How to live the good life
There are many ways to live a good life, but in modern times it feels harder than ever.Loneliness, anxiety, and depression are all on the rise, especially among younger generations. We live in a hyper-individualistic society here in the West, which means you’re often left alone with your struggles. In the East, life is more […]
There are many ways to live a good life, but in modern times it feels harder than ever.
Loneliness, anxiety, and depression are all on the rise, especially among younger generations.
We live in a hyper-individualistic society here in the West, which means you’re often left alone with your struggles. In the East, life is more collective and the elderly play a bigger role in daily life. I’m not saying one is better than the other, but I want to share some wisdom passed down from my own elder.
Today, I want to present three “rules” or elements from my mother. In her view, these are the foundations of a good life. They aren’t about material goals or external achievements. They’re about states of mind things anyone can cultivate, regardless of circumstance.
Something to do
The first element is having something to do. Most people have a natural urge to stay active. That is why, when someone gets laid off, they often find themselves suddenly restless and bored out of their mind. And the people who have given up on that urge tend to become complacent, stagnant, and quietly unhappy.
Being stuck in a dead-end job with no future prospects sounds like a terrible fate for anyone, but this advice is not really about your material circumstances. It does not have to be a career. It can be something as simple as walking your dog every morning. It can be volunteer work, or a hobby that energizes you every time you do it.
The core of this tip is to avoid sitting alone with your thoughts for too long. It is healthy to unplug, take out your headphones, and sit in the quiet from time to time. But long periods of isolation and endless thinking can drain you. The point is to get out, move, and take part in the world around you.
Something to look forward to
This point connects naturally to the first one. Having something you genuinely look forward to is one of the simplest foundations of happiness. It does not have to be a hobby. It can be a date, a party, the release of a new album, movie, or game. Anything that creates a spark of anticipation can make the present feel lighter.
It can also be something very small or ordinary. Many people look forward to the weekend even if nothing special is planned. Maybe you drive home from school or work knowing that the bag of chips you bought is waiting for you. Maybe you are excited for the first cup of coffee in the morning, a warm shower after a long day, or a quiet hour of reading before bed. It can be planning a future trip, meeting a friend for a walk, or even knowing a favourite show will be on tonight.
The size of the thing does not matter. What matters is that something in your future gives you a small lift today.
Someone to love (and receive love)
This element is often fulfilled through a romantic partner, a parent, or a child. Close friendships can help as well, but they rarely create the same depth of emotional attachment. Friendships are still important for a good life, but in this segment the focus is on relationships that give you a strong sense of love and belonging.
When I spoke to my mother about this point, she specifically said that a dog could fill this role. A dog loves you without question. It greets you with joy, notices your moods, and gives you a steady source of affection. For many people, a dog can provide a kind of emotional warmth that feels very real and very healing. A cat can also offer comfort and companionship, though my mother was very clear that a dog, in particular, can meet this need more fully.
Loneliness is becoming a widespread problem. It is harder to find a partner today. Many of us move far away from our parents to study or work. And without a partner, the idea of having children can feel impossible. In a life shaped by distance and independence, it is no surprise that many people feel a growing emptiness.
At its core, this element is about having someone who loves you and someone you can love in return. It is the feeling of being cared for, wanted, and emotionally connected. Whether that comes from a partner, a family member, or even a loyal dog, the result is the same. You are no longer alone in the world.
Conclusion
So many people today are unhappy, and the reasons are countless. It is impossible to point to one single cause. Life is complicated, and modern pressures weigh on all of us in different ways. The important thing is not to let it consume you.
My mother’s three elements are simple, but they offer a real sense of direction. As long as you have something to do, something to look forward to, and someone in your life to love and receive love from, you are giving yourself a chance at a better and more meaningful life. It may not solve everything, but it can create a foundation that makes the hard parts easier to bear.
Happiness is not a perfect state. It is something we build a little at a time. And these three small elements can guide you toward it.
Can I Beat Horror Movie Villains Without Weapons?
Every man thinks he can beat up a bear, or has at least theory-crafted how to do it. I recently made a post about how I would fare in various post-apocalyptic worlds. Well, I liked that idea so much, I decided to do it with me fighting against horror movie villains, and is there a
Can I Beat Horror Movie Villains Without Weapons? Read More »
Every man thinks he can beat up a bear, or has at least theory-crafted how to do it.
I recently made a post about how I would fare in various post-apocalyptic worlds. Well, I liked that idea so much, I decided to do it with me fighting against horror movie villains, and is there a way to celebrate Halloween better than with senseless violence and stupid scenarios?
ground rules
The villains cannot be armed. I know the idea of a horror villain is that they sneak up on you. I am drawing the line with weapons since it would make it less of a true test. They also can’t sneak up on me. I’m trying to assess how I would fare in a horror movie. I would die to everybody if we allowed stealth and weapons, which is why they do not count.
Supernatural powers are okay.
A bit about me
190 cm ≈ 6’3”
100 kg ≈ 220 lbs
I weight train and used to box years ago, my condition is not as good as it once was, but I don’t think these fights are going to go the distance. Let’s start the madness and see how I stack up against pure Evil.
The match ups
Kayako Saeki (Ju-On / The Grudge)
The second I would hear the death rattle, I would shit myself in fright. This would create a negative starting point that would spiral my chances, leaving me helpless and smelling really bad. Also, she is not a person I can hit, but a manifestation of a curse. She would drag me into the void, and I would die. Before she does so, I would try and sing. I want it that way for her. It’s a long shot, but it just might work.
Winning chance 0%
Sadako Yamamura (Ringu)
I don’t own a VHS, so she might never get to me. Also, I always thought I would just turn the TV against a wall and see how she handles that.
I used to think I could take her on, until I saw the movie and learned she can MANIFEST PEOPLE’S DEATH! So she can just think of me dying, and I would. I think that skews the odds a bit. Also, like Kayako, I don’t actually think I could hit her even if I got close.
The curse of the tape is basically what determines it; once you watch the tape, your fate is sealed. Tough luck.
Winning chance 0%
Death (Final Destination)
Don’t be silly
Winning chance 0%
Asami Yamazaki (Audition)
I don’t want to beat up a small Asian woman, but after their previous losses I have to go all out in this one. I think I take this easily since she is a small Asian women and I am a big guy with viking ancestors. She could whisper something sweet in my ear, but I’m not falling for cheap tricks here.
Winning chance 100%
Pazuzu (The Exorcist)
This is a lose-lose. Either I die and get killed by a demon child, or I beat up the host in which case the demon is still not defeated, and I just beat a child. The truth is multiple grown men struggle to hold her down, plus she can projectile vomit all over me. That would surely throw me off my game. She gets her in a headlock, and she can just twist her head.
Winning chance 10%
The Creeper (Jeepers Creepers)
This guy rips through the roof of a car and lifts a man by the top of his head and then decapitates him. He also does a freaking backflip and parkour over a var, meaning he agile as fuck. He also survives getting run over by a car multiple times. Granted, the creature is actually the parasite on the back of his head, he can take damage so it’s not impossible.
Winning Chance: 17%
Pinhead (Hellraiser)
The Cenobites are into pain and suffering, so he might just like the fact that I punched him. Jesus wept. I don’t think I stand a chance here.
Winning chance 0%
Candyman (Candyman)
The jury is out on whether I can actually punch him since he is a ghost. He doesn’t have his claw, but still I might die from a bee attack. Yet would he even hit me? Is he a fighter like that?
Winning chance: No idea
The Xenomorph (Alien)
How is someone with a fear of heights even getting into SPACE?
Winning chance 0%
The Predator
If it bleeds, we can kill it well, shit, I bleed too, and he’s literally invincible at the start.
Winning chance: 1%
Jigsaw / John Kramer (Saw)
Finally, another W, part of me feels bad for beating up an old, terminally ill person, but that man is a mass murderer who traps people in death traps. He stands no chance. My strategy is to run full speed into him knocking him down and starting to wail at him.
PS I’m beating up the doll too
Winning chance 100%
Ghostface (Scream)
Without a knife, those guys are just people in clunky costumes with a mask that make it hard to see. I’m going to win this for sure. These guys fall over furniture all the time.
winning chance: 88%
Chucky (Child’s Play)
Dude, it’s a doll, I’ll grab his leg and slam him against a wall until he is destroyed. What are we doing? Surely he can’t do anything without his knife and the element of surprise.
He might bite me or try and run into spaces I could not get to in order to jump me.
Though the second he jumps, I’ll just grab him out of the air since he is a DOLL MADE OF PLASTIC. still a chance for an upset.
Winning chance: 100%
Leatherface (The Texas Chain Saw Massacre)
Listen without the element of surprise, and his chainsaw, Leatherface is a violent brute with no skills. I will estimate him to have a similar build to mine. I think Leahterface can get tired, my plan is to dance around him, hitting him with jabs, keeping my distance. In the film, he seems….Mentally challenged, so that might be a strength or a weakness. There is a chance he might rush me, should he take the fight to the ground, I’m toast. I think I can outlast him.
Winning chance: 50%
Pennywise the Dancing Clown (IT)
My biggest fear is dying alone. How are you going to manifest that, Pennywise?
If kids can beat him up, then so can I, for sure.
I’m also not afraid of clowns. There is still the chance he scares me with something deep in my soul. He might use that big mouth of his to eat me, but his targets are primarily kids, which tells me he ain’t shit.
Winning chances: 80%
Art the Crown (Terrifier)
I’m going to channel my hatred for the Terrifier movie to kick the shit out of Art.
In the film Art clearly has trouble fighting a woman and has to shoot her with a gun. Without that gun, he would be getting a beating. He also seems like a thin, lanky guy with little muscle and strength.
Winning chances: 90%
Norman Bates (Psycho)
A twink mammas boy in a wig got nothing on me boy. In the film, he gets overpowered by the private detective super easily, and I am bigger and stronger. Bates seems to lack a lot of strength. He might win if I trip and bang my head on the way to him.
winning chance: 99%
Hannibal Lecter (The Silence of the Lambs)
If I let him talk, he might get the upper hand, convincing me to swallow my tongue, or he might stall me enough to get the jump on me and bite my face off. He does seem to come out of physical situations relatively easily. That being said, he is still an old man with no combat training nor strength. If I scream and rush, then I could easily win.
For the victory meal, I’ll eat some liver with Fava Beans and a Nice Chianti
Winning chances: 88%
Freddy Krueger (A Nightmare on Elm Street)
He is technically dead, so I can’t beat him. The only place I can fight him is in dreams, and he definitely has the upper hand there. Freddy reincarnates every single sequel, so my victory should it happen, would be short.
Winning chances: 1%
Jason Voorhees (Friday the 13th)
Jason is king of the slashers, an undead, super-powerful being who can catch me even when he just walks. Jason can crush a man’s head with his bare hands. Did I mention he is already dead?
Winning chances: 0%
Michael Myers (Halloween)
Almost the same as Jason, but Michael is a human and thus my chances are inherently not zero since I could get a lucky hit. Michael is strong, stronger than me that’s for sure and he is bulletproof.
Winning chances: 4%
Count Dracula (Dracula)
There is only one Dracula, and that is Bela Lugosi, so that is who I’m fighting
First of all, he can only fight at night, so I could stall him out. There’s very little onscreen evidence that he’s physically strong at all. In fact, most of his menace comes from presence, hypnosis, and atmosphere, and I can take on a guy whose vibes are off.
He has this hypnotizing ability, but I doubt it will work on me for whatever reason. In the book, he is described as having the strength of twenty men, so I will take my L, but I think I could take him.
Winning chances: 10%
The Wolfman
In the movie Wolfman struggles to overpower a normal man and is later killed by him, with a weapon true, but still I honestly think i can take him.
Winning chances: 55%
Frankensteins monster (Frankenstein)
He is big and really strong. My best chance is to befriend him, and when he likes me enough to put his guard down, I’ll set him on fire. It’s a long shot for sure
Winning chances: 5%
Gill Man (the creature from the black lagoon)
In the movie, he collapses after being on land away from water for too long. I could run down the clock and wait for him to collapse. He doesn’t seem so fast either. Surely I can beat a fish man out of his element.
Winning chances: 70
The Invisible Man (The Invisible Man)
In the film, he lifts people and is clearly a strong man; however, he would have to fight me naked for me to not see him. This would create a mental advantage for me since I don’t believe anybody fights well naked against another man. The film takes place in winter with a lot of snow. This means I can stall, and he will freeze to death, or I can see his footprints in the snow. I honestly think I can take him mostly because he is played by Claude Rains, and he is a tiny man compared to me.
Winning chances: 50%
Terrifier is bad
Evil has many faces. Evil comes with many shapes and sizes. With so many choices for good horror it seems strange to always return to the creepy clown stereotype. Clowns are indeed a creepy bunch, but are they truly that bad? The fear of clowns is called Coulrophobia, yet it affects a very small number
Evil has many faces. Evil comes with many shapes and sizes. With so many choices for good horror it seems strange to always return to the creepy clown stereotype.
Clowns are indeed a creepy bunch, but are they truly that bad? The fear of clowns is called Coulrophobia, yet it affects a very small number of people. Most people don’t actually have a phobia for clowns, but are more so just unsettled by them. The famous serial killer John Wayne Gacy was properly the first person to put the fear of clowns into the public. Afterward the Stephen King’s IT would hit the shelves and become a bestseller, thus further strengthening the creepy clown stereotype. There have been a lot of B-movies where the clown is the killer, but most of them are relatively unknown.However, in 2016 a new creepy clown would hit the fringes of the horror movie audience. This one by the name of Art the Clown in the movie Terrifer. At the time of this writing there have been released 3 movies in the franchise and still counting. It is not a stretch to imagine it growing and growing in the same way saw did back in the day.
The appeal of Terrifier is simple and straightforward. The point is to show as much gore and blood as possible. Art the clown also has a very distinctive look and demeanor that is easy to recognize at a glance. The various insane kills can be shared easily through social media creating some curiosity about the film, which is also how I came to know of the film.
If you like that sort of thing then congratulations you will like this movie, if you hate all horror movies then you are going to hate this film. I am a horror movie fan and I found the movie to be absolutely dreadful. Now, I am not a fan of blood and gore at all, so maybe I should have stayed clear of the movie. I am of the opinion that a good movie is a good movie period! And that even movies in genres you don’t like can be good if made properly.
It might seem hard to say the film is bad when it does exactly what it sets out to and yes in that regard it is a success, but that is not the same as the movie having quality. There are no characters worth anything, no plot or set up to anything. All the characters are meatbags for Art to kill. This is in my opinion what is biggest problem with the film.
The slasher trope and why it matters
In the slasher movie the trope is to establish a group of young people who at some points encounter the slasher killer. Usually the group is young and horny and the girl who abstains from the pleasures of the flesh is the one left alive, the so-called “final girl” trope.
It is important to stress that movies off course don’t have to follow any kind of guideline or trope, but it is important to understand the tropes, what they do and why they become tropes, so you can skillfully break them later.
The final girl trope is good because you establish a main character who we want to see live. Halloween is effective because we want Jamie Lee Curtis to survive. By having a main character too rude for. We become more invested and the scary parts feel way more scary since we WANT to see her live. In Terrifier the characters are established and then killed off in a scene later, there is a vague idea of who we are supposed to follow, but we have no reason to care rather she lives or dies. The goal of the film thus becomes: how many different and fucked up ways can Art kill people. And the answer to that is a lot, but it makes for a shallow viewing experience. At one point who we believe to be the final girl is replaced and the role changes. This can work like in Psycho, but it is not easy to “change” the main character like that. There is a twist at the end regarding this new final girl and to be fair I did kind of like it. In fact it was the only thing I liked about the film.
The truth is Art is properly the main character. He is the one we follow, and he is the one the franchise is built up around. Again the point is not the characters, story or plot, or the filmmaking, it’s the core. At least Saw had something to say. This film seems like a sorry excuse for sadism.
Where the fuck are we?
In slasher films as in real estate location is key. Normally the slasher is loose at a remote geographical area. Like the street Jamie Lee Curties lives on in halloween, or Elm Street, or Bates motel, or crystal Lake. Terrifier takes place within an abandoned apartment complex where a delusional homeless woman who thinks a plastic doll is her child is just hanging around with the purpose of being creepy i guess.
Here is the thing. The location is not really a problem, it is not iconic or anything. It does feel a little random that the two girls just so happen to park where Art is and he in turn slashes their tires. It seems a little random. I guess the idea is that he planned for it all, but since Art has no voice lines we can’t really determine if he did plan it or not.
His plan was to go to a random pizza place where 2 girls just so happen to be. He would walk in to be creepy and to shit all over the place and in turn be removed from the premises. How would he know which car they were driving? Maybe it’s just stupid horror logic, but I can’t help but to feel like everything is a little too random.
Wait, he has a gun?!?!?
Art the Clown is a classic slasher villain. He uses a variety of different tools and weapons. Knives, hammers, saws, you name it. Classic stuff for a slasher. The one thing Art doesn’t have is physical strength, he struggles throughout the film with fighting the girls. At one point Art is being beaten by the main girl. She is hitting him with a piece of wood and he is lying on the floor. in a twist on the slasher genre Art pulls out a gun and straight up shoots the girl.
This is an attack on genre conventions if I ever saw one. The idea that a slasher killer would have a gun feels totally unexpected and a little cheap. It feels like Art is cheating; he breaks the convention on what is a normal slasher and it feels super bad to watch since it doesn’t feel like a deserved kill. This is, however, also kind of great. Art is making up for his lack of strength with a gun just in case this would happen. It is also so unexpected that I couldn’t help but to be a tiny bit impressed with the sheer surprise and shock. I don’t hope having a gun becomes something more horror films do since I do think it kills some of the tendons. It’s a trick you can use once.
How to survive the apocalypse
Let’s be honest: the world is going to shit. All those post-apocalypse stories we used to treat as fiction? Starting to feel like prep manuals. It seems like everybody has an idea of how they would fare in such a world, but all that is still speculation. You are in luck because here is a
Let’s be honest: the world is going to shit. All those post-apocalypse stories we used to treat
as fiction? Starting to feel like prep manuals.
It seems like everybody has an idea of how they would fare in such a world, but all that is still speculation.
You are in luck because here is a breakdown on how yours truly would survive in the different apocalypse worlds. I’m going to explore the survivability in various post-apocalyptic worlds. From Fallout to Mad Max, I will also be recommending some of the best apocalypse movies and books.
So, in the spirit of grim optimism, here’s how I’d survive in a variety of world-ending scenarios, or more accurately, how quickly I’d die in each one. This is a humorous apocalypse survival guide ranking my odds in Mad Max, Fallout, The Road, and more. Spoiler: I’m not making it far.
Mad Max: Fury Road
Awful time. I do not work well when it’s hot. I am from the north after all. The moment the temperature rises above 25 degrees, I take a siesta for the entire day. Fighting gang members who shoot fire from their guitars seems like a lost cause at the best of times. Doing it when the weather is so hot is going to be a problem. That, combined with very little water, and you might just find me hiding under a rock waiting for the world to go back to normal.
Survival chance 3/10
The Road
Dude, if I lived in a world written by Cormac McCarthy, I think I would bow out from the start. This world is so bleak and devastating, I think my natural will to live would eat me up inside.
It does seem like a world where you can walk instead of run, which is good for me.
Honestly, I would probably get killed off straight away by other people, or starve to death since my survival skills are nonexistent.
The book is very good and devastating. It’s definitely a must-read by the master himself.
Survival chance 2/10
Children of Men
Now here we go. If Michael Caine can grow old in that world, then so can I.
I can definitely see myself growing old in a cabin in the woods or an apartment in the city while listening to Pink Floyd. In that aspect, things aren’t so different then what my life is like right now. Sure, a stray bomb could take me out, but compared to The Road, this world actually has people, even old ones, which makes it feel survivable. One of the better options, no doubt..
Survival chance 9/10
A quiet place
I talk too much as it is. There is very little chance I would not be one of the first to go.
Though after the initial wave of death, I could see myself surviving for some time. That being said, I am fond of talking to myself, so again I might just have to tape my mouth together. Also, I am reliant on other people here, since I would have to have a little farm somewhere isolated.
Survival chance 4/10
I am legend
This one really depends on which version I’m in. The movie version has these fast, scary zombies who would absolutely tear me to shreds within a second. The movie version also has Will Smith, and for fear of getting my head slapped, I think I’ll just stay clear of that one.
The book version is way better. In that the enemy is vampires who taunt the main character. The book leans way more into the psychology of being isolated, yet with a talking threat just outside. The book also has a great twist at the end compared to the straightforward film version.
Survival chance Book: 5/10 Movie 2/10
Snowpiercer
I love riding trains. Watching the landscape pass by as I press my big head against the window is something I have loved since I was a child. For Snowpiercer, I am probably going to be in the lower end of the train, those who eat cockroaches. Insects do have protein, to be fair. What would bother me is that I couldn’t stop talking about the train’s class structure. It’s hard enough living with capitalism right now; imagine what it would be like on a train going around forever.
In the movie, the lower class revolts, and that’s where people die. If that happened, I’d probably be the one who dies. But if we just sat and chilled, I think I could get pretty old. The movie even shows old people, so you can get old on the train.
Survival chance 8/10
The Walking Dead
I’d 100% join a gang that thinks they had it all figured out, only to end up being shot or eaten mere hours after being formed.
Survival chance 1/10
The Stand
Those endless council meetings would be the death of me way before the disease; I would simply die of boredom. Also, the stand takes place in America, and with the current political climate in the U,S I think I would rather try and swim back to Europe or migrate to Canada.
Survival chance 5/10
Parable of Sorrow
If I were a hyper-intelligent young black woman, I might have a chance, but I’m not, so I don’t. Someone would probably steal the gun I don’t have and kill me. There are older people in the story, so surviving seems possible.
Parable of Sorrow is an excellent speculative fiction novel by Octavia E. Butler about a young girl navigating a post-apocalyptic world. It is clever, full of fascinating observations about society, philosophy, and religion, and it never feels too heavy to read.
Survival chance 6/10
Fallout
For this one, I’ve left my vault. Otherwise, I’d just stay put, but if you know Fallout, you know the vaults always collapse eventually, so the wastelands are safer.
I’d definitely die as a lone wanderer, torn apart by a deathclaw, a raider, a giant bug, or maybe acid rain.
I could join a gang or work the New Vegas strip for protection, but that’s not ideal. The Brotherhood would reject me instantly. There are simply too many ways to die in Fallout. Even as a farmer, the deck feels stacked against me. That said, there are plenty of old people around, so survival is possible. If I stayed put in a town, I might actually last a while.
Survival chance 5/10
Horizon Zero Down
I am not a strong, independent woman, so I’m properly going to sit back in a village and chill.
Robot dinosaurs are too much for me, man.
Survival chance 5/10
Frost punk
Hell nah. Isn’t the point that everyone dies there? It’s too cold and hostile. Also, if I’m in charge, like I would be if I’m playing, well then, we should all just jump in the furnace at the start.
Survival chance -1/10
The last man
The Last Man is a book written by Mary Shelly, of Frankenstein fame.
The book is incredibly written. Mari Shelly has mastered the English language at such a young age that it almost hurts me.
It’s about a disease wiping out humanity, and left is the last man is left. We see his life leading up to that point, and it’s in email parts devastating and beautiful. A celebration of love and life.
Mary Shelley wrote The Last Man with such mastery that it almost hurts. It’s devastating and beautiful, a reminder to hug your loved ones now, because the future is unknowable. Forget the constant stream of bad news: focus on what matters, while you still can.
Maybe the apocalypse isn’t about surviving after all – maybe it’s just about learning to live before it comes.
Survival chance 10/10
- Go live life
The Absence of Good: Why Modern Movies Feel Bad
What makes a film truly bad, and what makes it genuinely good? We have been trained for decades to think in binaries. Since Siskel and Ebert famously reduced movies to a simple thumbs up or thumbs down, we have been conditioned to judge films as either good or bad. I want to offer a different
What makes a film truly bad, and what makes it genuinely good? We have been trained for decades to think in binaries. Since Siskel and Ebert famously reduced movies to a simple thumbs up or thumbs down, we have been conditioned to judge films as either good or bad. I want to offer a different perspective. Maybe the reason so many films today feel awful is not that they are bad in the traditional sense. Maybe it is because they simply lack anything good.
I think the reason most films are seen as “bad” is not that they are actually poorly made. Hollywood equipment is excellent. Cameras, microphones, and lighting are all top-notch. Sound design, costumes, and set pieces are competent, even if not spectacular. The people making these films know what they are doing, believe it or not.
I think a “bad” movie today is not like The Room, where everything is actively bad. It is shot badly, it is acted badly, and it is poorly written. Of course, there are still genuinely bad movies being made. The new War of the Worlds is a prime example.
Get it? Prime? – Moving on
I think the biggest problem today is that most films are made for streaming, with the goal of producing as much shallow content as possible to inflate the libraries of streaming services. Many of these movies are created according to a checklist. You see this a lot in the horror genre. The Nun 2 is a perfect example. It feels like the filmmaker had to include a scene with the demon nun, followed by a jump scare, and so on.
The real problem is not so much that things are bad; the problem is that there is an absence of good. So many films today are just middle-of-the-road and a little under. Nothing is bad enough to be truly considered as such; instead, nothing stands out at all. How many movies have you seen that just left you with, well, nothing?
Take the film The Accountant, an action movie where Ben Affleck plays a character with autism. It’s an action movie that sounds like it should be memorable, but oddly enough isn’t. I also remember watching American Assassin in theaters with Michael Keaton. The funny thing is, I remember the act of watching the film but very little of the actual film. There are more examples, but it’s hard to remember forgettable movies. On the other hand, films like Mad Max: Fury Road or Hereditary might have flaws or uneven pacing, but the highs hit hard and the lows hit low. The action sequences, the shocking moments, and the sheer audacity of some scenes stay with you long after the credits roll. That’s the difference between something that just isn’t bad and something that actually has good in it.
So many films today have simple plots, unremarkable acting, and set pieces we have seen a hundred times. There are only so many stories to tell, so the goal is not to be completely original but to create something that stands out. Too often, you finish a movie and cannot remember a single moment once the credits roll or after closing your streaming service.
My favorite example is Fullmetal Alchemist. I personally like the 2003 version more than Brotherhood. I do think Brotherhood is better overall, but the 2003 version has bigger highs and lower lows. I tend to prefer media that takes risks and reaches for something memorable, rather than media that simply avoids being bad. How you decide which version is better says a lot about how you perceive films and storytelling.
Many movies today lack anything truly memorable, leaving the viewing experience shallow and forgettable. You could argue that such films are inherently bad because they have nothing good to show, and I wouldn’t disagree. The real problem is that they never aim for anything remarkable.
The problem is that in the age of streaming, movies tend to look like a grey mass on TV. How is anybody supposed to find the hidden gems when everything is just the same.
I think everybody has started watching a movie only to realize they have already seen it. This only happens when something is forgettable. After all, you don’t forget The Godfather.
What I hope to see in the future is more risk-taking. Sure, The Room fails spectacularly, but at least it is memorable. I think we are heading toward safe cinema, where nothing challenges us and nothing expands our horizons. Art is supposed to shape us and make us more well-rounded. Our goal should be to grow and challenge ourselves, not stay the same, consuming comfort.
For those who come after: A piece of gold from Clair Obscur expedition 33
Clair Obscur expedition 33 is a game that includes some real wisdom, further making the case for the idea that video games can be art. The game is an absolute masterpiece from start to finish. This post will only focus on 1 little nugget of wisdom that actually works as self-improvement, again furthering the idea
For those who come after: A piece of gold from Clair Obscur expedition 33 Read More »
Clair Obscur expedition 33 is a game that includes some real wisdom, further making the case for the idea that video games can be art. The game is an absolute masterpiece from start to finish. This post will only focus on 1 little nugget of wisdom that actually works as self-improvement, again furthering the idea that video games have a space in the modern art world.
Every so often, a video game drops a line of dialogue that lingers long after the credits. Clair Obscur Expedition 33 does exactly that.
The main character Gustav says the following quote at some point.
“Learn from those who came before, and lay the trail for those who come after.”
This, of course, has some real-world implications. Sure, we have to make the world a better place for the next generations, a goal that, while noble, is probably not happening given how today is shaping the future.
However, I do think there is still wisdom to be gained from a micro level. This sentiment can also be applied to you as an individual.
Let’s unpack it
Learn from your past mistakes. Reflect on behavior, failed goals, and other failings, and instead of getting sad, angry, or judgmental about it, examine it. Try to make adjustments in your life based on past experiences.
The second part is lay the trail for the future you.
Why should you go to the gym? Eat healthy and go to bed at a reasonable time?
To help the future version of you. You control the future version of yourself, and they are helpless in the present moment. You have to set yourself up for success. Everything counts here, from the examples mentioned above, to household chores. You should clean your room, so future you has a nice place. You should meditate, so future you don’t have to deal with all these bad thoughts that plague you right now.
I think viewing your future self as a construct, as a person separated from you that you have to set up and lay the right trail, is a great way to make small improvements to your life.
For those who come after
War of the Worlds: When Cinema Becomes a Commercial
The new War of the Worlds movie has been panned by critics and audiences alike. As of writing this, the movie sits at a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 2.5/10 on IMDb, and a 1/5 on Letterboxd. Even a normal bad movie doesn’t get this level of hate. So why is it different now? What
War of the Worlds: When Cinema Becomes a Commercial Read More »
The new War of the Worlds movie has been panned by critics and audiences alike. As of writing this, the movie sits at a 4% on Rotten Tomatoes, a 2.5/10 on IMDb, and a 1/5 on Letterboxd. Even a normal bad movie doesn’t get this level of hate. So why is it different now? What makes this movie so bad?
First, it follows the tradition of movies set in one place with one character, or at least a limited number of characters. Movies like Buried, Locke, and Guilty all fall under this category. It was a gimmick when those films did it, and it hasn’t gotten better since.
The entire film takes place in the main character’s office. He works for the government, spying on people.
Here’s the first major hurdle.
The main character is William Radford, played by Ice Cube. Now, Ice Cube is an absolute legend of a rapper, no ands, ifs, or buts about it. However, he is not a good actor, and since he is basically reacting to stuff alone, the central performance should be occupied by a tour de force actor since the task is so demanding.
Ice Cube is not exactly at fault since most actors would struggle with this script.
The script feels like it was written by an unprompted AI. No dialogue feels natural. The plot is both an invasion movie like we know from the original story, but in truth, it’s more about how evil the government is.
The villain of the story is so one-dimensional it physically hurts me, playing into the “the government doesn’t care about the people” types to such a degree that it becomes a problem. If the government is more evil than the space-evading robots hell bent on earth destruction, then why are we even telling the story of War of the Worlds?
A side note, the aliens are ugly as sin and look like the original H.G. Wells concept had sex with an eye phone. It’s bad.
The movie also does the death fake-out a lot. A trope I despise since it waters down the danger. Essentially, there are multiple scenes of someone in danger, some reacting, thinking they died, and then it turns out they did not die. This happens 4 times, and by the end, I was rooting for the aliens to win.
The real problem
All this is well and good, but I actually think this movie is a bit overhated.
Because it is not a movie at all. It’s a commercial. A commercial for Amazon, the commercial acting and writing. Since you would never hold a commercial to the same standard as a feature film, all the criticism is a bit overdone. No one is finding plot holes in the old Billy Maze commercials, right?
The truth is, this is the only natural state of cinema. The industry has for a long time, prioritized movies made by the community to entertain rather than pushing the art form; Marvel is the big sinner here.
They push for streaming, which has gotten the films out of the movie theaters and into our living rooms. This means that the studios are now founded by the streaming services and thus, they can include as many commercials for their own products as possible.
Doing the Climax of the movie in an order on Amazon is an important plot point. We see William order a product on the Amazon website (Which still functions during an alien invasion).
The problem with War of the Worlds is that it is now on full display just how much business has taken over the art and wonder of cinema. It feels like something secret has been broken. The act of watching a movie, to escape, to grow, and to get more well-rounded as a person, is utterly destroyed when you watch something that feels like the “skip ads” feature right before you watch a YouTube video.
The worst thing about streaming: it’s not what you think
I recently saw the film The Worst Person in the World. A Norwegian film about finding your way in life and the inevitable regrets one experiences by simply being alive. It took me some time to get into it since Norwegian is a deeply silly language; however, I did like the film and it did
The worst thing about streaming: it’s not what you think Read More »
I recently saw the film The Worst Person in the World. A Norwegian film about finding your way in life and the inevitable regrets one experiences by simply being alive. It took me some time to get into it since Norwegian is a deeply silly language; however, I did like the film and it did make a big impact on me.
The ending was perfectly melancholy, and as the credits rolled, I simply sat and looked at the credits, taking in everything. I think that is a hallmark of a good piece of work. Beforehand, I would always value this feeling of staring at the credits after a good movie or game, and not do anything. I would just sit there and try to process everything that had just happened. The book equivalent is properly reading the last page over and over again in a desperate attempt to hold on to a fleeting experience of awe.
When I finished the film, I considered moments of my own life. I looked back at everything I am and what I have accomplished. And then it happened, the little box in the corner signaling the next film will play in 5 seconds. FIVE SECONDS! Where did I even put the remote? Everything is dark as well. I just saw a movie after all. Now I’m panicking, trying to find the remote in the dark. I find it, but way too late, the other film has just started and i’m now a minute into a film that is clearly not as good.
Two days later, I saw another film, it was The Holdovers. It too was very good and all. It too had an emotional connection and then the same freaking thing happened. Why do we insist on forcing films down our throats as if it was content? It’s because greedy millionaires want to squeeze every penny out of every situation. If I stay on the streaming service, what pay more? IT’S A SUBSCRIPTION!
The problem is that instead of connecting with things on a deeper emotional level to ground out people and make them whole, we instead go for quick and shallow consumption. This is a digital problem. When I turn the last digital page of my E-book, it instantly pops up with a “more from the author” page. I have no choice. When I finish an audiobook, it goes straight into a preview.
Silence is such an important thing for humans to develop. Most people are not even capable of sitting alone in silence in a room. How do you grow without knowing what you want in life? We have a crisis of meaning, of course we do, you can’t find meaning if you are constantly bombarded with stimuli. We use podcasts and endless playlists to constantly drown out the silence.
Instead of making podcasts and content more like art, we have instead made art into content. Actually, that is not true art; the film is still good art, the medium around it is like content. If you don’t sit and connect to higher pieces by instantly move to the next one. Imagine going to a museum to see some of the most beautiful paintings, and you watch all the paintings on screen like an Instagram reel.
We are fostering a culture of apathy where good movies are not appreciated since the goal is to keep consuming. A common criticism you hear is that movies are bad now, well no shit they have to make so much junk to the endless content machine, it’s like saying most tik toks are bad now, well doh off course they are, they are made to be, and I don’t want to live in world with crap movies with the solve purpose is to simply “watch the next one”
When You Go Against the Canon: My Case Against Paris, Texas
Paris, Texas is considered a masterpiece of cinema and one of the all-time greats. It comfortably sits in the canon of great movies with a Rotten Tomato score of 95% and a letterboxed score of 4.2/ 5, it has also been rewarded with the mark of “great film” by legendary film critic Roger Ebert, a
When You Go Against the Canon: My Case Against Paris, Texas Read More »
Paris, Texas is considered a masterpiece of cinema and one of the all-time greats. It comfortably sits in the canon of great movies with a Rotten Tomato score of 95% and a letterboxed score of 4.2/ 5, it has also been rewarded with the mark of “great film” by legendary film critic Roger Ebert, a title only a handful of films have received.
I am a fan of subtle arthouse films and I do not inherently hate slow-moving films, yet Paris, Texas rubbed me the wrong way. Since the film has been so beloved for so many years I find it safe to aim some criticism at it since great works should be able to withstand criticism.
The Good
Before I take my mighty criticism hammer and smash down on the film I will be fair and highlight some things the movie does well.
First off, the movie is shot and directed well. The scene at the end with Travis´ reflection imposed on his wife via the mirror is a 10/10 shot. The film has plenty of impressive shots, the opening with Travis walking in the desert is also very well-framed especially when he walks on the tracks.
The scene with Travis and Hunter walking home together is among one of the best father-son moments in cinema. It’s an incredible scene showcasing how much Travis cares and tries to connect with his son (This will be important later).
Harry Dean Stanton’s performance is absolutely incredible; he manages to say so much without saying anything. It is truly one of the greatest performances I have ever seen.
Wandering in the desert and empty metaphors
The film opens with Travis walking in the desert. The reason I GUESS is to show that he is walking away from something rather than walking toward something. His past is full of regret and trauma which is also the reason he doesn’t speak. The wandering in the desert is thus more of a metaphor yet we do not know this so it is only by a post-watch analysis we can conclude any of this. This is of course not really the issue since all films should be analyzed that way.
The problem is that you introduce a character with a metaphorical action with no context of why he is walking, who he is, and what has happened before. Without context, the whole metaphor feels empty and hollow.
Other examples
Eraserhead has something similar at the beginning, with the main character walking through a desolate industrial landscape. But in that film, everything is about mood. The sound design, the imagery, and the performances all work together. You understand right away that you are in a nightmare space where reality bends and the entire experience is metaphor. The film commits fully to that approach from the first frame.
In Possession, metaphors are central too. The film starts in a grounded, realistic way with a couple dealing with the breakdown of their marriage. But it is shot in such an off-putting and almost hysterical style that you sense something deeper is going on. As the film progresses into surreal horror, the tone fully supports this transition. The metaphors do not come out of nowhere, the film earns them through its visual and emotional language.
In The Lighthouse, the tone is set instantly. The 4:3 aspect ratio, black and white cinematography, mythic performances, and soundscape tell you this is not realism. This is a folkloric and psychological descent into madness. The film’s metaphors, such as the light, the mermaids, and the seabirds, all feel cohesive with the world that has been created.
The key difference is this. These films teach the audience how to watch them from the very beginning. Paris, Texas does not. It begins with a metaphor-heavy sequence of Travis wandering the desert, but shot in a realist and grounded style, with no clear signal that we are meant to read it as allegory. The tone of the rest of the film remains inconsistent with this opening, which makes the metaphor feel disconnected rather than integrated.
Travis also refuses to speak, but only until his brother gets mildly irritated by it. His selective muteness is dropped without any drama or explanation. Some have said it’s about the trauma of his past, but REAL trauma doesn’t work like that. You can’t just decide to speak after a traumatic event.
The first 20 minutes serve as setup — not for the characters or the plot, but for the film’s own mood and aesthetic. It feels like a director telling us how important the movie is before earning it.
This movie is definitely the type to smell its own farts. The whole beginning comes off as and I will say it….Pretentious.
My interpretation and how the dessert scene works for me
When Travis comes back he is kinda awkward around other people and Hunter. The dessert wandering is more a metaphor for being an absent father, that is kinda clever and I do feel the metaphor makes sense in that regard. This is of course upon reflection.
Had the film committed more fully to this metaphor, visually and structurally, it could have deepened the entire experience.
The American dream is NOT A THEME HERE MAN!
I have heard some say the film is about criticizing the American dream. However the film does not consider this theme at all, the film is obviously about family dynamics and what makes someone your family blood or caring?
Sure Travis has bought some land in Paris Texas, but this plot threat is dropped in the same scene it’s introduced. Saying the movie is a critique of the American is the laziest praise heaped upon a film I have ever seen. The movie is only interested in family emotions and never material things. It must be something lesser critics have said to sound smart, just like the film itself.
It's called show don't tell, is it not?!
So we are supposed to take away from the movie that Travis is not fit to be a father to his son Hunter.
The problem is that we are only shown Travis being a kind and warm father to Hunter. The mentioned scene before when he walks with him from school, the scene with him and Hunter watching old home movies and talking via walkie-talkies.
Yet we are told that he is not fit to be a father, but it’s called show don’t tell is it not? If we were told Travis hated pickles and throughout the film he eats one in every scene then we would not trust what we are told, since action talk is way louder than words, both in stories and in people.
When Travis backs out of Jane and Hunter’s new relationship since he is not a stable element the film shoots itself in the foot since it has shown him being stable through the film. It is true that in his past (which we again are only told or Hunter about) he was not fit to become a father.
So Subtle it forgot to actually say anything at all
This is a subjective point here, but I found the film to be too long and it really started to drag toward the end. The mirror scene with Travis and Jane is a masterclass in framing and how they both at separate times turn away from the other and then they tell their stories is so wonderful, however, I was so drained by the frankly over-slow pacing.
I’m a fan of arthouse films and as I said in the beginning I do not hate slow burns. I am also a very big fan of subtlety in film. I often find myself frustrated when a piece of media spells out everything. The thing with Paris, Texas is that I found it to be so subtle it hardly managed to say anything at all.
The film is also only truly appreciated when it’s over and you can reflect on it. That being said, I’m often very good at recognizing why something is popular and part of the cinematic canon, this one ultimately, Paris, Texas feels less like a deep film and more like a film trying very hard to seem deep. For me, that’s not enough.
Conclusion
Paris, Texas is not a bad film — it’s beautifully shot, well-acted, and has moments of genuine power. But for me, it’s a film that tries so hard to be important that it forgets to simply tell its story. I love subtlety in cinema, but this was subtle to the point of saying almost nothing at all. Maybe that works for others. It didn’t work for me. And that’s okay. Great films should be able to handle a little criticism now and then.
A Tale of Two Scenes: FMA 2003 vs Brotherhood
Yes I know, I know! I have already made a comparison article comparing the original 2003 version with Brotherhood highlighting some elements that I feel make the 2003 superior. Today I’m going to do a comparison with 1 scene from both versions. I do think this scene is a microcosm of what makes 2003 the
Yes I know, I know! I have already made a comparison article comparing the original 2003 version with Brotherhood highlighting some elements that I feel make the 2003 superior. Today I’m going to do a comparison with 1 scene from both versions. I do think this scene is a microcosm of what makes 2003 the superior version to Brotherhood.
I am kinda counting on you to have already seen at least one version of FMA, if not here is a brief breakdown. Roy Mustang and Riza Hawkeye have just attended Maes Hughes’s funeral, it’s very emotional with everybody being all sad, the same goes for the audience by the way. Hughes was such a good character and losing him hurt us as much as the characters in the show. Also, Hughes was Roy’s best friend.
After the funeral Roy and RIza are standing alone looking at his grave. It is early evening the sun going down and casting a golden ray, there are no clouds out, which is important.
Brotherhood
In FMA Brotherhood Roy puts on his hat covering his eyes and says “It’s a terrible day for rain”. Riza, confused, looks to the sky and says “What do you mean? It’s not raining”
A single tear slides down Roys’s chin as he says “Yes it is”. It cuts to a shot of them from the back as she says “So it is”.
2003 Version
Same setup, Roy and Riza are standing at the grave. In the 2003 version, the colors are more muted and you do not get the golden light from the sun like in Brotherhood. The music in 2003 is more noticeable and somber, adding to the mood without feeling overbearing or manipulative
Another interesting detail is that Roy is standing at the grave and Riza is standing behind him to the side. Roy puts on his hat, and we cut to a close-up of Riza looking down waiting for Roy to process his emotions. We then hear Roy talk while the camera is still on Roy as he says. “It’s starting to rain”. Riza looks surprised at the start, but she doesn’t look up and instead of looking around or at the sky she simply looks at Roy and says “yes”.
We then cut back to Roy framed with more of this face hidden since she is looking at him from an ankle and as we cut back the tear is already on his chin.
These 2 scenes accomplish the same thing: it’s a melancholy moment for Roy as he comes to terms with his best friend’s death. However, as I have laid it out here and as I have seen these scenes again, it’s clear to me just how much better the 2003 version is.
The strength of the 2003 version is subtlety. The Brotherhood version spells out things too much. Having Riza be all confused and say that it doesn’t rain until she sees him is a profound display of missing the point of the scene. The scene is supposed to be a subtle small emotional moment in a grander narrative. The Brotherhood version has so much more stuff to get to, so this scene feels rushed. Having RIza acknowledge what he is talking about while already having a tear on his cheek as we cut back is a masterful display of subtle storytelling.
Having them stand further apart also works on multiple levels.
It could be that their relationship is more professional and that they will be growing closer throughout the story.
It could also be a subtle way of showing that Riza is giving him (literally) space for his emotions and the hard time he is in.
Both scenes work, but the 2003 version manages to say so much without actually saying anything.