Agree 100%. I expected so much more…it was just flat and lifeless.
I loved Dunkirk, because it was basically an existential horror movie.
I’d place Dunkirk in the category of Anabasis movies. Of course, The Warriors always gets mentioned there, but more seriously, John Ford’s They Were Expendable and the French 317th Platoon about Vietnam. Among others that escape me now.
Frankenstein (2025)
Recommended.
First 60% or so of the movie: Pretty good stuff about the creation of the monster. Not quite as good as I would hope, but it was good. A little long.
Final 40%: Excellent. Once the monster is alive and active and we follow his story, the movie is terrific. I won’t go into details, but this was a great version of the monster and his story. Loved it.
Let’s not forget We Were Soldiers (2002). Very powerful movie about the futility and sacrifice of the Vietnam war.
Agreed. I think I’m better off not having read the novel, as most negative comments about this film refer to the movie’s failure to follow the book accurately. I think it stands alone and that comparisons only take away from the solid work done here by everyone involved.
Shelby Oaks
Mildly recommended.
Chris Stuckman is a pretty popular film critic. I watch his reviews and am glad he finally got to live his dream and make a full-blown, full budget, movie.
It’s adequate, but not great. It is mostly a found footage type movie, but not entirely. The horror has very little scares to it and one thing that is good about it is that it is actually quite short.
Anyway, a pretty OK little movie. Nothing super amazing, nothing really terrible.
Good to hear - film buddy recommended Frankenstein too. 
I’m looking forward to it. I read (listened to, anyway) the book for the first time a few years ago and fell in love with it.
I just saw “Fantastic Four”, followed by “George Of The Jungle”.
I wish they kept the documentary style the whole way through, imo the film would have been much more effective. It was found footage until suddenly it was not, for no reason.
Just be forewarned that the biggest complaint by many is that it doesn’t follow the book.
From what you’ve read, are the criticisms the typical fanboy nitpicks (“Victor was left handed, man”)? Or was it about major changes in the narrative and themes?
I definitely plan on watching. Loved the novel, and I don’t mind even major departures from the book, so long as it’s in the service of a well-told story. Just curious.
Hmm, a lot of what I have read is that it’s one of the most faithful adaptations of the book.
Like a lot of early novels, Mary Shelley’s book doesn’t structurally lend itself well to an overly faithful dramatization. Any film that portrays the monster as self educated and intelligent and is framed by the ice-bound ship is enough for me to call it faithful.
I’m just relaying what I’ve seen on Reddit. I have no idea whether or not the criticisms are accurate. I enjoyed the movie, as it was a departure from the usual bolts-in-the-neck nonsense, and gave some depth to the “monster”.
I finally got around to seeing Glass Onion. I didn’t like it quite as much as the first Knives Out, but I liked it overall. I managed to keep myself unspoiled, so I could enjoy any surprises (and there were a few – one a completely out-of-the-blue uncredited cameo). I thought the initial introduction of the characters was a little draggy, but it picked up once everyone was allowed to “stew.” Recommended.
Predator: Badlands
Recommended.
Wow, it’s excellent. Such a great movie and one of the best, if not the best, of the Predator follow-ups. I won’t say anything so I don’t spoil it. I went in blind and it was actually very refreshing and new feeling.
Loved it.
The Rocky Horror Picture Show (1975). I had, of course, heard about it, and the fact there are various rituals that go with it at public showings, but never actually seen it. In fact I don’t think I ever even saw a clip. I finally took the time to watch it and it was OK? I can see that it is a parody of a lot of genres and the music and the absurdity is interesting, but I guess I would not characterize it as fun. Maybe, given the right libations, I might enjoy it more. I guess my preference goes for something else released in the same year Monty Python and the Holy Grail.
It was a bit amazing to me to realize the main character is played by Tim Curry, which I associate more with Wadsworth than any of the other characters I have seen him play. I think everyone played their role as they were expected to, but much more was demanded from him than the others, which is why he stands out the most. The visuals are very kitchy, but that is the point, so I don’t fault them. Overall, it was fine, but not something I would particularly want to re-watch.
//i\\
The difference is that Holy Grail was meticulously written, in much the same way as the equally successful other Monty Python movies, and reflected the same wacky brilliance that John Cleese and his then-wife Connie Booth put into Fawlty Towers. Whereas Rocky Horror was pretty much a fortuitious fluke – I think it’s marvelously entertaining and has some great music, but it became a cult classic pretty much by accident. They tried to do it again, and failed miserably.