle spinning making the competition active and consequently society even worse.

And finally we are at ‘fair’ aspect number 3 : they all have the same chance. This is actually true but only due to society and its treatment of their people. If we look at The Hunger Games none of the tributes have the same chance because of the poverty imbalance between the districts and the career tributes. However, if we see The Long Walk, everyone is in the same boat, the same impoverished, failing dystopian society. Even if one walker is physically superior, it doesn’t give them a higher chance of winning because the competition challenges you more mentally than physically. We see this through the numerous characters who willingly stopped walking instead of stopping due to injuries.

If anything you need to be mentally fit more than physically because in the end that is what keeps you walking. But their societal state doesn’t allow any of them to be mentally stable because they live in a war torn, surveillance and dystopian state. It is why Pete was able to win (in the film) because as he stated ‘been walking all his life’. He isn’t mentally fit, he has just adapted to his decaying surroundings ultimately making him the fittest out of all the walkers.

But this isn’t fair because he had to go through years of abuse, grief and loneliness to win a state sanctioned death march.

Whilst The Long Walk might seem fair on the surface, it isn’t. The failing society and manipulation that the government uses makes it unfair. I’d argue that making it seem fair is one of the evilest elements of it all. It creates hope in a darkened world which is slowly crushed mile by mile, shot by shot.

Did you think it was fair?

This is my favourite unofficial situationship ever, you cannot convince me that they weren’t in love with each other. We all watch X-men First Class and it is one of the most romantic films I’ve ever seen!

Also I must add the fact that Charles casually made up with Erik after most films. Magneto was trying to commit mass genocide and all Charles wanted was to play chess. And going to see your ‘friend’ in prison just to play chess despite him trying to kill you…historians will call them roommates.

One of my favourite Cherik scenes in on the plane in Days of future past and specifically when Charles shouts ‘You abandoned me!’. Come on now…The passion that James McAvoy put into that line just proves my point even further. Also I think the fact that Charles isn’t mad at Erik for paralysing him but for leaving him is just perfect for their relationship.

Obviously we can’t talk about Cherik without mentioning the Beach divorce. I think about the Beach divorce on a daily basis. The part that is the worst for me is that it (apparently) wasn’t the bullet that paralysed Charles, it was Erik trying to help by taking it out.

Additionally, in the comics Charles isn’t paralysed by Erik but by an entity called Lucifer. This change in the cause of Charles’ paralysation is so important to me because they made it someone Charles really cares about and that is so detrimental to the films but also to their relationship. Also the fact that Charles isn’t mad at Erik for paralysing him but for leaving him is so evil from the writers, he just wanted him chess partner back.

Another one of my favourite scenes is in Days of future past when Charles punches Erik as soon as he see’s him for the first time after the beach divorce. Ironically, just before he punches Erik, he says that he ‘doesn’t do well with violence’. Charles’ whole character has the morals of not choosing violence so for the only time we see Charles engage in physical violence be provoked by Erik is so important to me. It shows how badly Erik leaving him has effected Charles (remember Charles isn’t mad that Erik injured him but that he left), that he was willing to break his morals which is often to cause of conflict between the two.

Throughout the whole of Days of Future past the two were at each others neck and their sweet relationship had turned into hatred.

Their relationship is honestly one of my favourites across all of the media I have watched. Even if you see their relationship as being romantic or platonic you cannot disagree that their pairing is incredible and shall go down in history as iconic.

My letterboxd review (X-Men First Class):

★★★★/5 ❤︎

‘Bitches will say they don’t wanna break up but then put a bullet in your back instead’ - LizFilms

I went into this film with not much knowledge about it except for the basis of the rules for the Long Walk (which are pretty much if you stop walking you get shot) so I wasn’t sure what to expect.

And wow! I was blown away, it was incredible. I genuinely walked out of the cinema shocked from how amazing the film was. I wasn’t too sure how entertaining a film about a group of men walking would be but I am glad to say that they proved me wrong! Dare I say it is one of the best films I have watched this year or even in the past few.

The Long Walk is directed by Francis Lawrence who directed the infamous Hunger Games Franchise and from this alone I should have known not to get attached to characters (like I did for the Hunger Games sigh) but did I? Of course! And I am glad I did, it shows how incredible the film was that I was so heavily invested in the characters walking and who would win. I was so invested that for the last 10 minutes I was just crying at the back of the cinema!

The film is an adaptation of Stephen King’s novel The Long Walk so the incredibly gripping plot can be credited to King himself. However, there were major changes in the film like the ending (I wont say how in order to keep this spoiler free). As I haven’t read the book yet I can’t say how accurately it was adapted or how well but as a film overall it was brilliant. The building of the relationships between the characters was done beautifully and was honestly foundation for the films greatness.

We see these men become close friends in the span of hours though they act as if they have known each other for years. They have been bonded through trauma not just through the competition but through the society they live in. The relationship that I want to specifically discuss is between the two main characters, Ray and Pete.

The bromance between these two was off the charts! Both Cooper Hoffman (Ray) and David Jonsson (Pete) performed unbelievably and I’d argue that they will become two of the biggest names in Hollywood in the future. I was so invested in their friendship that was only 5 days old, it was fantastic acting and character building. They had such a genuine and authentic friendship that really kept the spirit of the film alive. Their friendship was the only slither of light in the overall depressing (but great) film.

Another notable performance was Ben Wang’s as Hank Olson. He was the perfect casting for the character of Hank, he was able to capture the initial cockiness and eventual vulnerability exceptionally. Every time he appeared on screen I was anxious, scared that he was the next one to go. I have never been so stressed out before. His excellent performance has made me even more excited for the newest Hunger Games film, where Wang plays Wyatt Callow.

The other members of the supporting cast including Charlie Plummer, Garrett Wareing, Joshua Odjick, Tut Nyuot and so many more were all absolutely breath-taking. All of their performances made the film as brilliant as it was and really showed the different effects that the competition has on all individuals.

The last performance I will mention is Mark Hamill. When I say I hate this man, I mean it. Every time he appeared on screen I wanted to scream, he is a horrific character and Hamill portrayed him so brilliantly. I only really know Mark Hamill as Luke Skywalker so to see him in a completely different and antagonistic role was great.

Despite the sets being simple roads/countryside and the outfits being the same throughout, the films aesthetic was gorgeous. Some of the shots, especially towards the end, were genuinely incredible and beautiful. Randomly, my favourite shots were the ones repeated of Ray’s feet whilst walking. I don’t have a detailed reason as to why but I just thought they were simple shots that added so much to a scene and really immersed me into the experience.

Finally, I just want to mention the message of the film/book. The story of ‘The Long Walk’ is a metaphor for war and more specifically the Vietnam war in relation for the state sanctioned exploitation of young men. And the poor treatment of the walkers reflects the horrific treatment of soldiers throughout the war. I think that The Long Walk is a brilliant story to use as a mirror of society, not only when it was written but even now.

I genuinely cannot stop thinking about this film and I 100% will be rewatching when it comes onto a streaming service. But if you can watch it in the cinemas on the big screen do it!!

Letterboxd Review:

★★★★★/5 ❤︎

‘Making a good film about people walking is a skill but making it THIS incredible is an actual talent’ - LizFilms

But who would have suspected that out of every Hollywood couple, Alison Brie and Dave Franco would take the place?! With the release of their newest film ‘Together’ and their press tour giving us an insight into their relationship, you can’t help but like them!

Lets explore where you may have seen these two before their latest hit film. Alison Brie is most well known for her role as Annie Edison in the sitcom ‘Community’. It is arguably her biggest role as she stars in it alongside Donald Glover (aka Childish Gambino), Chevy Chase and Joel McHale. She plays a sweet and innocent nerd, a bit different from her character in ‘Together’!

As for Dave Franco, many may know of him because of his brother James Franco. However, due to past allegations James is no longer in the foreground of Hollywood and Dave has taken his place! If you weren’t aware these two were even related you may know Dave Franco as the magician Jack Wilder in the ‘Now You See Me’ franchise. Dave Franco is also in 21 Jump Street and delivers one of the greatest lines perhaps ever spoken, ‘Do you know what happens to a handsome guy like me in jail? It rhymes with grape! It rhymes with grape…’.

If, unlike me, you haven’t been bombarded with all of their couple interviews you most likely know nothing about them together. But don’t worry, I am here to share all of the random knowledge I now have about Hollywood’s hottest couple!

Firstly, they met through mutual friends during Mardi Gras in New Orleans in 2011. After spending the night together they eventually re-met in Paris. And they both say that it was an immediate click!

2015 they get engaged and Dave Franco was wearing the Mardi Gras mask that Alison Brie wore when they met. 2017 they get married and have a small, intimate wedding (according to people).

The first film they were both in together was ‘The Little Hours’ which is a dark comedy about a man trying to find refuge in a convent full of sexually frustrated nuns! It also stars Aubrey Plaza as one of the nuns.

Their next film together was in ‘The Disaster Artist’ which is a comedy drama about a failed screen writers film that becomes a profitable cult film. It stars both of the Franco brothers, Seth Rogen (commonly found in a film with one of the Franco brothers) and Josh Hutcherson.

Their third film together was ‘The Rental’ which was their first co-writing project. Dave Franco then directed and Alison Brie starred as Michelle. It is a horror film about two couples on an oceanside getaway who suspect that their host is spying on them.

During lockdown the couple co-wrote their fourth film together, ‘Somebody I used to know’. Which once again had Franco directing and Brie as the star. It is a romantic comedy about a woman who reconnects with her ex-boyfriend whilst revisiting her home town.

And finally we arrive at 2025 where they co-wrote, co-directed and co-starred in their latest project ‘Together’. It is a body horror that focuses on a couple who have recently moved to the countryside when an unusual force starts to threaten their love, lives and flesh. From what I’ve seen most people have liked the film, it has a 91% on the Rotten Tomatometer. The couple have said that being married definitely made this film easier to make when it came to all aspects as they were able to be open about their thoughts and it made sex scenes a lot simpler!

Honestly, I’m glad that these are Hollywood’s hottest couple at the moment because which other couple could co-write, co-direct and co-star in a film and not go insane?!

What are your thoughts?

However, until this week I had never actually watched the iconic 1995 version. I’ll admit I procrastinated watching it because I was scared I’d love it more than the 2005 version but in reality I love both of them.

Both of the versions did it differently in many ways, some bits better than others but still both equally as great. The 1995 version has the privilege of being a 6 hour tv show meaning it had more time to delve deeper into Lizzie and Mr Darcy’s relationship and other elements.

One part I love about this version was how accurate it is to the book. Often when a book adaption is made it can be terrible because it loses the soul of the original book, but the 1995 did an incredible job of staying true to the novel. It makes me chuckle that they stuck so closely to the plot of the book but then decided that Colin Firth in a wet shirt was an exception. And I agree, most ardently!

Before I watched this version I had heard so many positive things about Colin Firths portrayal of Mr Darcy. Despite this I was a bit nervous to see it as I wasn’t a huge fan of Firth in Bridget Jones, which itself is a loose adaptation of Pride & Prejudice. However, everyone was so right in praising his performance as he played Mr Darcy brilliantly!

He played the perfect brooding, hopeless romantic that Mr Darcy truly is. Whenever we saw Mr Darcy looking at Lizzie you could see the love in his eyes, it made the adaptation a thousand times better. You could have told me that Colin Firth was actually in love with Jennifer Ehle and I wouldn’t blink an eye! The first proposal scene actually had me getting giddy, the way that Mr Darcy stumbled around the room whilst trying to find the courage to propose was brilliant and it made the proposal seem so innocently fuelled by love and no other motives.

Honestly, every Mr Darcy scene was faultless and once again he has raised my expectations!

Obviously we can’t talk about Pride and Prejudice without mentioning the main character, Elizabeth Bennett. Jennifer Ehle played such an accurate depiction of Lizzie that she might be my favourite one (sorry Keira Knightley!). My favourite Lizzie scene is the day after the first ball when Lizzie and Jane are in the garden talking about Mr Darcy. I love the fact that they are just blatantly making fun of him, they literally repeat something he says in a mocking voice. It is the epitome of girlhood! I loved it so much.

I also think that Jennifer Ehle gave Lizzie a unique elegance that perfectly suited the character. Just like Colin Firth, Jennifer Ehle’s eyes were also filled with convincing love. I adored the fact that in the beginning Lizzie did truly despise Mr Darcy but when she began to discover her true feelings for him she began to get nervous when meeting him. It was just small glances or hand movements that sold this nervous, butterfly feeling I imagine you experience whilst falling in love.

If you are a Pride & Prejudice fan then you know of the iconic Mr Darcy hand flex from the 2005 adaptation. It is beautiful and I go crazy for it every rewatch. Although the 1995 version didn’t have the hand flex, it did have something equally as incredible. May I present the scene of Lizzie and Mr Darcy staring at one another whilst Georgiana plays the piano.

You CANNOT convince me that these two were not in love in real life. Like come on! I kid you not when I watched this scene I actually squealed, I love it so much. Their gaze is full of so much love for each other and it is just brilliant. I genuinely cannot put into words how much I adore it. I can only dream of experiencing this one day!!!

As I mentioned earlier the 1995 adaptation has the benefit of being a 6 hour long tv show instead of a 2 hour film. It allowed them to go into more depth about Mr Darcy and Lizzie’s relationship. They were able to do their enemies to lover storyline justice, that other adaptations may not have just due to a lack of time. At the beginning you can tell how much Lizzie actually loathes Mr Darcy and then throughout you can see her slowly fall madly in love with him.

As they had an extra 4 hours (compared to the films) they were able to include more scenes of Bingley’s sister, who is a complete and utter bitch. She sucks in every adaptation but in this one especially. I was sick of her every time she appeared on screen! I have never been happier when Mr Darcy finally humbled her.

I think the only very minor criticism I have for the 1995 version is about Mr Bingley and Janes relationship. Obviously they are not the main couple but I adore their story and love for each other so much. They are such a perfect couple and it was a shame that we didn’t get to see more of their relationship. However, the scenes of Jane and Bingley that we did have were all brilliant and did do their relationship in the book justice.

In the 2005 version Lydia Bennett is annoying but my word the 1995 Lydia was one of the most jarring characters I have ever watched. Every time I heard her stupid giggle I wanted to turn it off but I stayed strong for Darcy. I mean fair play to the writers of the 1995 version for making Lydia as book accurate as possible but it was difficult to sit through nonetheless.

The 1995 Mr Collins was also more annoying than his 2005 version and I am so glad that he was! In the books he is a gross man who Lizzie deeply despises and can’t take seriously. The 1995 version emphasises the book version so well, I was overjoyed. I genuinely couldn’t stand this version of him as he did make me uncomfortable, he honestly had a perverted vibe about him!

The 2005 Mr Collins isn’t really that gross he is just a socially awkward guy that doesn’t understand social cues. I love both versions of Mr Collins for very contrasting reasons though both are still brilliant!

I love the 1995 version so so much and I will definitely be rewatching again. It perfectly embodies the spirit of the book and does the characters justice. Colin Firth and Jennifer Ehle were the perfect Mr Darcy and Lizzie Bennett. I am annoyed that it took me so long to watch it!!

Comment your thoughts

and

follow my letterboxd : Lizfilms