Movies
Iron Lung, 2026 - ★★★
I don't think this movie can be reviewed properly without some background first, so let me start there.
If you know who Markiplier is, you can skip ahead. But if you don't, he is a well-known YouTube streamer who mostly records playthroughs of video games, usually horror. One of those was of the game Iron Lung. Apperently he liked it so much, he decided to make a movie about it, and with over 30 million followers on YouTube, he had the budget for it as well.
So what we have here is an independent YouTuber who decided he wants to make a movie based on an existing video game with a solid story. He paid for it, he directed it, and he is the main star in it. This is a feature-length film made by the professionals, not some cheap flick made by amateurs, and it should be reviewed as such.
But the movie suffers from the above facts. It seems Mark is counting on viewers of the film to know what the game is about and what's going on, because there isn't a whole lot explained. In a way, that adds to the personality of the film, but I'd appreciate a bit more hand-holding before jumping into the cold waters, or blood, in this case.
Things could have been better if it were easier to pick up the dialogue in the movie, but the settings of loud, ominous sounds in the deep ocean of blood, combined with the static of the bad comms, all fitting the settings, mean that it's even harder to understand what's going on. I started losing track almost as soon as the movie started. I'd recommend you go watch this movie with subtitles if you can, it would have sure helped me a lot.
But that's all the criticism I have, really. It is a solid sci-fi horror movie, and it feels real. Mark is not a Hollywood actor, but it doesn't stop him from delivering a strong and authentic performance. Yes, it's a bit rough or overdramatic at times, but so is the movie, and it works well together. You can tell he cares about making this work, and in my opinion, he did
Some argue that the movie is too long and drags on. I felt that some parts were repetitive, but looking back, I think it was because I didn't understand what was going on. For example, there are two different voices and thus two different stories, but they sound too similar to distinguish in the movie, so I thought it was just one person who, for some reason (my mind was happy to apply theories, such as alternate dimensions, conspiracy theories, etc.), was acting as a different person entirely
What we see on the screen is interesting and engaging. There are enough details to appreciate in the background. There are floating question marks that are placed in good taste (Did he just hallucinate this, or was that real? Is any of this real? Real to what degree?) that we're not meant to fully answer, and there's a rich, intriguing story going on.
About that: if you enjoy horror sci-fi, the game behind the movie has interesting lore to explore. I spent a good chunk of my night yesterday digging up more stuff. You could read up on it or watch some of the play-throughs of the game (Mark has a good one, in which he explores some of the lore updates to the game). The story of what happened is still stirring in my mind. I find that I want to learn more; I'd love to read up more about it if there were any books. The movie explores one angle, the one of the main character of the movie, which is a good example of Mark knowing what to expand on and where to add more to the existing story.
I hope big studios will take note of what a single passionate person can do, but as these things go, they'd probably only pick up empty conclusions, like the fact that movies based on video games are solid (wrong, the story is solid) or that inexperieced actors can be good behind the camera (wrong, mark has been doing his own form of acting for years, he does not lack experience.)
Get this movie to watch at home, with subtitles, when you can explore it and the story behind it further.
Or Something, 2024 - ★★★½
I was on a flight back home when I picked this movie up, not knowing what to expect besides that it had to do with New York. Happy I did.
It's a bit of a modern twist on When Harry Met Sally, but also, not really. It's a slice of life movie, a tale that can happen and probably does happen every day in NYC, with two city "muts" of mixed heritage and past.
As a New Yorker, especially one who lived uptown in the last couple of years, it felt very homey for me. The acting is organic and interesting, even though the plot is somewhat vague. It's basically just two people talking about a bunch of stuff. Or something.
But it's good. The questions they bring up, the stuff they talk about, it's questions I ask myself also on a regular basis. I've been in these shoes for a while now, and the movie serves as a sort of validation.
The ending of it threw me off a bit, I didn't see it coming - but then I just needed and said to myself, "yeah, makes sense."
Good Night, and Good Luck, 2025 - ★★★½
This should be an obvious one when it comes to the 'why again' and 'why now,' so I won't spend words on this.
The Broadway idea is... interesting. It seems there are some references to the original movie (which I haven't watched yet) that I missed, or perhaps some jokes for Broadway goers.
Having something on stage like this means there's something happening everywhere all the time, and the stage for the show - the CBS newsroom - is an excellent example to demonstrate this. A movie tends to be too focused; if not by design, then by the viewers, who are used to being led by the eyeballs to the action.
This is also perhaps another subtle point that came to mind while I watched: media outlets, such as this show, are an art in leading an audience to see what the directors want us to see, which in turn is what Clooney delivers from his soapbox, which he does very well.
I say a soapbox because the end of this show (which is not included in the original film), though powerful, is unnecessary. By spoon-feeding us the point, I believe Clooney takes away from the moral of the real story - that of Edward Murrow - and his own, in the show, which otherwise he delivers brilliantly.
LaRoy, Texas, 2023 - ★★★
I've seen this sort of plot happen in a couple of movies before, but it was executed nicely in LaRoy. This movie comes with a lesson, but I think it's a lesson I already learned a while back - but it's a good reminder.
The Expendables, 2010 - ★★
Fun, quick and simple. Sometimes you just need something to eat popcorn too you know?
Started (it’s a 2.5 hours long…!) watching: Frankenstein 📺. It’s a Del Toro movie, no mistaking it… the costumes, the buildings, the choice of the story, of course. Still have an hour and change ahead of me.
The Blues Brothers, 1980 - ★★★½
Oh man, what a trip.
I watched it a long time ago, and I forgot all about it - today I had more appreciation for it. The plot and some of the comedy won't work today, but it was clear from the start that this movie is not about the movie - it's about the music.
Famous songs, famous musicians (there was a part where I was like "wait a minute, is that actually Ray Charles? Shiiiit, this is Ray Charles!"), and just a whole lot of fun. They don't make such crazy car chases anymore.
I'm glad I didn't do reading before the movie and went into it pretty much completely blank (as I said, I didn't remember anything), it simply showed on my Netflix queue, and I was thinking, sure, why not.
Good stuff, it definitely heightened my weekend by a notch.
There Will Be Blood, 2007 - ★★★
It's not a bad movie, but I didn't finish it. It's unsettling to watch Daniel Plainview, played by Daniel Michael, destroying himself piece by piece. I might come back to it at another point when I'm in the right mood.
The Big Lebowski, 1998 - ★★★½
Every time I watch this movie, I pick up some other meanings I didn't before. Sometimes you just need to shrug it off and go bowling.
The Terminator, 1984 - ★★★½
The Terminator is a classic, but I don't think that should automatically earn it high ratings. After all, the idea for the movie is redundant (even back then), and the skinny plot is a rough skeleton meant to serve the action scenes. But there are a few gems in this movie.
I was surprised by the attention to detail they took. There is a quick scene where Sarah (Linda Hamilton) and Reese (Michael Biehn) escape the police station and hit the Terminator with the car. It's only a second, but you can see their bumper is all bent from hitting him since he is made of steel. Earlier, the Terminator gets his face burned lightly, and it took a while to understand that the "something is weird about his face" was the lack of eyebrows he lost in the fire after that scene, going forward (until he put on the sunglasses). Some details in the background and people seem so natural in LA because, well, as it turns out, James Cameron shot some of these scenes raw, without asking permission and without warning people who were captured on the camera without knowing.
Watching the film also made me realise that it really is about The Terminator, not about Sarah Connor. As for Reese, I forgot his name entirely until I watched this movie again today.
The Terminator is one of the best and few examples I can think of where the sequel is even better than the first. In order to see and understand it fully though, it's best to watch the first. I'm glad I got to watch it again today on a whim.
28 Days Later, 2002 - ★★
I wanted to watch this again before its sequel, 28 years later - and then I found out there's also 28 Weeks Later. Seems like I have work to do.
28 Days Later sets us up with our usual blend of zombie apocalypse with its own little twists; there's nothing too original that we haven't seen before, one way or another. What is a bit different is that this movie is not about the zombi.. err, infected, as much as it's about human nature and violence.
Toward the end, there's a bit lord of the Flies kind of thing going on, but with grown men instead of.. You know what? Scratch that, they're nothing more than children with guns. This is also the point where the protagonist goes through some near death experience that tranfsform him into a lean mean killing machine who can take on the soliders and the infected and save his girlfriend who up to that point was a doing fine kicking ass on her own, but you know, her hero is around so now she's poor and helpless and can't do anything. They even got her a dress and all. That's where the movie went from 3 - 3.5 for me to a mere two stars.
Not sure if I want to watch the next one, hopefully it's not the same formula again.
Tampopo, 1985 - ★★★
A fun movie. I haven't watched enough Japanese films to know if the style of parallel plots happening here is classic, or something unique to this film, but it works.
It's a comedy dipped with serious food passion (some sexual food-related scenes emphasize that), which centers around ramen noodles. The reason I picked this movie up in the first place is that its first scene is set in a ramen noodle restaurant, which is called - of course - Tampopo.
There's a bit too much women-cliche-gender role in this movie, but it is from the 80s and it is from a more traditional cinema, so that didn't surprise me; still, it was a bit annoying that they had to slap that "a woman chef! amazing!" thing at the end.
Warfare, 2025 - ★★★½
I decided to watch this on a whim today, and I'm glad I did. This is a difficult movie to watch, not just because of the subject matter but also because there's no real plot or story. I think that's part of the point.
This is an authentic story (as much as I can gather) of one of many instances - and just that, one moment (well, a 90-minute-long moment) of the war in Iraq, with all its horrors. It was created as a memory, like a journal note, of how things were back then for the people who were there; it's not the kind of movie you watch in a theater, eating popcorn.
What I appreciate about this movie is that it doesn't attempt to draw politics in. There's also no attempt at heroism or really any symbolism. It's a simple movie that makes a simple delivery.
The Shrouds, 2024 - ★★★
I watched this one last night, but it was hard to follow. Not what I expected it to be. I am holding full judgment until I see it again and watch the details more carefully.
Joker, 2019 - ★★★★½
This is the second time I watched this film, as a preparation to watch the sequel. I remember why it was hard to watch the first time and the second time wasn't easier.
This movie is too real to dismiss as just another "Batman" movie. While dramatized, the events in the film revolve around a realistic situation of a realistic mental illness of a potentially realistic person. I'm not surprised to see that most of the negative criticism came from prestigious places like the New Yorker or the NYT: these are exactly the guys that would miss the point.
Rambo: Last Blood, 2019 - ★★½
A missed opportunity. Starting as a movie about a deranged veteran and his crumbling mind, the movie quickly shakes off any emotional backdrop and drives full speed into the action.
I didn't expect much else from a Stalone movie (his company, his writing—and I'm treating him here as the director, too, even though he isn't), sure. But the elements are there: the medications, the adopted family he built around him, the tunnels he built in his backyard, where he gets lost in PTSD-induced flashbacks. The movie has a good start, showing us an unstable man trying to build a stable world.
The first Rambo, based on a book of the same name, is a tragic story about a Vietnam veteran returning to a home that doesn't want him back or knows what to do with him. In this movie, Rambo explains that he didn't change; he's the same person and just learned to "put a lid on it, every day." Excellent. There's so much stuff to pick on and go on from there. Instead, I can imagine Stalone yelling, "Cut! Enough with the emotional bullshit, let's blow some shit up!"
As for the action, it's over the top (fine, it's a Rambo movie) but also not entertaining enough. That's mostly because we've seen everything in the other movies. Stalone didn't just borrow a few signature moments from his older films, it feels like he copied all of them. The bow is there, and so are the spike traps (same kinds), the same explosives, the same old trick of different weapons at different spots, the same "final boss" fights... only in this movie, there are two, and it seems like Stalone doesn't know what to do with him, so he just dies a very gruesome death, and way too quickly.
They also seemed to have confused bad guy number 2 with bad guy number 1: the primary villain at the end of the movie is not the one who should really have the spot.
It doesn't help that the bad guys are Mexicans at the center of a sex trafficking cartel, apparently 5 minutes away from the border, which is as easy to pass as to drive a pickup truck through. It feels too much like a political narrative I heard too many times.
I'm not a director or a movie writer, but I still have advice for Stalone: Slow down.
This movie would have been so much better if Rambo was fighting his own demons, perhaps getting into trouble with the law and his own family because of his mental state. The tragedy of Rambo is that he's a warrior without an enemy, and that tragedy should have remained all the way to the end instead of forcing it unto target-practice baddies.
Perfect Days, 2023 - ★★★½
Perfect Days is a "slice of life" light drama movie. It's relaxing to watch for the most part, though I can imagine some would find it boring to watch.
Hirayama (Koji Yakusho) just follows the motions, a strict daily routine of cleaning public toilets in Tokyo, which starts every morning with the sun and ends in the afternoon. We follow him as he wakes up from his dreams (flashes in black and white), brushes his teeth, gets in his van, and chooses what music to listen to every morning from his cassette (if you remember those, you'd also appreciate the music he listens too) collection.
It's like unwrapping a package carefully without damaging the paper, taking your time with it, finding a plain description-less box inside, then putting it on the kitchen table and staring at it, trying to think what's inside. What's next? What's going to happen today? Is it going to be bad? Good?
But nothing really happens, at least not the way you'd expect in most films. Everyone else besides Hirayama has a lot going on in their life, and they collide with him. And when they do, they get a piece of his peace, a chance to relax and play around a bit. I love this about this movie. This movie is about appreciating life, not celebrating it, just sitting down and smelling the flowers - or the tree leaves playing with the sunlight, in the case of Hirayama.
The toilets in the movie are actually "an urban renewal project through which 17 public toilets in the Japanese capital are being turned into veritable works of art by architects from around the world" (see more here
and here). Cool.
Now, if you excuse me, I'm going to create a list of this movie's songs.
Pan's Labyrinth, 2006 - ★★★★½
This is the third or the fourth time I watched this movie. It's the first movie by Guillermo del Toro I've seen, and it's masterpiece.
A fairy tale fit for grownups, you won' find a happy ending here (well, kind of, depending on your angle) - it's full of magic and symbolism. There's not much to say about this movie that won't spoil the magic of watching it for the first time, so I won't attempt to do so. Go watch it.
Civil War, 2024 - ★★★★
Joel (Wagner Moura) is screaming his lungs out, arms at his side, a cigarette he didn't finish stuck in his right fist. Behind him, an American flag with two stars is blowing in the wind. A tank rolls in with a group of soldiers in the background, 2 feet away from him, blocking it from view. They ignore him. His primal screams of pain and suffering are silent. The soldiers don't feel it, and you don't hear it.
I mostly tuned out of anything political because I don't want to know and what I already know is too much. But if you think there's only so much you can take, watch this movie.
On its surface, this is a decent movie with a satisfactory plot: youth and innocence lost, war, and some good scenes. But to me this movie was personal. I tried to figure out why.
It's easier to start with the cinematography. Grainy, gritty, often overly contrasted with colorful graffiti or pink sunglasses. It's good. Very good. I itched for my camera several times, mumbling to the TV "damn, this is a good shot." This is important because the story is told through the eyes of two war photojournalists with a talent for the art.
The pictures they take are far from happy family photos. Lee (Kristen Dunst), a photojournalist veteran, has seen enough horrors for them to flash in her mind whenever she closes her eyes while Jessie (Cailee Spaeny), a novice who is just started her photojournalism journey, faces new horrors that suck the innocence out of her until there's nothing left. It takes talent to describe a story through the eyes of two talented photographers, and this movie has it to the point that I want to track down Rob Hardy (the cinematography director) for more of his work.
It's these photos they take that make the war real. A war is never about the war itself, it's about the people who experience it. A series of human moments in a hellscape that defy the reasoning of everyday life. A war is a war only when it's personal: until then it's just politics and heated debates on social media.
There's a plot to this movie, a reason this great American war broke out, but we only get glimpses of it. There's an authoritarian president who took his executive power too far (ordering the usage of military force on US citizens among other things), and two states, California and Texas, called the "Western Forces" are fighting back and surrounding Washington DC. There are other factions and states involved, a hint of a more complex structure in the background, but not much more.
The rest is built from carefully selected moments. There's a scene in the movie where Joel is asking a sniper and his spotter who's shooting at them and who's giving them orders. The spotter replies: "No one's giving us orders, man. Someone's trying to kill us, we're trying to kill them." That's it. It's enough. These moments worked beautifully throughout the movie, each scene freezes and is taken apart by the pictures Lee and Jessie snap away.
I'm not a huge patriot, but it gets to me when Americans dislike the flag because it represents injustice to them. True, the flag has been used by extremists as a symbol. But this is because these extremists hijacked the flag and what it represents. Meanwhile, this kind of hate toward what the flag represents is the same stuff that one day could cause events like in this movie.
Maybe it's because I was not born into what most around me have as a right. It was given to me. I never understood why the president of the United States still has to be born here. It doesn't make sense. If you ask me, it's a nation built by immigrants who seem to understand the American Dream well, probably much better than the extremist militias who use it as an excuse for their propaganda.
I don't think Alex Garland thought about all of this when he wrote the film, but I thank him for making me think about all this stuff.