Media Log

This was one of those films that I owned on DVD as a kid and would watch over and over again because there was nothing else to do. And even then, I kind of hated it.

It's just bizarre. It somehow feels like a terrible dub, except it was literally created to be in English first. The voice actors are trying (somehow they got Madonna and David Bowie for this), but to what end? All the dialogue is so poorly paced that conversations are genuinely hard to follow at times.

Everything from the character designs, to the world-building, to the animation quality feels like a forgotten, mid MMO from 2004.

The best scenes of this movie feel like they literally just filmed Christopher Walken hanging out with the alien props fully unscripted.

The rest of the movie is just kind of boring. And ultimately, it all feels very pointless.

IT SLAPS.

This wasn't really what I expected from the trailers. It's not an ultra-scary horror film, which is fine by me. I don't think horror needs to be deeply scary for it to work as a great movie.

Instead, this film is way more experimental and strange. It's a more conventional story than Longlegs (2024), but it still has the energy of a strange dream or modern-day fairy-tale. And it tackles similar themes of childhood abuse and trauma.

I strongly recommend watching this film at the cinema if possible or with a group of friends. There's a moment where one of the focal characters, Justine, is asleep in her car outside of a scary house. I won't say what happens next, but everybody in our screening was nervously laughing, gasping and whispering. It was an electric moment. Also the ending, where the comedic charms of the film really shine, had everybody HOWLING.

I also found the soundtrack to be really compelling. It has a cute, whimsical energy at times, but can also be very grating (complementary) and industrial.

Will definitely be giving this film multiple watches, and thinking about its meaning.

If you're going to watch this (which you should!), DO NOT WATCH IT ALONE.

This film is absolutely a masterpiece of trash, but it is vastly improved by having a group of friends to quip with.

Also, my PC broke not long after watching it. Coincidence?

You've probably seen a million Superman (2025) takes. It's a really good film, not much more to add.

...I love Mr. Terrific and I was so happy to see him on the big screen and he was really cool :o)

I'm so normal about this movie, I promise.

Gothic literature was my first love, and this move reawakened that love for me. I fear it may have ruined vampires for me, because no other depiction of vampires can really compare. Watching this movie after centuries of media watering down vampire mythos was so reinvigorating.

It's especially wonderful when viewed as a sort of sister film to 'The VVitch', also by Robert Eggers. 'Nosferatu' almost feels like another attempt at making 'The VVitch', without an uncontrollable goat on set and less child actors, which Robert Eggers famously struggles with. Both films have a feminist quality, as they focuse on the limited autonomy of historical women, as well as the shame and blame frequently placed upon women.

'Nosferatu', more explicitly than 'The VVitch', delves into the theme of female sexuality and the societal fears surrounding it, which was of course always an element of the vampire mythos. However, in our current media and cultural landscape, Robert Eggers is given much more leeway to fully explore that theme than any Victorian author would have been able to. Through Thomas, we also see the way the patriarchy negatively impacts men who, for various reasons, fail to achieve the masculine ideal. In the case of Thomas, he is explicitly a man who cannot fulfill his percieved financial obligations to his friends and his wife. He is also implicitly a male victim of sexual abuse.

A lot of people find Robert Eggers' commitment to historical accuracy to be gimmicky, or imply that it stems from a lack of creativity on his behalf. I believe that criticism is grasping at straws by critics who want to find a reason to hate a director who is simultaneously talented, experimental and beloved by the general public. Because Robert Eggers does not let his commitment to historical accuracy get in the way of commentating on contemporary political discourse (Are women not still shamed for their sexuality? Do male sexual abuse victims no longer feel shame? Are we not all still beholden to the whims of those more wealthy than us?). Setting a story within the past in fact only amplifies the ways our societal attitudes have stagnated.

And last but not least, the movie is absolutely gorgeous. So many wonderfully creative shots (that final shot!), expertly crafted costumes (Count Orlok's coat!) and amazing prosthetics (if you've seen the movie.. you know what I mean.)

Yeahhhh, it's ok.

Like 50% of the jokes are ok and like 20% are really good (10% have aged horribly). But the film is mostly held together by the glue of the cast's performances, which are charming and entertaining.

I'm not a big comedy person at the best of times, but this was a pretty entertaining watch.

Some people have argued that Megalopolis is poltically incoherent. For me, it was very clear.

The moral of Megalopolis is that women are lying, cheating whores who will exploit you for their own gain, while male artists should be allowed to do whatever they want with impunity. The ideal woman is one who stands beside you, supports your art with no ambitions or hobbies of her own, and recites meaningless, fake-deep quotes in between cooking you food and popping out babies.

The performances of the actors were all great. But it's all in service of a film that's trying to mask its shallow "We Should Improve Society Somewhat" messaging with gallons of ugly CGI and philosophical quotes lifted from elsewhere.

That said, Aubrey Plaza as Wow Platinum is the sexiest a woman has ever been on screen.

This is the craziest film I've ever seen. Every time I thought it was going to end, it kept going, and it got 20% wilder every time. The best summary I can give is "Body-Horror Barbie".

This film has such a strong, feminist backbone. Barbie was sort-of Feminist 101, which was... fine. It's a family film meant to be enjoyed by all generations of women and, as such, the feminism in Barbie is surface-level and easy-to-digest. Friendly. Comforting.

On the other hand, The Substance is pissed off. It has so much disgust towards society's treatment of women. Despite being so absurd, it tackles the topics of unrealistic female body standards, insecurity and the tragedy of female in-fighting with real deftness and vitriol. The story, which is constructed like a modern-day fairytale, works not only as a cautionary tale against plastic surgery and striving to appease the male gaze, but also a metaphor for self-loathing and mother-daughter conflict.

But overwhelmingly, it's a very symapthetic film. It's easy for a lot of media about female vanity to look at its subjects with distain, but Elisabeth's emotional pain feels incredibly real and is handled with so much dignity, especially contrasted with the batshit insanity of the things that happen to her and around her. Demi Moore's performance is really spectacular. She deserves an Oscar, but probably won't get one.

As for the body-horror itself. Yikes. I am somewhat sensitive to body-horror and I decided to see this on a day where I was already feeling somewhat nauseous. It's a miracle I didn't throw up in the cinema. The sound design is masterful. Every squish and squelch was emphasised tenfold. There's a scene of a man eating shrimp near the beginning of the film that is absolutely revolting. The film ramps up the horror as it goes, so just when you think you've seen the worst, weirdest thing, it pushes further.

I will never eat chicken on the bone ever again.

I do have a mild concern with the content of the body-horror. A problem inherent within most body-horror is ableism. To extract horror from somebody who looks deformed in some way is pretty nasty when you think about it. That said, because the film is so sympathetic to its protagonist, it actually seems to highlight this distasteful part of body-horror, and even evokes comparisons to films like The Elephant Man.

Likewise, a lot of the horror focuses on how gross it is to be old, which may seem like a hypocritical choice for a film about toxic beauty standards. Horror has long had a history of using naked old women for cheap shock value. Again, to me, this film almost feels as though it's holding a mirror up to that tradition, making an audience contemplate why they're "afraid" of old women, and if there's anything to fear at all. But that could be me being too generous, I don't know.

This series somehow got good reviews, so me and my friends might be alone in these opinions. But we found this series absolutely awful.

If you're a fan of Dune, you're gonna be annoyed. If you're not a fan of Dune, you're gonna be confused, and bored, and annoyed.

There's a lot of theoretically interesting stuff here, but it increasingly feels like nothing is happening. Episodes feel simultaneously way too long and yet way too shallow. It's based on the Brian Herbert Dune books (son of the original Dune author, Frank Herbert), so don't expect rich world-building or complex scenes. Instead, the world of Dune is flattened to become as comprehensive as possible.

The acting is good, I think the costuming is boring but serviceable, especially on a TV-budget.

I had a great time watching it with my friends, but we were consistently taking the piss. Maybe if you go into with a more positive mindset, you'll find it worthwhile.

Oh boy.

There's a lot to like about 'Dracula'. Specifically, the horror itself is very well executed. There were a small number of scenes that genuinely shocked me, mostly just because I wasn't aware that Victorian literature could be that graphic. The slower moments of suspense are enjoyable, and the pace of the more exciting scenes is quick and tense.

There is a sizeable group of main characters and they're all quite likeable, if a bit similar, with Mina Harker and Quincey Morris (a Texan cowboy!!) being stand-outs. The first 2/3rds of the book are spent essentially assembling this group of would-be vampire slayers, chronicling their encounters with Count Dracula through diary entries, telegrams and letters, and it's all quite well-paced and exciting.

But once the group comes together and commits to killing the Count, the book just becomes an absolute slog. Oh my God the dialogue. Nobody ever shuts the fuck up. I'm looking at you, Dr. Van Helsing, in particular. I swear to God, they all just keep having the same damn conversation over and over and over and over again about how much they all love each other and how much they hate Dracula.

Dracula himself is a pretty mid villain. Any possible threat he poses is immediately snuffed out by the main cast of characters being way too level-headed and competant. There's an exciting moment near the end of the book, where Dracula stands to potentially pit the friend group against Mina. This ends up never really mattering because everybody loves and trusts Mina fully. Nobody ever disagrees with Van Helsing's plans of action, so his plans always go off without a hitch. I honestly almost feel bad for Dracula, there's basically nothing he can do against them.

It's like the book was written specifically for people who get mad at horror protagonists who act irrationally. So what you end up with is a book where, excluding the first 2/3rds-ish, a group of hyper-intellegent, strong-willed, fearless rich people bully a vampire who just wants to go home.

It's a shame because the start is so strong. And there are so many opportunities for the book to jump off and become more tense. But it never takes those opportunities because it would require writing imperfect protagonists.

From a historical perspective, the book is a joy with what it has to say about New Women, technology and the attitudes towards foreign cultures. But be prepared for the ending to drag. Dragula.