BLADE RUNNER is one of my favorites but the theatrical cut is the only way to go. I dislike any version that doesn't have narration and the original point of the movie is obscured/trampled upon by Scott's revisionism in terms of what the movie is about.

I always recommend that version to first-time viewers as well as it clarifies the film and the narration -- despite what some fans say, i.e. that it wasn't necessary and/or that Ford hated speaking it -- was always meant to be there. The ending of the theatrical cut, like Paul says, is also far more satisfying to me than the abrupt ambiguousness of Scott's "Final Cut"/Director's Cut/workprint whatever other version you can find.

I watched the film for the first time last year and I wasn't overly impressed but I do agree that you need the narration or else the film would be as muddled as I found "The Shining". And I certainly don't care for the idea of Ford as "replicant".

BLADE RUNNER, to me, is an outstanding, beautiful film that moves me to tears when I see it. I am in the minority here but I am not a huge fan of the voice-over narration. I like the versions without the narration better but can watch any of the cuts with the same level of interest. Theamtically I find the movie to be a profound reflection on life, death, and what it means to be human. Easily a Top Ten movie of all time for me.

SCOTT JOPLIN
6/10

I had literally never heard of this 1977 biopic of the great ragtime composer, which is new to Blu-Ray from Kino Lorber this month. Billy Dee Williams plays Joplin in what was a Motown-produced TV movie, made for NBC, which Universal opted to release theatrically instead as they felt the movie would play well at the box-office. Turns out it didn’t, mainly because – through no fault of the cast, director Jeremy Paul Kagan and writer Christopher Knopf – the subject matter makes for such a downbeat viewing experience, with Joplin going nowhere but downhill after he scores his initial successes, contracting syphilis and unable to be taken seriously when he tries writing an opera. The cast certainly tries though, with Williams opposite Clifton Davis, Margaret Avery, Godfrey Cambridge, Taj Mahal and Art Carney in a little-seen picture at least providing worthwhile viewing for Black History month. Kino Lorber’s Blu-Ray (1.85, mono) looks acceptable with the trailer and a commentary from Kagan and moderator Daniel Kremer providing additional insight into the production.

One Battle After Another

No rating, because I gave up after and hour and eight minutes. Ostensibly a thriller, this movie comes off as more of a polemic, with endless references to illegal immigration, interracial relationships, trans kids, etc., which just bogs everything down. It is also very slow-moving and lacking in dramatic tension.

Leonardo DeCapprio once again works so overtime to be "in character" it just becomes obvious he's acting. Sean Penn's performance is one of his worst, and he plays his role as if he were in a comedy.

Johnny Greenwood's score actually distracts from the drama onscreen (and sounds like it was written for a completely different movie).

Maybe the rest of the movie is brilliant -- I can't say. But I'm not sticking around to find out.

Nobody's work is as overpraised as Anderson for me. Not even close.

And it tells you about everything about cinema in 2026 this movie and SINNERS are (two of) the biggest films gunning for end of year acclaim. Let someone try and tell you "things are just as good as they've always been" with that

AndyDursin wrote: Sat Mar 14, 2026 10:43 am Nobody's work is as overpraised as Anderson for me. Not even close.

And it tells you about everything about cinema in 2026 this movie and SINNERS are (two of) the biggest films gunning for end of year acclaim. Let someone try and tell you "things are just as good as they've always been" with that

There were a couple of times, but only a couple of times, that I thought that Paul Thomas Anderson knocked it out of the park. But it also hard to think of more over acclaimed titles than The Master, Inherent Vice, and , yes, One Battle After Another.

One Battle After Another will probably win tomorrow night..... But it shouldn't. It is a pretentious political polemic, a hyper liberal dream film that is hard for anybody who isn't one of those to get into (I'm an independent voter), wavering uncomfortably between comedy and drama, overly long, with performances that feel like they are in their own different spheres. It's a sloppy film, and it won't age well.

I guess I can't get overly outraged over the state of this year's Oscar race, because most of the Best Picture winners of the last 11 years , from Birdman on have been quite lacking.

TaranofPrydain wrote: Sat Mar 14, 2026 11:51 am One Battle After Another will probably win tomorrow night..... But it shouldn't. It is a pretentious political polemic, a hyper liberal dream film that is hard for anybody who isn't one of those to get into (I'm an independent voter), wavering uncomfortably between comedy and drama, overly long, with performances that feel like they are in their own different spheres. It's a sloppy film, and it won't age well.

To be honest I nearly turned it off in the first five minutes, after Teyana Taylor causes Penn to...

AndyDursin wrote: Sat Mar 14, 2026 10:43 am And it tells you about everything about cinema in 2026 this movie and SINNERS are (two of) the biggest films gunning for end of year acclaim. Let someone try and tell you "things are just as good as they've always been" with that

What do you mean? Things are as great as they've ever been!

Someone agrees with Paul!

Frankenstein (6.5/10)

As one of the most adapted books ever, any new filmic iteration of Frankenstein ought to be original and striking. This 2026 version strives to be unique -- but despite altering aspects of Mary Shelley's original narrative with new twists, it offers little of interest.

Guillermo Del Toro's film deviates from Shelley's book in frequently bizarre ways. In this version, Elizabeth is not Frankenstein's love interest -- she is engaged to Victor's brother. In fact she comes to hate Victor. Instead of being a "passive" character as in the book (like 99% of women in the 19th century), this version strives to appease feminists by making Elizabeth a scientist. After visiting Frankenstein's lab, Elizabeth meets the monster and forms a bond with him (it is preposterous that Victor would allow Elizabeth free reign of his lab). And in the most bizarre deviation from the book, Elizabeth later admits she's in love with the monster.

The exterior of Frankenstin's lab is a CGI fabrication — but looks almost identical to the William Wallace monument in Scotland.



After the monster escapes from the lab, he wanders on a field covered with dead soldiers from a recent battle. He is spotted by two hunters who immediately start shooting at him. Del Toro is obviously trying to show that humanity intrinsically hates those who are "different". But anyone who saw someone covered with scars staggering across a battlefield would just assume it was a surviving soldier (and probably try to help him!). The film also makes tiresome, heavy-handed statements about capitalism and war profiteering.

Del Toro omits the subplot where Frankenstein agrees to creates a companion for the monster (then destroys her). The film feels a bit empty without this plot thread.

In this version, the monster does not murder Elizabeth. Instead Frankenstein accidentally shoots her after she professes her love for the monster.

Kenneth Branagh was roundly criticized for "bookending" his Frankenstein movie with the plot device of the ship stuck in the arctic ocean -- but Del Toro cribs this same bookending device from Branagh's movie. And again, it proves an irrelevant tangent.

In this version, the monster heals from every wound instantaneously, and it is essentially unkillable. I honestly wondered for a few moments if Del Toro was going to provide a twist ending with a title card that tells us "The Monster lived on for centuries, and later changed his name to Logan, and joined the X-Men."

There are moments that are unintentionally funny, as when the monster finds a skull and and picks it up to look at it. I half expected him to say "Yorick, I knew him well".

The art direction is terrific, and the sets very impressive to behold -- but much of the film is lit with green light, which gets tedious to look at. Alexandre Desplat's score frequently has no relationship to the drama onscreen. The sequence where Frankenstein is constructing his lab and preparing for all manner of unnatural experiments is scored with a tuneful, euphoric waltz.

The film is never quite boring, but it often feels padded, and many scenes linger beyond their welcome. It could have been trimmed by 15 minutes.

For an over 200-year-old book that continues to have such an impact on popular culture, it's astonishing how many of its celluloid adaptations have been no more than perfunctory. At this point there are still only two genuinely great Frankenstein movies-- James Whale's The Bride of Frankenstein, and, quite honestly, Mel Brooks' Young Frankenstein. Even 1985's The Bride offered a much-more believable (and compelling) portrayal of the Frankenstein and monster character arcs than this new version.

It's ironic that the first Frankenstein film ever nominated for a Best Picture Oscar is one of the least-remarkable. Del Toro is a terrific filmmaker, but his forté is pulpy stuff -- like Hellboy. Other than Pan's Labyrinth, his attempts at "art films" (The Shape of Water, Crimson Peak and now Frankenstein) have been at best noble failures. Guillermo, just go back and make Hellboy III, please!

Work tended to limit the level of movies to watch during the Holy Week season this year but I did find time for these:

Cleopatra (1934)-This was my one "non-Biblical spectacle" but the events do take place just one generation before the birth of Christ and in this version, the character of Herod the Great is seen.

The Prodigal (1955)-And this was my one "schlock" choice and good thing I watched because I discovered the Warner DVD has now gone bad on me and I had to do Amazon Prime to watch the finish. The film, bad as it is, does need a Blu-Ray release.

Jesus (2010)-This is the elaborate musical stage production by Sight and Sound Theatre in Lancaster, PA which has been doing Biblical spectacles on-stage for over thirty years and has put all of their productions on DVD. The sincerity is always great though sometimes the spectacle can tend to overwhelm the substance but this one detailing Christ's ministry and Passion is one of their best.

Studio One-Pontius Pilate (1952)
Hallmark Hall of Fame-Give Us Barabbas (1961)
=These two TV productions are becoming annual staples now.

Young Messiah (2016)-This is starting to improve more with age. I again hope Anne Rice came back to faith before her death.

The King Of Kings (1927)-My first viewing of the Flicker Alley Blu-Ray and I viewed the long cut for the first time in years. The restoration work is outstanding and the only reason I haven't tossed the old Criterion DVD is because of the organ score on the short cut they used which is different from the one Flicker Alley used on the short cut. Jeers to the liner notes though where someone in the restoration process has to preface his remarks about how he has always hated religious films and hated DeMille because of his politics. Who the hell cares??? As always, there are some people who are hellbent determined to rub their Leftist bonafides in our faces at every turn.

Barabbas (1961)-This has become a standard every year even if the Blu-Ray transfer is weak from the old source. But under no circumstances will I ever let myself hear one second of that garbage Kim Newman commentary again!

John (2006)-There have been several independent productions that simply dramatize a Gospel with the actors speaking the text only. This version of John is narrated by Christopher Plummer and is a commendable effort (another company put out versions of Matthew and Acts)

Passion Of The Christ (2004)-Standard Good Friday viewing.

Ben Hur (1959) Watched the Ultra 4K version for the first time and it is spectacular. For the first time I noticed Esther's entrance in the film staring down from above as Judah enters the courtyard of the villa. Until then I hadn't realized she's first seen then.

Risen (2016)-Another staple even if I think its stronger when it's in the CSI mode then the later stage after the Tribune comes face to face with the risen Christ.

Couldn't set aside time for Old Testament films or Jesus of Nazareth and I am waiting to see if we get a Blu-Ray of the new remastered "Greatest Story Ever Told" that was recently screened publicly. That film is overdue for a quality release (Though sadly we will never see any of the lost footage of the original cut).

Weapons (6.5/10)

Eh. I'll give this movie points for often creating a potent level of suspense and a some effective creep-out moments. But it is also slow-moving (especially at the outset) and the tone is uneven -- one minute it is a horror film, the next a small-town soap opera, and there are times (especially at the climax) where it seems like a comedy. Whether the director intended this or not, I actually started laughing at the climax of the film.

It also leaves too much unresolved. Who is Amy Madigan's character exactly? Is she really Alex's aunt? Why is she there? What is her motive? There are also implausibilities. Wouldn't the friends and relatives of Alex's parents grow suspicious at not hearing from them, or not being able to reach them? Wouldn't there be far-more scrutiny of Alex's house and this newly-arrived "aunt" after every other child in Alex's class had disappeared? Wouldn't the police force send out someone to look for Officer Paul when he failed to report?

The film is well acted and Amy Madigan certainly gives a disturbingly effective performance. But come-on, this flick is not Oscar material. I guess it just shows how far the standards have eroded when it comes to Academy Award criteria. I wouldn't be surprised if the real reason this movie got Oscar nods is due to the presence of a character who is both gay and an ethnic minority.

And the "score" is also nothing but abstract sound effects (but that's to be expected these days, sadly).

It's a lowering of standards across the board. Like Spielberg talking about overrated Denis Villenueve...I liked Dune 1 and 2 fine, but the greatest EVARRRR? Umm, No. "Good" is now substituted for "brilliance" among the people who still think great movies are being made on a regular basis.

Now we get super-hero movies and vampire films being nominated for Best Picture....

Going back to WEAPONS I agree Paul. I'm really unsure if the end was supposed to be blackly funny or not. Certainly some of it looked to be channeling Ferris Bueller with them running through suburban backyards and I cant believe it was not intentional. It certainly took the edge off the horror for me.