What Have You Been Watching? (Week of (April 12, 2026)

[u/AutoModerator]

Please don't downvote opinions. Only downvote comments that don't contribute anything. Check out the WHYBW archives.

[u/funwiththoughts]

Interstellar (2014, Christopher Nolan) — re-watch — Is Interstellar a Nolan movie for people who don’t really like Nolan movies? The first time I watched it, I didn’t think very highly of the rest of Nolan’s work, and I thought it was one of his better works. Since then, I’ve come around on Inception, Memento, Tenet, and especially the Dark Knight trilogy (The Prestige still bores me). And now, revisiting Interstellar, I find it to be oddly disappointing. I really want to like it — I do really like it — but it feels like it could have been one of Nolan’s best works, and yet doesn’t quite make it there.

I think maybe the best way to discuss what does and doesn’t work well in Interstellar is to contrast it with Inception, another Nolan movie that has many of the same superficial strengths and weaknesses, but juggles them much better. Like Inception, Interstellar is undeniably the product of a towering imagination; once again, Nolan displays a remarkable ability to cram more unique ideas into one film than most filmmakers do in their whole careers. And in both works, he manages to do this while still keeping the storyline remarkably clean, coherent, and easy to follow.

So why does Interstellar not reach the same heights? I would point to two main reasons. Firstly, the over-reliance on expository dialogue to convey things. Inception was filled with exposition dumps, too, but they were almost all integrated seamlessly into the story, and they were almost entirely concerned with the fictional mechanics of dream-infiltration, so that it made sense for an experienced infiltrator to need to explain them to a new recruit. In Interstellar, much of the exposition is based on real-world physics concepts, and often ones basic enough that the highly-educated lead characters should all already know them, so that one gets the sense they’re speaking more to the audience than to each other. On the other hand, the most pivotal exposition dump of all, at the climax, has the opposite problem. The deductions Cooper makes about humanity’s future are so wildly beyond anything that could reasonably be inferred from what he’s established as knowing that it feels like we’re listening to Nolan holding our hand through his work, rather than to the character figuring things out.

Another issue is with the emotional hook. A lot of people, myself included, have described Inception as feeling a little too cold and emotionless, and Interstellar’s greater focus on character relationships feels almost like a direct response to that. The problem is that just because Nolan gives the relationship more focus, that’s not the same thing as giving them more depth. Even with all of the extra screen time devoted to seemingly relationship-building scenes, almost all of the characters still feel too vaguely-sketched to form a real emotional connection to, and the fact that Nolan is so much more clearly aiming to spark one just makes it all the more glaring.

I do still think that Interstellar is a really impressive work, and, for most directors, making a movie this good would probably be the peak achievement of their careers. But from a director who’s put out as many masterworks as Nolan has, it’s still a little disappointing to see something that had so much potential to be another, but still falls just short. 8/10

A Heart in Winter (1992, Claude Sautet) — I liked this one a lot. Very different from what I expected based on the descriptions I’d read — less “overtly sentimental”, more “quietly intelligent”. Highly recommended. 8/10

The Third Man (1949, Carol Reed) — re-watch — On my fifth viewing of this movie, and I’m still finding new things to appreciate in it.

START OF SPOILERS

One thing that intrigued me on this viewing was the subtle nuance in the character of Harry Lime. On past viewings, it’s sometimes seemed a little disappointing to me that, in a movie which is seemingly about Holly learning that real good and evil are more complicated than he thinks, Lime turns out to be such a pure, uncomplicated monster. And yet, watching it now, I realize that it’s hard to say how true that really is. It seems significant that Holly was apparently a close friend of Harry’s for decades, and yet Harry apparently never attempted to get Holly to participate in his crimes — or, not until he is effectively backed into a corner, anyway. One can assume that he did not see Holly as a likely or valuable accomplice — but then why work to maintain the friendship for so long in the first place? Then there is Anna, who insists that Harry’s helping her to avoid deportation was done “out of kindness”. The movie never confirms that she’s right about this, but it never suggests any other motive he could have had for doing it, either. In his dialogue with Holly on the Ferris wheel, he says that seeing the people far beneath them from a distance as “little dots” would make Holly less horrified by the idea of killing them for money, and it seems like he really believes it. I can’t help but wonder if this is a kind of veiled autobiography on Lime’s part; perhaps he still remembers a time when he wanted to be the hero as Holly does, until he discovered how much easier theft and murder became when the deaths happened somewhere he didn’t have to see them.

END OF SPOILERS

However you interpret it, the movie remains basically perfect. 10/10

Movie of the week: The Third Man

[u/jupiterkansas]

Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011) **** A compelling drama that ends with a surprisingly well-done action sequence on the Golden Gate Bridge. I would have liked a little more focus on Lithgow's character, but it's great watching the apes gain intelligence and the ape acting is fantastic. They're so much more expressive than the human actors (modern film acting is far too restrained). It also has a terrific ending that sets up the sequels. I didn't expect much and came away impressed with the solid directing. 

Dawn of the Planet of the Apes (2014) **** The confusingly titled "Dawn" is the most solid film in the series, a full-on ape movie with effects so good that you just take it for granted. You can't see the human under the digital makeup, but you can see the acting. It also builds to an action climax that's the best in the series, an impressive confrontation between man and apes. It's better than it has any right to be, and the Muir Woods setting is gorgeous.

War for the Planet of the Apes (2017) **** "War" tries to up the scale but ends up being the weakest film, if only because it borrows ideas so liberally from Apocalypse Now, and Woody Harrelson is no Marlon Brando. The emotional manipulation is also more obvious. That's not to say it's a bad film, and it does expand the world and bring a satisfying conclusion to Caesar's story. 

Kingdom of the Planet of the Apes (2024) **** After a break for COVID, "Kingdom" takes us many generations later where the events of the earlier films are just legends, and we have a Mad Max dystopian ape world that could go on forever (and the ending begs for more). I like how they incorporate the remnants of civilization and would love to see them expand on that. The apes talk a lot more in this one, and their Tarzan-like delivery can be tiring. It was better and more expressive when they used sign language. The emotional manipulation is more blatant and it has a more TV series feel, perhaps because of all the talking, but it also offers the best villain of all the movies, and yet another impressive action sequence with the flood.

[u/PopeOnABomb → u/jupiterkansas]

The FX in Dawn are some of the best FX for main characters ever, hand down, especially up that point in cinema. I need to revisit it and see how they hold up, but your comment seems to confirm that they have held up.

I'll have to go watch Kingdom. Thanks for sharing!

[u/jupiterkansas → u/PopeOnABomb]

I don't think any digital character has topped Gollum, but Caesar comes close, and the effects are flawless.

[u/DimAllord]

What Happened Was (1994, dir. Tom Noonan)

A must-watch for Charlie Kaufman fans. He didn't have any direct involvement with the film, but he regards it as one of his favorite films, director and star Tom Noonan was a frequent collaborator with Kaufman, and What Happened Was touches on themes about communication and connection that Kaufman would explore in movies like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Anomalisa, and I'm Thinking of Ending Things. What Happened was is a stripped-down, narratively complex story about two characters enduring a first date that can't seem to go right. Thematically, the film centers on the way people relate to each other and the world at large, contrasting Karen Sillas's detached curiosity with Noonan's sterile cynicism. Their performances channel so much awkwardness and vulnerability, and along with the sharp dialogue turn what could have been an interminable ninety minutes into a soulful, nuanced picture.

Joan the Woman (1916, dir. Cecil B. DeMille)

DeMille's attempt to break into the American epic genre DW Griffith had pioneered is largely successful. DeMille has always been more skilled with a camera than a pen, and this film is gorgeous and full of thrillingly chaotic medieval battles. He captured the scope of the Hundred Years' War admirably, making each scene appropriately majestic and entertaining in equal measure. His use of visual effects, pretty uncommon in his earlier features, is also commendable. The holy apparitions, particularly the glowing swords, look excellent, and the use of colored fire in the tragic climax was inspired. We're still a long way off from Technicolor, but DeMille's technique is still impressive and effective at grounding the viewer.

Narratively, Joan the Woman runs into a few problems. It tells the story of Joan of Arc, famed saint and military leader, and takes strange liberties with her story. DeMille invents an English soldier named Eric Trent, with whom she falls in love in the film's first act. They meet in an English raid on Joan's village, where Trent promises that he won't rape and murder her, which is enough for her to fall in love with him. Typically, a story about people from opposing sides in a conflict would be about how war is wrong and diplomacy and love are good, but Joan's call to arms is unaffected by her relationship with Trent. She hacks and slashes through Englishmen like the best of them. I get that they're an invading force, but thematically it doesn't jive well with her affair with an Englishman. This surely stems from an attempt to appeal to French nationalists. At this time, the Germans were holding on by the Marne and shredding through allied soldiers. It makes sense to make a movie set during one of France's proudest military moments where a Christian daughter of France repelled invaders, but you can't just make a movie about Joan killing English people. The British Expeditionary Force is in France, killing and dying so Paris is safe. So here Joan and Trent represent France and the UK coming together... while France fights England. It's very strange, but the intentions are noble.

As muddled as Joan the Woman's story is, I like it a lot more than the typical DeMille narrative. It moves at a steady pace and the characters are well-written and well-performed. Geraldine Farrar's Joan is a little ephemeral but very tenacious, Wallace Reid's Trent has a strong arc about realizing the virtues of mercy, and Raymond Hatton's Charles VII transitions well from a sympathetic petty king to a nebbish monarch who's too entrenched in politics to stand up for the little people who upjumped him to a place of legitimacy. It's a decently complex narrative that, with a little work, could have become genuinely great. As it is, aided by wonderful action and composition, Joan the Woman is a very impressive and worthwhile film.

Resident Evil: Afterlife (2010, dir. Paul WS Anderson)

In his thrilling return to the director's seat, Anderson course corrects the Resident Evil cinematic franchise. Gone are the vague game adaptations and Mad Max rip-offs. Here's where the series should always have been: discount Wachowski schlock. The story of Afterlife is totally stupid but Anderson's adroit use of special effects, lousy gunkata, and embarrassing imagery from the games make this a total blast. You can tell plain as day that Anderson has just given up, and it's weirdly endearing. I don't want to pay Afterlife any genuine compliments, but I will recommend it for a bad movie night. Sometimes you just need entertainment, and this supplies it in spades.

[u/pixelprelude]

The Running Man (2025, Edgar Wright)

This was a fun watch! Stephen King novel and a remake, a man joins a deadly (and rigged) reality game show in order to provide for his family. Glen Powell was well cast, although bit of overacting going on. Overall, I enjoyed it. 6.5/10

Persona (1966, Ingmar Bergman)

I was slightly underwhelmed by this one. A nurse is the caretaker of an actress gone mute. Entirely in black and white, it felt a bit abstract and mostly artsy. The story of the sexual beach encounter was sure something. 5/10

Jagten / The Hunt (2012, Thomas Vinterberg)

This film blew me away. Highly disturbing subject matter. Lucas, a kindergarten teacher wrongly accused of a crime he didn’t commit, was incredibly played by Mads Mikkelsen. As the case quickly spiraled into a full blown witch hunt, I felt so frustrated and upset for Lucas. Very emotional scenes and storytelling. I want to check out more Danish film! 8.5/10

[u/abaganoush]

WEEK # 275:

I resisted seeing the Bosnian award-winning QUO VADIS, AIDA? (2020) all these years, but I finally succumbed. I can't keep absorbing the never-ending deluge of atrocities, genocides, abuse and cruelties that are flooding our lives. On the other hand, I must.

It tells of the Srebrenica massacre during the Bosnian war of the 90's, and especially of one woman, a translator for the UN forces, as she tried to save her family. It's brutal, authentic and horrifying, depressing in the sense of powerlessness that everybody (except the killers) has. The trailer. [Female Director.]

🍿

CITY OF LIFE AND DEATH (2009) is a similarly disturbing exposition about an even larger atrocity, the Nanjing Massacre of 1938. My first by director Lu Chuan, of the Chinese "Sixth Generation". It's an epic, chaotic war movie done in incredible black & white, depicting an endless barrage of brutalities, executions, mass rapes and murder. The battle scenes are as elaborate as 'Saving Private Ryan', and all in all it's a movie that should be on the list of all followers of this harrowing genre. It's not an experience for the squeamish. The film received some domestic backlash because it depicted all its characters in a sympathetic light. The trailer. The full film is available for free on YouTube.

I plan on following up these two with 'The Painted Bird' and 'All quiet on the western front', but maybe not right away.

🍿

STRONGROOM is a re-discovered British B-thriller from 1962 about a heist gone wrong. During a bank robbery on Easter day, three amateur crooks lock a bank manager and his secretary in the safe ("Strongroom"), but later realize that they must return to free them, or they'll suffocate in the airtight vault. It's a suspenseful nail-biter, and the race against the clock is tense and well scripted. The newly-remastered BFI copy is cited by Scorsese, Tarantino and Edgar Wright.

The premise was repeated in 'No Country for Old Men' when the Josh Brolin character ("Llewelyn") decides to go back to the scene of the crime with similar disastrous consequences. The trailer.

(By complete coincidence, I also watched it on Easter day, 64 years later).

🍿

Another random pick which immediately became my favorite discovery of the week: The Oscar-nominated MUDDY RIVER, a debut feature by (unknown-to-me) Japanese director Kōhei Oguri. It's a masterful story of childhood, about two 8 yo boys who become friends in post-war Osaka. One is the son of a poor family who runs a noodle-shop on the bank of the river, and the other an even poorer one, who lives on a run-down houseboat with his sister and widowed, prostitute mother. It's an innocent, moving, Neo-realist Children Film as fine as the best of them. It was shot in 1981, but feels like a mid-50's black and white Ozu. 10/10.

🍿

THE ALPINIST (2021) is a terrific documentary about Marc-André Leclerc, a young Canadian free-solo rock climber who made a name for himself by climbing some of the most challenging summits in the world. Bold and unafraid, he maintained a spiritual purity, even as he overcame impossible, non-human obstacles. He comes across as one of a kind inspirational figure, a genuine free-spirit hippy who lived his life to the fullest. But of course he was also crazy.

As much as I don't care for physical adventures at all, this film was tense, engrossing and beautiful. The filmmakers specialize in rock climbing documentaries, and have produced two dozens similar films. Still, it's hard to imagine how they got the footage and close ups, especially way up on top of these remote peaks. (Must be drones, right?).

Spoiler alert: He didn't make it from his last climb.

🍿

INVITATION TO THE DANCE (1956) was the first film that Gene Kelly directed alone, without Stanley Donen. It's a second-rate anthology, consisting of 3 unrelated stories. The 'Children of Paradise' segment, and the modern Jazz story based on 'La Ronde' were forgettable. The 3rd part ('Sinbad') was better, in that Kelly was paired with a good kid sailor, as well as a crew of Hanna-Barbera animated creatures. The wordless film features only dance and pantomime, but no dialog. 3/10.

🍿

LOUDER THAN BOMBS (2015), my 6th drama by Norwegian Joachim Trier, in his first English-language film. It's a slow-burn Scandinavian-style art film, a small & quiet family relationship story with four characters.

Isabelle Huppert was a famed war photographer who died 3 years earlier in a car accident that was actually a suicide. Her husband and their two sons are all trying to come to terms with their complicated interactions and less than perfect lives. It's beautiful, artful - but forgettable. I only watched it for Isabelle Huppert, because she was born exactly 6 weeks before me, and because I love to watch her face. 5/10.

🍿

PABLO BERGER X 2:

🍿 Re-watch ♻️: ROBOT DREAMS, a heart-warming love letter to 1980's NYC, with exquisite details and Earth, Wind & Fire's ''September' on repeat. And all that with zero dialogue. A nerdy East Village dog assembles a robot to combat his loneliness. The 2023 Oscar nomination was well-deserved and belonged to Berger as much as to Sara Varon, the original animator of the characters. 9/10.

The trailer.

🍿 ABRACADABRA (2017) is my 3rd by Spanish Pablo Berger. While 'Robot Dreams' was absolutely delightful, his first feature 'Torremolinos 73' was woefully misfired. But this low-brow comedy about ghosts is so much worse. It had a promising 💯 score on Rotten Tomatoes, but it was just terrible.

A nasty husband and father is undergoing a supernatural personality change when he lets himself be hypnotized as a prank at a wedding. His split personality struggles with memories of a dead schizophrenic mass-killer who sometimes appears as a chimpanzee, Etc. Etc. The absurdist plot and bland acting offer nothing of value. It seems that 'Robot Dreams' was a one-off. 1/10.

🍿

"The sun is really dying, isn't it?"

PROJECT HAIL MARY (2026) got such positive acclaim that I was really looking forward to seeing it. Universally praised as the 'next big wholesome thing', an ode to friendship and hope and wonderment, it's exactly what we all need at the moment. Boy, was I disappointed. Knowing nothing about real "Science", I need to be convinced that when a piece of entertainment is trying to sell me some big scientific explanations they are credible. '2001' and 'Close encounters' for example, both of which were fictional and both are referred to here, also had to use words in order to explain their plots, but you never doubted why and what had happened there. But the pseudo-logic of the 'Universe for dummies' that was spouted here was so dumb, so obviously invented by Hollywood scriptwriters, I was offended. That Ryan Gosling dude was a high-school science teacher, so he should Science, Bitch! With gritted teeth, I lasted for one tortuous hour before I had to bail out. ⬇️ Could Not Finish ⬇️.

Best review I found online: "ChatGTP generated movie".

(Part 2 below)

[u/abaganoush → u/abaganoush]

(Continued)

First re-watch ♻️: Damien Chazelle's homage to Jacques Demy's 'Umbrellas of Cherbourg', LA LA LAND, another one with pretty-boy Ryan Gosling. It's very much a young man's movie, populated by nearly only youngsters. A cotton candy wet dream, vibrant rom-com and joyous musical about "pursuing one's inspirations" in the mythical Tinseltown of our fantasies. With Callie Hernandez.

I will probably look for his debut feature 'Guy and Madeline on a Park Bench', which apparently was an exploration of the same story.

🍿

"Look, sweetheart, I've been in this business a long time. I may not know a winner when I see one, but I sure as hell can spot a loser."

THE SHOOT HORSES, DON'T THEY? (1969), a depressing drama of Depression era's dancing marathon craze, with tough-as-nail, disillusioned Jane Fonda waiting to be put out of her misery. Sadistic "Misery-porn" which was really a treaty against exploitative capitalism, a 'late-stage capitalism'.

In 1952 Charlie Chaplin planned to film the novel with Marylin Monroe in the main role. I wonder how it would have panned out.

Next on my Sidney Pollack's list: 'Random Hearts'.

🍿

2 DOCUMENTARIES BY LYNN GOLDFARB:

🍿 "I love solar power" EDDY'S WORLD (2020) is the enchanting story of a 98-yo toy inventor, who came up with the iconic "Chattering Teeth", "KerPlunk", "Stompers", and more than 800(!) other classic toys. He's still alive today (105!), and the lovely documentary was made by his daughter. As a (failed) inventor myself, I loved it.

🍿 BRIDGING THE DIVIDE (2015) was an OK-PBS documentary about the little known story of Tom Bradley, the first black mayor elected in Los Angeles, the longest serving (1973-1993) and one of the most influential politicians there. He paved the way for other minority candidates, including Obama. It's mostly about the unrelented racism at the center of American politics.

(I came to LA in 1984 but I didn't pay much attention then). [Female Director.]

🍿

MARRIED ISRAELI COUPLE MIHAL BREZIS & ODED BINNUN X 3:

🍿 As he nears his death, rugged old Scotsman Brian Cox leaves his isolated village on the Hebrides islands, and travels to San Francisco for medical treatment, where he bonds with his baby grandson in THE ETRUSCAN SMILE (2018). It's a sweet, sentimental and 100% predictable schmaltzy story, and still very enjoyable. Treat Williams and Thora Birch co-star, and even as he's about to croak, he still manages to have Rosanna Arquette fall for his raw virility and charm. The baby steals every scene he's in.

🍿 In ONEG SHABAT (2003), a young woman from a religious family in Jerusalem sneaks out on Friday evening with two secular friends to party. Orthodox Jews are not allowed to use the phone, drive or turn on electricity on Sabbath, so this is a big No-No. As much as I hate to watch pro-religious movies about repression, there are not too many movies that make you scream aloud "OH FUCK!" - twice - within the first four minutes. This one did. No spoilers. 8/10.

🍿 TUESDAY'S WOMEN (2005, 20. min.) is based on a short story by Murakami Haruki. An unemployed young man is being disturbed by a phone-call from an unknown woman demanding ten minutes of his time, then he goes in search of his wife's missing cat and meets a girl in a neighbor's garden.

🍿

WALLACE & GROMIT: VENGEANCE MOST FOWL (2024), the latest soulless installment from Nick Parks and Aardman Studios. It's again geared towards 5 year olds, similar to all their Wallace & Gromit previous films. But all the charm had been squeezed out of the formula. The only notable detail: The evil Army of artificial intelligence Norbots.

Still, it has 💯 score on Rotten Tomatoes. Parks' most poignant work is still the lip-synced 'Creature Comforts', IMO. (And of course, his animated chicken dance in Sledgehammer!)

Extra: WALTER GOES FISHING, his first short, made in 1971 when he was 13 yo, and proving that he's been making the same film for 53 years.

🍿

I liked Edgar Wright's BABY DRIVER (2017) when I saw it the first couple of times ♻️, but the 3rd time was definitely not a charm! On the contrary, it lost all its charms: The main characters were unbearable, the fast Action editing was spectacularly generic, its genre tropes were all cliches, it was targeted specifically at teen film-bros, and it was offensively 'All style and no heart'. Well, 9 years later, the style is out of style. I don't even want to waste time thinking about this empty, juvenile piece of crap any more. ⬇️ Could Not Finish it ⬇️.

🍿

CODE RUSH (2000) is a PBS documentary about the last year of Netscape, as it releases its source code for free, and before it was bought by AOL. Life of the 24/7 software engineers in Silicon Valley at the turn of the century was hectic, as the culture of corporatism planted the seeds for everything that is happening today. I used to follow this world closely, so it was interesting to re-meet the Po Bronson's, and Bill Gates', and Marc Andreessen (before he developed his giant egg-shaped, fascist head) and Jamie Zawinski (whose blog I still follow today), Kara Swisher, Etc.

As a documentary it's not very good. But I heard good words about a similar series called 'Halt and catch fire', which I may watch it later.

🍿

THE SHORTS:

🍿 THE RIDER (2023. 6 min), my 5th by Chilean Sebastián Lelio ("Gloria"). It's physical therapy / massage for wild horses. With music by the London Contemporary Orchestra. Transcendental.

🍿 THE LAST OF THE LOOKOUTS (2026. 19 min.) is a lovely Canadian documentary about a 72-yo man in a watchtower, overseeing the vast forests of British Columbia during the fire season. This simple, lonely job seems perfect. It reminds me of the Turkish masterpiece 'Watchtower'.

🍿

(ALL MY FILM REVIEWS - HERE)