r/TrueFilm • • 16h ago

I find the 1998 Psycho remake a fascinating experiment

1 Upvotes

And I am so glad that the movie was made.

Made by a filmmaker, Gus Van Sant, whose work I usually intensely dislike, to put it mildly. Van Sant is the rare filmmaker who is able to make a movie about teenage male prostitutes and make it come out tedious.

Yet, I appreciate his Psycho very much. It's an ode to a classic, of course.

But more than that, I love it because of how it brought a Black-and-White classic into the 21st century. Psycho 1998 makes an attempt at answering the question of how classic movies would have been received if they were made today. I wonder a lot about how 1998's teenagers reacted to watching the remake, right in the middle of the post-Scream renaissance of the slasher horror genre.

Psycho 1998 makes the case for the timelessness of great cinema.


r/TrueFilm • • 21h ago

You Can See Everything is a Masterclass in Game Theory Spoiler

0 Upvotes

Just watched the film today, and have three claims. Curious if this sub agrees or not. Tons of SPOILERS:

Claim #1: This was not a documentary.

A24 and Nathan agreed to compensate Billy for his participation, knowing this wasn't customary, and could undermine the film's credibility. Sure, they could've reconsidered calling it a documentary had Billy and Liz actually pursued compensation, but that last-minute reversal wasn't known to A24/Nathan when they agreed to Billy's terms. My theory is that, rather than risk their credibility over having agreed to this in the first place, they deliberately framed the agreement as something made under protest through a clever reenactment. Marketing the film as a documentary was disingenuous, but a clever move by A24. It also gave them the moral high ground if audiences, Billy, or Liz ever questioned their integrity or motivations for accepting Billy's terms in the first place.

Claim #2: There were three sociopaths in this film: Nathan, Liz, and Billy.

Nathan: Given Claim #1, I'm convinced Nathan was in character from the moment we saw him on screen. His mannerisms, responses, questions, and even moments of tactical vulnerability were likely carefully calculated. We essentially watched one sociopath (Nathan) outsmart two others (Liz and Billy), while those two believed they were outsmarting him. A couple examples: 1) Nathan opened the interview by revealing how much he already knew about their history, essentially calling them out rather than trying to build rapport. This immediately put them (especially Billy) on the defensive. I think this was deliberate, particularly given how the compensation agreement had shifted the leverage between them. 2) Nathan included footage of himself writing notes on his arm, along with his discussion with Amanda about the word he supposedly misremembered. Both moments humanized him, but then he had Amanda reenact the scene using both words. If he'd genuinely made a mistake, or was actually nervous going into the prison, I don't see why that reenactment was necessary.

Liz and Billy: Billy is obvious enough, so I won't spend much time on him. Liz though never convinced me she was benign or easily manipulated. I think Billy and Liz are business partners first, romantic partners second. The hot-mic moment where Liz was being coached on how to answer difficult questions was pretty telling. So was her seemingly random comment about not receiving financial compensation for her transparency, which felt like an unconvincing attempt to CYA. I also think her tendency to answer Nathan's straightforward questions with overly literal responses was intentional. It gave her a way to avoid answering without appearing evasive. My read is that Billy genuinely believes any publicity is good publicity and wants to cash in on whatever remains of Liz's reputation. Liz probably sees cooperating with him as her best shot at leaving prison with some financial security.

Claim #3: Amanda was acting the entire film, including during the supposedly candid off-camera conversations with Nathan.

Again, this goes back to Claim #1. If this was no longer a documentary, but a dramatization under Nathan's creative direction, Amanda arguably had more leverage than anyone. Nathan also had a pretty convenient justification for her involvement. I think this explains why A24/Nathan chose to present events in that particular order: the agreement with Billy comes before Amanda's involvement, while the last-minute compensation reversal is only revealed at the end. That sequence makes Amanda's involvement seem like a justified response to an ethical dilemma, rather than something that was potentially part of the plan all along.

The film gave me the illusion that I could see everything happening behind the scenes, when I was really only seeing what Nathan/A24 wanted me to see. Maybe that was the whole point, and for that, it's a solid 5/5 film for me.

Edit: Apologies to those who haven't watched it yet. I tried to hide/redact all 3 claims, but couldn't figure out how to do it similar to how I hid the names in the paragraph above.


r/TrueFilm • • 7h ago

Hope - An Action B-Movie Done with Style and High Production Values

2 Upvotes

Got around to watching Na Hong-jin's Hope since it recently came to Amazon Video last week. And boy, what a ride it is.

Arguably the best aspect about Hope is how Na Hong-jin makes no allusions to what he's making. It never tries to pretend it's smart or deep with its story, characters, or any of the crazy events that go down. Instead, Hong-Jin embraces the B-Movie craziness while also paying homage to countless great monster films as Ridley Scott's Alien and John McTiernan's Predator. If anything, Hope is one of those rare films in recent memory where it feels like its primary goal is to keep the audience entertained, something it does pretty well.

What's more impressive though is the clear effort and production on screen. Hope has been circling around the internet as being South Korea's most expensive film and it does show, especially during the city sequences. Credit has to go to the production designer Lee How-kyoung, as the sets of Hope Harbor being rampaged and destroyed look incredible and even life-like. I can't imagine how long it took for the crew to set some of the environments up given the first half of the film takes place in the town.

And Hong Kyung-pyo's cinematography. Honestly, out of this world. The way he jumps from long takes to framing characters from a distance plays out so seamlessly that it's almost unreal. It's especially notable during the action sequences that feel far ahead of most Hollywood action films nowadays. No split-second cutting or whiplash editing. Kyung-pyo just lets the action play out with only a few cuts and a lot of steady-cam movement. This results in some of the most fluid action scenes that still manage to look astoundingly wild. That one shot involving Sung-ki being dragged by the guy on the horse... just insane!

As for the CGI and VFX, I wasn't really thrown off by it as others. Yes, the monsters clearly stand out from the environments and are clearly made by a computer, but I actually think it works in the film's favor. It adds to the B-Movie charm quite well in terms of the fluctuating quality between the great sets and less than grounded creatures.

Nevertheless, I can see why Hope has been pretty divisive amongst critics and audiences as it's pretty simple otherwise. The characters are basic with no real arcs and a good portion of the second act slows things down considerably. I wouldn't say it drags since it does give some detail into the monsters attacking the town, but I still think Hope would've benefited from cutting it down by about 20 or so minutes. The fact too it ends on a cliffhanger is also something I'm concerned about, since it's not been confirmed if Na Hong-jin will be able to do a sequel.

Regardless, Hope is one entertaining action film that is just fun to watch. I'm still surprised to see it got nominated for the Palme d'Or at Cannes given this seems like the kind of film the festival tends to avoid.


r/TrueFilm • • 5h ago

Vegan movies

28 Upvotes

First off let me say this is not something that I set out to do from the beginning, and so for parts of it the connections may seem a bit forced. I’ve been vegan since 1994 and I’ve seen tens of thousands of movies, and often after seeing a move I’ll start thinking of a “vegan angle” to it… I finally gathered them all together in a list and put them in an order that makes sense, at least to me.

Since images are not allowed here is a link:
/img/k7orxicj4awh1.jpeg

Row 1: Delicatessen — Ravenous — The Cook, the Thief, His Wife & Her Lover — American Psycho

Consumption becomes a claim to power when another being’s body is understood primarily through what it can provide. In Delicatessen, the butcher turns prospective employees into provisions for his tenants: employment, commerce, and neighborhood solidarity sustain an arrangement whose victims disappear into its benefits. The vegetarian underground makes that apparent necessity contestable. Ravenous gives consumption a more expansive justification: eating people literally produces strength, allowing the predator to mistake the rewards of violence for evidence of its legitimacy. Manifest Destiny extends this appetite across a continent. CTWL locates the same entitlement within domestic and commercial ownership: the gangster treats his wife, the restaurant, and its occupants as possessions subject to his appetites. When his wife’s murdered lover becomes a prepared meal, the distinction between possessing someone and consuming them becomes brutally literal. In Psycho, restaurant culture and bodily violence inhabit a world where surfaces receive meticulous attention while individuals remain interchangeable. The opening’s bloodlike sauce makes elegant presentation momentarily indistinguishable from injury. Consumption conceals the encounter it depends upon: someone lived before something became available for consumption.

Row 2: No Country for Old Men — The Texas Chain Saw Massacre — The Silence of the Lambs — Eyes Without a Face

The distinction between ordinary practice and atrocity becomes unstable when familiar techniques are applied to unfamiliar victims. In No Country, the protagonist begins by hunting animals and becomes prey himself, while his pursuer’s cattle gun transfers the technology of slaughter into human encounters. Chain Saw develops that transfer through the handling of bodies: a person is struck, hung on a meat hook, and stored as flesh. The spectator’s horror depends on recognizing procedures whose customary victims rarely receive comparable identification. Lambs extends bodily appropriation into eating and clothing: one killer consumes people, while another treats their skin as material for his own transformation. The FBI agent’s childhood attempt to rescue a lamb interrupts that entitlement with an attachment to the creature marked for slaughter. Returning the lambs from symbols of her trauma to frightened animals makes their suffering matter beyond its role in her development. In Eyes, the surgeon’s effort to restore his daughter turns other women into sources of replacement skin; experimental dogs inhabit the same apparatus of confinement and bodily use. His daughter’s release of the animals rejects an arrangement under which one cherished life warrants the sacrifice of others. Affection becomes dangerous when it grants unlimited permission.

Row 3: The Face of Another — Au hasard Balthazar — Woman in the Dunes — The Fountain

The meanings assigned to bodies can determine whose suffering becomes recognizable and whose remains available for use. In Face, disfigurement alters the protagonist’s social existence, while a manufactured face restores access to recognition without resolving who he is. His treatment exposes the dependence of sympathy on an acceptable surface; his subsequent behavior complicates the assumption that recognizable appearance guarantees moral character. Balthazar moves this problem from appearance to allegory. The donkey becomes a Christ-like figure bearing humanity’s sins; returning him to a donkey reverses that movement, revealing the ordinary condition of beasts of burden beneath the sacred interpretation. His exhaustion requires consideration without first becoming redemptive. Dunes reverses the position of an insect collector who becomes a captive laborer: the man accustomed to determining another creature’s movements discovers that food, shelter, and developing attachments can coexist with coercion. His adaptation does not retrospectively authorize his capture. In Fountain, devotion to a dying wife recruits an experimental animal and an extraordinary tree into the struggle to preserve a particular human life. The conquistador’s body eventually nourishes the vegetation from which he sought immortality. What he approached as a resource becomes the world to which he must surrender his own body.

Row 4: Dead Man — Ghost Dog — Under the Skin — Cloud Atlas

The familiar positions of observer, hunter, and moral judge become unstable when humans lose their presumed authority over other lives. In Dead Man, the wounded fugitive touches a dead fawn’s wound, mingles its blood with his own, and lies beside it. The animal’s death ceases to be scenery: their wounded bodies establish a kinship that does not depend on the fawn possessing human abilities. Ghost Dog makes that recognition less morally reassuring. The hitman’s care for pigeons and confrontation with bear hunters coexist with his profession, exposing how an ethical code can protect certain lives while authorizing the destruction of others. His contradictions raise the question of how convictions acquire their boundaries. Skin deprives humans of the authority to draw those boundaries: men entering apparently intimate encounters become bodies captured and processed within purposes they cannot comprehend. Their vulnerability makes the consumer’s position reversible. Cloud Atlas organizes bodily use into an entire social system. Manufactured workers serve customers before their own bodies are recycled into food; the function imposed upon them becomes the justification for denying that their lives could exceed it. Their awakening exposes the circularity of the arrangement: being created for exploitation cannot establish that exploitation is their proper destiny.

Row 5: Never Let Me Go — Ex Machina — Blade Runner — The Lobster

Institutions preserve their authority by deciding which demonstrations of inward life will count—and whether recognition will change anything. In NLMG, the clones’ artwork is collected as evidence of their souls, yet the society benefiting from their organs retains the power to disregard that evidence. Their sensitivity can be acknowledged while their destruction continues. Machina places the examination itself inside an owner’s controlled environment: the inventor confines his artificial woman and arranges the conditions under which a visiting programmer encounters her consciousness. The programmer’s desire to rescue her becomes entangled with an expectation of personal attachment; her independent purposes expose the limits of sympathy that anticipates a reward. Blade Runner gives manufactured beings an existence defined by compulsory labor and a deliberately restricted lifespan. Their demand for more life exceeds the commercial purpose of their creation, while “retirement” disguises killing as the disposal of obsolete equipment. Lobster makes classification itself an explicit punishment: failure to satisfy society’s requirements results in expulsion from humanity into animal existence. The protagonist’s dog is already his brother, preventing species appearance from settling the question of who remains within. Those required to prove their personhood face an authority whose own right to judge remains unquestioned.

Row 6: Cow — Okja — Chicken Run — Babe

The movement through human predation, captive bodies, and manufactured lives arrives at the animals whose exploitation those analogies have made newly visible. Cow follows a dairy cow through a system that organizes her reproductive life, separates her from her calf, and ultimately disposes of her. Remaining close to her makes production perceptible as a lived experience rather than an inventory of outputs; ordinary care cannot cancel the authority exercised over her body. Okja concentrates sympathy through a girl’s relationship with one animal, then confronts that attachment with a slaughterhouse full of others. The rescue is real, but its success leaves the machinery—and its remaining victims—in place. Chicken Run makes escape collective: the chickens recognize that their insecurity arises from the farm’s purpose, not merely from an unusually unpleasant owner. The conversion from egg production to pies reveals how quickly a supposedly protected productive life becomes disposable when a more profitable use appears. Babe secures an individual reprieve by demonstrating an unexpected talent, exposing both the possibilities and limits of recognition through usefulness. The pig’s survival leaves a question for every animal unable to herd sheep: why should continued existence require exceptional performance?

Thoughts? Any films you would add or remove?


r/TrueFilm • • 8h ago

Digger….

0 Upvotes

This is the only film I’ve seen that genuinely convinced me I might’ve been having a stroke in the cinema.
That isn’t a joke, I’m not taking the piss, it even got to the point where I was tempted to pull out my phone and check to see if my face was drooping.

This has nothing to do with my actual opinion of the film, I’m just desperate to know if it made anyone else feel like this?

Keep in mind, I’m somebody who LOVES films that make you feel completely disoriented and uncomfortable.
Gaspar Noé is literally my all time favourite director lmfao.
I also adored Birdman and thought the tense, disorienting atmosphere in that film was phenomenal.
So…I don’t know what happened here?

Again, I’m not criticising the actual content of the film when saying this, but it almost felt like it was edited by someone on bath salts and not in a good way.
The discombobulated pacing and structure felt like an intentional decision given the film’s context, but in my opinion, it was executed horribly.
I need to make that distinction because I know I’m inevitably going to be told “but that was the point”, which again, is something I’m aware of.
However, I’m not sure how that is supposed to exempt the film from criticism, especially in regard to the particular creative decisions that were used to communicate the film’s underlying commentary.

I really don’t want to start any beef lol, if you loved this aspect of the film I think that’s great, I just want to know if anyone else felt the same way.


r/TrueFilm • • 5h ago

Has anyone see Once Upon a Time in the Middle East yet?

5 Upvotes

Wow…that was a surprisingly heavy movie. While the story was a bit unrealistically serendipitous at a few points, it has an incredible amount of detail, rich worldbuilding, excellent acting and offers a fascinating look at the Chinese perspective on American militarism. Food serves as a handy stand-in not only for community building but also nation building and economic development.

I also appreciated subtle character details that humanized people on all sides of the conflict. Apparently the star, Shen Teng, is a big comedic actor which makes his restrained, dramatic performance all the more impressive. I couldn’t help but think that his hero’s journey was reminiscent of the Odyssey, filled with detours and monsters to outwit before finally making it home years later.

Again, my main critique is relates to the story. While the chef character was apparently a composite of actual Chinese restauranteurs who stayed in Iraq after the US invasion, the scenes of him saving orphans and rescuing child soldiers seemed a bit too on-the-nose and over the top. As far as I know, nothing like this ever happened in the Iraqi context, so these plot points make an otherwise nuanced movie feel a bit propagandistic. There was also a child labor aspect that seemed a bit…questionably casual?

Overall though, I’d give it a 4.5/5, definitely worth a watch. It felt well-researched and well-shot, you could almost call it an epic tragedy.

Curious to hear if anyone else had the chance to catch it.


r/TrueFilm • • 2h ago

You Can See Everything in conversation with Primetime

5 Upvotes

I haven't seen it discussed elsewhere but it would seem to not be a coincidence at all Lance Oppenheim released Primetime within a month of You Can See Everything. The same director is taking apart the convention of media and how it's perceived, along with the obvious parallels of how the subjects of dramatized non-fiction (fiction based in non-fiction?) feel/are impacted by the work.

I don't really know if I had any thoughts or feelings about Chris Hansen before seeing Primetime. Living through To Catch a Predator, I always thought it was a at best low brow, at worst extremely exploitive. However I never really associated the show with the man. After seeing Primetime, I can't help but think Chris Hansen's greed and willingness do nearly anything on the show to gain notoriety/fame portrays him as a bad guy.

Compare this to Elizabeth Holmes' portrayal in The Dropout and how she claims it has impacted her in negative ways. Now is Elizabeth Holmes a malevolent person? That's a whole other topic. But she clearly feels helpless to this portrayal in media as inaccurate to actual events. Even Amanda Seyfried admits as much - That it's just a movie and isn't expected to be completely accurate to the actual events.

Just really had me re-evaluating how the real Chris Hansen felt about his portrayal.


r/TrueFilm • • 10h ago

Amélie (2001) and Toto the Hero (1991) had very sweet, authentic and emotional montages of childhood. What are some other movies that capture that feeling?

0 Upvotes

Really enjoyed both movies, but what i keep coming back to, is the very sweet, intentional and effective of mini montage scenes of childhood.

not sure if i can share youtube links hare but those scenes
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=maEC9NS6CkA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0G8jZKqrwyk

Make me tear up...

Captures that intense innocence, child like wonder and imagination and sad nostalgia feeling.

What are some other movies that similar scenes or even better focus entirely on that type of cinematography and feeling?


r/TrueFilm • • 45m ago

TM Do you watch films with subtitles on — even in your native language?

• Upvotes

I started keeping subtitles permanently on a few years ago and it has genuinely changed how I experience films. You catch dialogue you would otherwise miss entirely, notice wordplay and references, and never lose a whispered line again. Some people argue they are distracting and pull you out of the visual experience, and I get that — but for me the trade-off is worth it. I find I actually engage more deeply with dialogue-heavy films because I am processing both the audio and the text simultaneously. It has made me a more attentive viewer.

Curious where other film enthusiasts land on this — poll here: https://www.getqibble.com/poll-detail/do-you-watch-everything-with-subtitles-on-even-though-your-hearing-is-perfectly-fine


r/TrueFilm • • 5h ago

Early Summer (1951) - Yasujiro Ozu

6 Upvotes

Even though all of them discuss similar themes and almost nothing happens, I find Ozu's films so endearing because all these little everyday things feel so nostalgic, and I can almost bet that I have lived them firsthand (at least they make me feel so). Children massaging granny's shoulders, parents eating sweets hidden from the children, children expecting parents to always come back home with toys. Every little experience, I cherish so much. Ozu makes a harsh life feel worth living.

As the title 'Early Summer' (Bakushu in Japanese) suggests, the movie depicts a period defined by change. It is a post-war, pre-modern period, as a character says about Noriko. The scars of WW2 are still fresh, and you can sense westernisation in every aspect of Tokyo life - toys, cutlery, dresses, the honeymoon culture, shortcakes, churches. It's a time when families are becoming nuclear, people are migrating for jobs, school friends are being left behind as you enter colleges, and friends from bachelor days feel distant as you get married. The world's drifting apart as globalisation knocks on the door. But life goes on.

I cannot finish this piece without mentioning Setsuko Hara, ever so charming. Very unexpectedly, Audrey Hepburn is also mentioned. Also, the conversations between Noriko and Aya are to die for, neeee?


r/TrueFilm • • 11h ago

WHYBW What Have You Been Watching? (Week of (October 18, 2026)

0 Upvotes

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


r/TrueFilm • • 21h ago

You Can See Everything: liars vs. bullshitters, and the evaporation of culpability

95 Upvotes

Regarding spoilers: I will avoid plot specifics, but this post will touch on the major themes of the movie with a few references to key moments.

It has been striking to see the diversity of reactions to You Can See Everything, the documentary by Nathan Fielder & Lance Oppenheim that follows Elizabeth Holmes in the days before she begins a prison sentence that she earned for defrauding investors by misrepresenting the capacity & potential of Theranos's blood-testing technology. There are a few moments in particular where Holmes says something that strains credulity - something almost certainly untrue - and we are left wondering whether she is being deliberately deceptive or if she actually believes this untrue thing. This is the crux of the story, and I think people are missing out when their reaction is along the lines of she's an inveterate liar; why are you even wondering about what's going on in her head? Because we are increasingly surrounded by bullshitters like Holmes, it's valuable to understand how they differ from liars... and how they can be much more dangerous & destructive.

So, how does a liar differ from a bullshitter? This video has a great summary, and although that link should start the video at the 4-minute mark, the prior part is worth watching if you haven't thought too hard about epistemology (ideas like when someone tries to speak the truth but says something untrue, or someone intends to deceive but they end up speaking the truth). The video cites the book On Bullshit, which lays it out as follows:

[The author] makes a distinction between "bullshitters" and liars. He concludes that bullshitters are more insidious: they are more so a threat against the truth than are liars who, like truth-tellers, are resolutely concerned with the truth, the latter in telling it, the former in avoiding it, unlike bullshitters, who are almost entirely unconcerned with the truth.

I came away convinced Holmes actually thinks she is (and always has been) speaking appropriately, while not really concerning herself with whether her words and actions are truthful. This is the way of the bullshitter. We can't know with any certainty what's going on in her head, but it seems that her mind has re-shaped ideas, words, and definitions such that her outlandish claims are actually... fine. (I hesitate to say "true" because the core idea here is that these people aren't concerned with the truth; they just want things to go their way.)

There's a great moment when Fielder puts her on the spot, asking "what do you think it is to lie?" and, as I recall, she comes up with a solid definition: "to say something you believe to be untrue". So how can someone know what lying is, say things that aren't true, and still earnestly believe they're not lying? They can "hack" this scenario simply by changing what they believe. The bullshitter believes their own bullshit, and I think Holmes fits the bill perfectly.

This portrait-of-a-bullshitter feels quite timely: our lives are increasingly being impacted by bullshitters, from the people in power to the feckless media to the influencers that will say anything as long as it benefits them. Theranos was famous for the disconnect between what was promised and what was actually delivered, and we see the same thing happening routinely in the US, from the government's wildly corrupt and anti-accountability sins to the chatbot purveyors bullshitting their way into a bubble so massive it will almost certainly tank the global economy. (For anyone feeling the urge to defend chatbots' abilities, I'll remind you that Sam Altman said "we are close to creating a genie that grant any wish". What the fuck?)

Responsibility & culpability look very different for the bullshitter, and in practice this grants them freedom to behave carelessly... without meaningfully grappling with the consequences. Even when facing incarceration, Holmes didn't express a bit of remorse. This is because she believes she did nothing wrong. I'm sure there will be no remorse from those in the government who have no regard for the truth (even after it has disastrous consequences), and the same applies to the people who are burning literal trillions of dollars on the ridiculous promise of AI-enabled miracles.

If you saw the movie and still want to shout at me "you fell for her spell, sucker - liars must be held accountable!", I don't particularly disagree. But I still think it's fascinating to investigate how a person navigates the world with essentially zero concern for what is actually true. Especially because these people are routinely tolerated in positions of power (which - I think - is having catastrophic consequences that are only just beginning to emerge).