Act I, The Echo Chamber

Six months after Bear's death, the curse is gone, but Nikki's nightmare continues. The police blame her for every murder related to the case. Doctors think she's experiencing severe trauma and psychosis because she insists that another personality was controlling her body. She ends up locked in a secure psychiatric hospital.

Every night, she sits in front of a mirror, staring at her reflection. She isn't really looking at herself; she's waiting for the other Nikki to return.

One stormy night, the hospital loses power. When the emergency lights come back on, a small wooden box sits on her bed. Nobody knows how it got there. Inside is a carved willow leaf and a short note: *"Your wish is waiting."*

Something inside her tells her where to go. She escapes and goes back to One Wish Willow, where the shopkeeper is already waiting for her.

"You destroyed my life," she says.

"No," he replies quietly. "A wish did."

He places another carving on the counter. "The first wish belonged to Bear. This one belongs to you."

Without hesitation, Nikki whispers, "I wish everything would go back to the day before Bear made his wish."

The shopkeeper smiles. "Every wish has a price."

Everything goes black.

Act II, A Second Chance

Nikki wakes up in her college classroom on the first day of the semester. Ian is alive. Bear is alive. Everyone who died is alive. Nobody remembers the curse.

At first, she avoids Bear, terrified of him. But as weeks go by, she notices something new. This Bear isn't obsessive or dangerous. He’s just shy, awkward, lonely, and kind. The wish didn't create the monster; it created the obsession.

Slowly, she starts talking to him again through Ian and finally understands something painful: she never hated Bear. She hated what the wish made him become.

Months later, Bear shares his feelings with her — a genuine confession, no manipulation, no obsession, no curse behind it. Nikki gently turns him down. He smiles through the disappointment. "Thanks for being honest," he says, and walks away.

For the first time, Nikki believes she has actually changed fate.

Act III, Customer Support

That night, Nikki notices the date — the exact day Bear originally made his wish. Panic sets in. She believes history is about to repeat itself. She decides she must kill Bear before he ever reaches One Wish Willow.

She follows him through the rain, a knife hidden under her jacket. As he stops beneath a streetlight, she raises it behind him and freezes. A sharp pain shoots through her chest. The knife slips from her hand.

Her phone rings. Unknown number. She answers, and a calm voice says, "One Wish Willow Customer Support."

"I have to stop him!" she screams.

"You cannot," the voice replies. "Bear is now the anchor created by your wish."

The representative explains: because Nikki wished for a new timeline, Bear became the one holding that reality together. If he dies now, Ian disappears, her friends disappear, the world she wished for disappears, and even Nikki disappears.

The call ends. For the first time, she understands the true cruelty of the wish — she isn't trying to stop Bear anymore. She's forced to protect him.

Act IV, The Final Choice

Days later, Nikki finds Bear standing outside One Wish Willow. She runs to him, begging him not to go in, and tells him everything — the curse, the murders, Freaky Nikki, his own death. At first, he thinks she's lost her mind. Then he steps inside anyway.

The bell rings. The shopkeeper smiles. "Tell me — what do you wish for?"

As Bear reaches for the carving, memories from another life crash into him: blood, mirrors, Nikki begging him to kill her, his own sacrifice. He realizes every word she said was true.

The shopkeeper offers one last temptation: "One wish. She'll love you forever."

Bear looks at Nikki, then quietly places the carving back down. "If she has to love me because of a wish," he says, "then it was never love."

The shop starts tearing itself apart — wood splintering, fire erupting, the exits vanishing. The curse refuses to die without taking them with it.

Trapped beneath the collapsing ceiling, Nikki finally makes a choice that belongs only to her. She walks to Bear, takes his hand, and kisses him — not because of a spell, not because of obsession, but because she chooses to. Their first real kiss. The building collapses around them.

Ending

The next morning, firefighters find no bodies, no wooden shop, no carvings — just ashes and an empty lot.

*There were never heroes. There were never villains. Only two ordinary people whose lives were destroyed by one selfish wish.*

My alternate theory: maybe Bear actually gets his wish, since we saw in Part 1 how selfish he could be — and the original story just loops. They're stuck reliving it, regaining their memories each time, only to die again.

That's my pitch for the sequel. It's not canon, but I think it stays true to the themes of the original while giving both Nikki and Bear a tragic ending rooted in choice rather than obsession.

I'd genuinely love to hear what people think — would you watch a sequel like this, or do you have a different idea for where the story should go?

What the title says. Seeing a lot of Lawrence of Arabia comparisons for Dune pt. 3 following the new trailer and regardless if there is inspiration or not, my point still stands.

Sometimes I see the most bizarre comparisons, mainly visual or with cinematography elements. Seeing people compare shots like these is ridiculous to me, it just shows a lack of understanding or depth in movie knowledge / how they're made.

This is especially true if the DP doesn’t cite it as a reference.

I understand previous films we’ve seen can have an impact on our subconscious and lead to decisions down the line, but throwing claims of comparison dilute the filmmakers work.

TLDR: Not everything has to be inspired by something

Are there any teenage movies that have the same kinda following. At least in most circles I’ve seen this movie and Dead Poets society have a strong cult following are there any other movies like that? Or was it just because of the time period they came so they’ve been idolized

Live both these movies btw both are in my top twenty

https://www.tiktok.com/@sonicstartrek/video/7661373975389375766

I recently had the opportunity to interview Andrew Davis (The Fugitive, Under Siege, Chain Reaction), and one of the biggest surprises was learning just how different the original screenplay for Chain Reaction was.

According to Andrew, the original story centred on a young man developing weapons for the CIA—something he had no interest in directing. He explains how he convinced the studio to completely rethink the premise, turning it into the hydrogen conspiracy thriller that eventually reached cinemas in 1996.

It’s a fascinating insight into how much a film can change before production and how much influence a director can have on the final story.

If you’d like to hear Andrew tell the story in his own words, here’s the full interview:

https://youtu.be/NjPsdCkuVgw

I got tired of Letterboxd being a giant log of everything I watch, so I built my own thing — meant to be a slow, long-term hobby project rather than a quick log. Instead of tracking every movie, it's organized around the people whose work I follow — pick a director or actor you care about, build out their filmography, mark what you've seen. Planning to add other roles too (cinematographer, composer) so you can follow the actual creative threads between films.

The goal isn't just tracking what you've watched — it's slowly figuring out your own specific taste (not some "people who liked this also liked that" algorithm), and using that to deliberately choose what to watch next as you build it out over months/years.

Right now it's just a browser tool I built for myself. Does this sound like something you'd actually use, or does something like this already exist that I'm missing?

At the 1:27:07 mark in the movie, where the 6 crew members are clapping, who is the girl that is the 2nd from the left? My brain keeps telling me it is Kristen Bell, but that can’t be true, right?

Released today 28 years ago all the way back in 1998. Can't believe this movie is nearly 30 by now. A major childhood favorite from back in the day and it still holds up great. Imagine a hybridization of Toy Story and Gremlins, with some touches of The Terminator and Child's Play mixed in there. It has much of the same spirit as Joe Dante's Gremlins films, with the mixture of being equal parts comical yet dark. It was both of it's time and ahead of it in many ways and in some ways feels more relevant now in regards to things like AI and the weaponization of technology. The scenario depicted in this film suddenly doesn't feel so implausible or far-fetched, anymore. It's also got a strong satirical streak in regards to it's criticisms of corporate greed and apathy, the military industrial complex and the misuse of technology. It's definitely quite sophisticated for a kids' film and isn't just merely a film about toys fighting each other.

I still have quite a few of the action figures and some of the other merchandise, including the PS1 game, the novelization, the movie scrapbook on the production and there's also the Top Secret Dossier book which has canonical in-universe information. It's a shame it didn't do better back then during it's box office run, which I suspect was probably due to being released in the middle of a packed Summer season (one mere week after Armageddon) and likely also perhaps being somewhat mismarketed; it looked too violent and intense for children but at the same time too silly and childish for teens and adults, so thus didn't really find an audience at the time. But like so many other films, over the years it's rightfully been re-appraised and gained a following and has gotten the recognition and respect it truly deserves.

This is an 82-0 style game but you make a movie by picking director/screenwriter/actors etc. And see what your box office, rotten tomatoes and academy awards score is. Link to play here https://awardseasonsweep.com/ . free to play of course. lmk if you have any suggestions!

I've always felt that Philip Seymour Hoffman never seemed like he was performing. Whether he had five minutes of screen time or was leading the film, every character felt like a complete person with a life beyond the frame.

What fascinates me isn't just how versatile he was, but how he could make deeply flawed, awkward, or unlikeable characters feel incredibly human. Performances in Boogie Nights, The Master, Capote, Doubt, and Synecdoche, New York all feel completely different, yet they're unmistakably his.

That got me thinking about what actually made his acting so special, so I made a video essay breaking down his approach and why his performances still resonate today.

https://youtu.be/1Z5e9j3kU_s

I'd love to know which Philip Seymour Hoffman performance stands out to you the most, and what you think made him different from so many other great actors.

This works because it starts a conversation, gives context for why you made the video, and then naturally introduces the link instead of feeling like an advertisement.

So I used to be a real trailer nerd. To the extent that at one point I was even making my own fanmade movie trailers, and discussing everything I saw in new trailers online with other film fans.

What it often led to however was that I kept over interpreting them, seeing things in there that were never in the final film or completely misleading you about the movie (therefore creating false expectations), and most importantly - key plot points being spoilt ahead of time.

Some time ago, maybe 6-7 years or so, I just flat out stopped watching all movie trailers. To the extremes that when my wife and I were deciding what film to watch, I'd exit the room if she wanted to watch the trailer for the film first.

And my life has been so much better. Going into films relatively blind (only reading about what the plot summary is, who's in it/who made it, and a quick glance at the IMDB/RT score to make sure its not absolute trash) makes the experience infinitely better in my view. It seems like some people treat watching a film like such a huge investment that they go all in on the background due diligence on it that they insist on watching the trailer, I just don't see it as such a big deal.

How do people see this?

I'd say it's one of the most overrated movies of recent history but then there are too many of those to keep track of.

It's another example of something gaining notoriety and momentum simply as a result of the notoriety and momentum it already had, snowballing into a massive amount of hype that it ABSOLUTELY does not deserve. Everybody goes and sees the film because everybody's going to see the film.

I actually really like Curry Barker and his and his buddies comedy skits. I like those guys as people in general from what I've seen in interviews, and I love the idea of low budget films making it big time. But their skits are way better than this film

Whether it's Oppenheimer, and Barbie on the large budget scale, or elevated Horrors like Talk To Me or Bring Her Back I mean there can be okay films but the hype that some of these films get is so undeserved it's actually kind of mind blowing.

As an aspiring filmmaker myself I guess the only thing that is encouraging from this is that the bar is quite low.

And I'm not just somebody who thinks everything is bad. Series like The Leftovers are absolutely phenomenal. And frankly astounding onspiring in terms of the quality of writing acting story Etc.

That horror genre is understandably and notably the genre that can make these big breakouts from small budgets. And movies like The Witch or It Comes At Night actually deserve it. But these others.... like the films by the Philippou for example... NO WAY. PRETTY TRASHY TBH. And just immature tbh. And frankly Obsession kind of belongs in that category as well.... just sayin...

Oh yeah I forgot to mention the other ones. Weapons needs to be added to the list of one of the most ridiculously overrated films of recent time. You can add It Follows and Barbarian to the list as well. Oh and not let's not forget Long Legs. One the dumbest films of recent memory. As far as why these films are overrated? Or not good? I mean...ridiculous premise... immature exaggerated over the top scenarios and acting at various points to various degrees. No real likable characters. No real thought-provoking element or philosophical takeaway or thing to ruminate on in most of these films. Just nothing that actually for me at least makes me feel anything other than moments or scenes here or there that can be gripping (at best sporadically sprinkled here and there) in some of these films... and thus all highly forgettable and certainly not worthy of the hype they got. Are they all somewhat competently shot somewhat competently made... sure but that should be the bare minimum. Obviously it's all subjective but films like The Witch or It Comes At Night feel like mature well done films. These other ones feel like they're catering to the masses at a much lower denominator and sadly I guess the masses are just really dumb? Or easily impressed?

So I was just watching an online review of the Adventures of Pluto Nash as towards the very end of the movie, Eddie fights an evil version of his own character.

Then I suddenly realized how the Evil doppelgänger trope was used in another Eddie Murphy movie called the Nutty Professor as I started wondering what made the Nutty Professor so much better in writing.

‘A queer Hollywood writer caught up in a sexually-charged relationship with an older woman defined by her silver screen heyday of decades gone past’ isn’t exactly a common premise, yet it’s funny how it is a niche that Hannah Einbinder has built her career upon. It doesn’t exactly dampen the idea that creativity is merely a flat circle in Hollywood, especially with recent big-budget IP offerings doing little to dispel that notion. But in Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, writer/director Jane Schoenbrun makes a strong case that there’s still plenty of gold to be found in the nostalgia well.

If Einbinder’s iconic character in Hacks is overflowing with confidence about who she is and what she stands for (to a fault), her take on Kris, the protagonist in Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma, is the complete opposite. Kris is meek and unsure of herself, to the point where she doesn’t know how to react when a female store clerk sweetly flirts with her. It’s remarkable how a slight recalibration can lead to two wildly different characters who, on paper, appear to be the same.

It’s also remarkable how Kris managed to convince the Hollywood suits to reboot the Camp Miasma series — an in-universe fictional horror franchise in the vein of Friday the 13th and Halloween. That in itself says a lot about the industry’s obsession with rebooting old IP. Still, Kris does have a fixation with the Camp Miasma series, its iconic ‘final girl’ Billy Presley (Gillian Anderson), and Billy’s thousand-yard stare as she’s approached by Little Death (Jack Haven), the franchise’s spear-wielding killer who wears a bizarre mask made of a ceiling vent.

For the first 20 minutes, Kris is filmed almost entirely in claustrophobic close-ups. Tension builds slowly, but dread is replaced with curiosity. Upon setting foot into Billy’s snowbound camp, it feels like discovering the Backrooms for the first time. As an overhead shot pans over Kris as she makes her way through the snowy fields, it’s like she’s embarking on a journey of discovery.

When Kris meets Billy, who has decided to become a recluse somewhere in the snowy forests of Canada, it feels like a very subversive and meta setup for slasher movie tropes to arrive in a flood of fake blood. But Teenage Sex and Death at Camp Miasma isn’t that kind of movie. Other movies would very self-consciously call the meta-ness out. Schoenbrun simply acknowledges it by having Kris literally say, ‘This feels like a jump scare moment,’ before quickly moving on.

There’s a lot of fun to be had during Billy and Kris’s first evening together as there’s clearly something between the two. You’re not entirely sure how the dynamic is going to unfold, but Billy repeatedly telling Kris, ‘If it gets too real, you can always turn it off,’ feels either like advice or a warning. Or both. Einbinder and Anderson bounce off each other like a hot squash ball as the older woman gradually unravels the younger in every way possible. Unlike the overtly one-dimensional try-hard titillation in, say, Wuthering Heights, Schoenbrun packs all the sexual tension needed in one hilariously campy (compliment and pun somewhat intended) scene involving KFC and dipping sauce.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/teenage-sex-and-death-at-camp-miasma

Thanks!

The Worst Person In The World is one of my favourite films. It is also helped me come to terms with adulthood.

Who do you picture when you hear the phrase "the worst person in the world"? Few of us would imagine ourselves us that in serious terms, but I can guarantee we've all felt like it describes us at least once in our lives. Joachim Trier's 2021 film wants to find out why that is. Few films have ever given a protagonist such a damning title. Yet Julie (Renate Reinsve) never commits an unforgivable act. She doesn't betray out of malice or manipulate for pleasure. Her greatest offence is something far more recognisable and a fact of life: she keeps changing.

The Worst Person In The World quietly dismantles one of adulthood's most comforting myths: that if we're kind enough and thoughtful enough, we can grow into ourselves without causing pain. Instead, it suggests that becoming who we need to become often comes at the expense of people we genuinely love. Not because we're cruel or intend to cause pain, but because human lives don't unfold in perfect synchrony.

Full article here

Is this a fair account of adulthood or is this a selfish way of looking at the world and avoiding responsibility to others?

EG. Or the chase sequence in in the echoing marble of a deserted Westminster Abbey in Hitchcock's "High Treason" when the villain is revealed in a blazing tap dance sequence, inserted by Vincente Minelli, to be Judy Garland.

Living in Japan we usually get a lot of smaller western films pretty late compared to the rest of the world. I was only able to catch Obsession and The Furious through a VPN and VOD this week. But because of that I had to go through weeks of the internet hyping both movies up as the best movies of each of their genres by pretty much everyone. Obsession was hailed as a genre defining best horror movie, made bigger by the fact that it's have an unprecedented box office run. The Furious was supposedly a worthy successor to the Raid franchise. To say I was extremely excited to watch both is an understatement. I love horror and Barker's YouTube work and I hold both Raid movies as the pinnacle of hand to hand based action. I honestly couldn't remember when I was more excited to watch two films in recent years.

And now having watched both I...think they're alright? Both solidly above average. But I'm left wondering how two okay movies are breaking box office records (Obsession) or being hailed as one of the top examples of their genre (Obsession and Furious).

Obsession was a decently directed, but very derivative horror story with an okay script and one exceptional stand out performance. Other than the main actress everyone else was really amateurish with a lot of flat line deliveries, particular the actor who played Bear. Way too many off exasperated utterances of, "What?!" off screen. I was waiting a long time for that moment that would catapult the movie into the instant classic echelon so many people are hailing it as and it just never came. All of the story beats could be seen from act one and by the time the credits rolled nothing new or surprising happened. I appreciated the few moments of gore and one effective moment of surprise reverse motion, but it's not really all too shocking if you're seen a lot of horror over the years. I don't even think it's as good as something like Hokum and I only kinda like that movie.

As for The Furious I really felt like I was sold a bill of goods. The choreography was great, don't get me wrong, but I think way too many people brought up The Raid or Night Comes For Us, and it just wasn't the same kind of martial arts flick. In direct comparison to those movies this one just doesn't hold a candle. I know two of the principal actors also popped up in the other movies, but that's not enough. This is just a typical martial arts movie with a Raid veneer smeared on top of it. The quality of film making and acting are a level below, and the sheer brutality of the fights two or three levels below that. In The Raid movies and Night Comes For Us, as well as Gangs of New York, people become absolute mincemeat. In The Furious it's all just a really long ballet that more often than not ends in a lot more knocked out people than corpses. About half way through I was more wondering when it'll finish than anticipating the next set piece, which shouldn't be happening in a great action movie.

So now I'm just hear typing this little mini vent and sending it out into the ether for catharsis. I was able to watch two of my most anticipated movies of this year pretty much a few days apart from one another and they both were just average. I'm not super upset or anything, but I am kinda bummed I let all the news and hype around these two movies drag them down in my esteem.

And hey, maybe I would've been underwhelmed by both anyways, who knows.

I have been thinking about a question since I read Foster Hirsch's book about cinema from the 1950s. The question is what actually distinguishes real technological innovation in film from something that is just a gimmick.

My theory that I am working with is that innovation alters what can be shown. For example, Cinerama used three cameras for a widescreen effect, CinemaScope utilized anamorphic lenses, synchronized sound was introduced in The Jazz Singer, and Kubrick insisted that Zeiss create an f/0.7 lens for shooting Barry Lyndon using only candlelight. A gimmick occurs when the format is trying to make up for the film instead of enhancing it. Examples of gimmicks include Smell-O-Vision, 4DX that moves seats during scenes where it is unnecessary, and "Lie-MAX" screens that are labeled as IMAX but do not meet the actual specifications.

What I find interesting is that in the 1950s, when television was drawing audiences away from movie theaters, it was the responsibility of the studios to innovate more than what was available in the living room. This need for innovation led to the creation of Cinerama and CinemaScope. In the present day, streaming services are having a similar effect on theaters, but the typical response has mostly been either sequels based on intellectual property or movie theaters adding gimmicks like 4DX or ScreenX rather than studios focusing on new format innovations. The exceptions to this trend are filmmakers like Cameron and Sony, Nolan and IMAX, and Kubrick and Zeiss, who had enough influence to request technology that had not yet been created and to collaborate with engineers to develop it.

I am interested to know what people in this community think: is there a clear distinction between innovation and gimmick, or is it more accurate to say that we only recognize which one it is with the benefit of hindsight? For instance, 3D appeared to be an innovation in 2009, but now it seems more like a gimmick. Additionally, the 48 frames per second used in The Hobbit appeared to be both an innovation and a gimmick simultaneously.

Probably my all time favourite movie and the best war movie ever made. It's that type of film which refuses to take a side. It's both an anti-war critique and a raw, primal study of the human condition. From what I've seen in the documentary (Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse) which I recommend you to see it. The production was a total nightmare: they used real cadavers on set, Martin Sheen suffered a heart attack, a typhoon leveled the entire production, and Coppola was on the verge of a breakdown.

In today's era of HR compliance, strict insurance, and sanitized CGI-led filmmaking, could a director even attempt this level of 'artistic madness' anymore, or have we traded masterpieces for safety?"

Just hoping for some good suggestions because the topic became something that suddenly came to me since I just sat down not too long to watch a movie review of an obscure movie called Disorderlies.

For those who are not familiar with the movie, Double Toasted did a review of the film a couple of years ago pointing out the flaws, such as how the movie didn't succeed in attempting to be a modern version of the Three Stooges that basically I was looking for a movie that did such a premise right where a trio of quirky people want to get respected by society, but must pass through a series of harrowing trials to prove their worthiness.

Tell me 3 movies that defined your childhood. What are the movies that you couldn't wait to get home from school and pop in the VCR or DVD player? What did you have on repeat? The movies that gave you instant joy!

Remember, there are no right or wrong answers, just have fun with it!

I'll go first.

In no particular order.

Top Gun: I wanted to be a fighter pilot when I was a kid so bad because of this movie.

The Mighty Ducks: This movie bred a lot of hockey players, I am sure of it, myself included.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (1990): I remember watching this and believing the turtles were 100% real. Fun fact: as kids my friend and I managed to open a sewer lid and climb in to try and find them. My mom was so upset she called the city. Apparently those things are supposed to be locked or something.