Topics

[John Wick: Chapter 4 (March 2023)]

2022 was pretty much the worst year ever for western cinema. I've been saying for the past few years that Hollywood is creatively in the worst state it's ever been, and some film buffs are even calling this era the Dark Age of movies. But 2023 can't be as bad, right? There are some definite stinkers heading our way, like Indiana Jones's Direful Destiny. But there are a few films I'm looking forward to. In the interests of starting the year on a positive note, here are some films I plan on seeing in 2023.

John Wick: Chapter 4 (March 2023)

John Wick is one of the two best American action movie franchises around these days. I enjoyed the previous three films a lot and I'm looking forward to this one. Great fight choreography and stunt work, distinctive visual flair, and a healthy sense of humour should make this another strong addition to the series.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie (April 2023)

I've been a big Nintendo fan since I was a kid (I'm presently extremely hyped about Fire Emblem: Engage and The Legend of Zelda: Tears of the Kingdom, both of which I've pre-ordered), and I even went to see the live action Super Mario Bros. movie back in 1993. I don't know if this new film is going to be any good. The animation looks decent, but I don't like the studio behind it or some of the casting choices. However my eldest nephew has his heart set on seeing it, so I'll probably tag along. I'm not confident it'll be good, but I will see it.

The Flash (June 2023)

One word renders this unmissable: Keaton. This film might be terrible, but I'm still hyped and I'll definitely catch it on the big screen.

Mission: Impossible – Dead Reckoning Part One (July 2023)

I said John Wick was one of the two best modern American action movie franchises. Mission: Impossible is the other. I've seen every instalment of this franchise on the big screen, going right back to the first movie in 1996, and I won't be missing this one. Cruise knocked it out of the park with Top Gun: Maverick, and I'm sure he'll deliver some equally impressive thrills and breathtaking stunts in this. Dead Reckoning and John Wick 4 should be the two standout action movies of 2023.

How Do You Live? (July 2023)

I don't know much about this, but it's an animated feature film from Studio Ghibli and director Hayao Miyazaki. That's reason enough for me to see it.

Oppenheimer (July 2023)

Christopher Nolan's latest film boasts a strong cast and fascinating subject matter. Nolan said he wanted to recreate the atomic bomb blast using practical special effects. I've no idea how a filmmaker goes about doing that, but I'm excited to see the results. This should be one of the year's best historical dramas.

Dune: Part 2 (November 2023)

I read all of Frank Herbert's Dune novels back when I was a teenager. I've seen all the previous screen adaptations, played through most of the videogames, and I'm a long-time fan of the franchise. I've been waiting years for a good new screen adaptation of the first book, and barring one or two minor quibbles I was largely satisfied with Denis Villeneuve's 2021 film. If the second movie matches the quality of the first, then this will likely be the best science fiction film of 2023.

Killers of the Flower Moon (? 2023)

Directed by Martin Scorsese, this historical crime drama centres on an FBI investigation set in 1920s Oklahoma. It's adapted from the book of the same name by David Grann, and the cast includes Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Brendan Fraser and John Lithgow. It sounds promising.


There are some other films I'm potentially interested in seeing this year, but also wary of. These include Creed III, The Expendables IV and The Exorcist. I've enjoyed previous entries in all of those franchises, but I'm not sold on these latest instalments. I'll probably see them eventually, but I might wait until I can watch them for free on television. I'm sceptical about all of them.

What about everyone else? Which movies are you most looking forward to in 2023?

A new animated film adapted from the Lovecraft-inspired Elseworlds story is coming out next spring.

From The Hollywood Reporter:

The Dark Knight is headed to the 1920s in Batman: The Doom That Came to Gotham, with A Million Little Things actor David Giuntoli starring as Batman.

The actor leads a voice cast that includes Tati Gabrielle as Kai Li Cain, Christopher Gorham as Oliver Queen, John DiMaggio as James Gordon, Patrick Fabian as Harvey Dent, Brian George as Alfred, and Jason Marsden as Dick Grayson and Young Bruce Wayne.

The film is inspired by the 2001 graphic novel by Mike Mignola, Richard Pace and Troy Nixey. It is part of DC's Elseworlds line, which tells stories set outside the DC universe. Sam Liu produces and co-directs, with Christopher Berkeley also co-directing. The film has a script from Jase Ricci.

In Doom That Came to Gotham, explorer Bruce Wayne accidentally unleashes an ancient evil, and returns to Gotham after being away for two decades. Batman battles Lovecraftian supernatural forces and encounters allies and enemies such as Green Arrow, Ra's al Ghul, Mr. Freeze, Killer Croc, Two-Face and James Gordon.

Other members of the cast include Karan Brar as Sanjay "Jay" Tawde; David Dastmalchian as Grendon; Navid Negahban as Ra's al Ghul; Emily O'Brien as Talia al Ghul and Martha Wayne; Tim Russ as Lucius Fox; Matthew Waterson as Jason Blood/Etrigan; Jeffrey Combs as Kirk Langstrom; William Salyers as Cobblepot; Gideon Adlon as Oracle; and Darin De Paul as Thomas Wayne.

Jim Krieg and Kimberly S. Moreau are producing, with Sam Register and Michael Uslan executive producing.

The project, from Warner Bros. Animation, DC and Warner Bros. Home Entertainment, is expected in the spring of 2023.

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/batman-the-doom-that-came-to-gotham-cast-1235275547/

It'll be interesting to hear Jason Marsden play Dick Grayson again. Marsden previously portrayed the Burt Ward version of the character in the live action film Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt (2003).

It's also interesting to note that Jeffrey Combs is voicing Kirk Langstrom, since he's famous for starring in numerous Lovecraft adaptations.

I was going to post my thoughts on Hellraiser in response to colors' review in the 'Recommend a Movie' thread, but then I decided the franchise might as well have a thread of its own.

I'm not a big fan of Hellraiser, or Clive Barker in general, but I do find his work morbidly fascinating in the same way I find H R Giger's work interesting. I went through a phase of reading many of Barker's books back when I was a student (I read The Books of Blood Volumes I-III, The Hellbound Heart, Cabal, The Great and Secret Show, The Thief of Always, Everville, Coldheart Canyon, Mister B. Gone and several of his comics; I started reading Imajica but never finished it), and I have seen all of the movies he directed and most of the adaptations of his work. I don't like his stuff, but I do occasionally revisit it when I'm in the mood to be disturbed. The three films of his I've seen the most times are Hellraiser I and II and Candyman (1992).

The first Hellraiser film is probably the best British horror movie of the eighties, though that isn't saying much. Barker's often described his work as 'dark fantasy' rather than pure horror, and in the original Hellraiser he did a good job of suggesting a broader expansive mythology on a comparatively small budget. In the first film he offers a glimpse of another world – Hell, or the Labyrinth – and the various nightmare creatures that haunt it. Pinhead, or 'Lead Cenobite', is but one of the many weird beings who inhabit that world. The first film also introduces us to three other Cenobites, the Engineer (the monster that chases Kirsty) and the skeletal dragon creature that seems to act as the guardian of the Lament Configuration (that monster isn't in the original book, so I'm not entirely sure what it's meant to be).

But all of this is merely the backdrop for the twisted human drama concerning Larry, Frank and Julia. The emphasis on plot and character, all set within a contained environment, makes the first movie feel more focused than the majority of its sequels. Like Poltergeist, most of the story takes place in an ordinary suburban house. And like Poltergeist, that house contains a portal to another world. It's a small and concentrated film, but there's always the hint of a larger mythology at work.

The makeup effects and creature designs are outstanding. The practical effects are generally good, though the budget does occasionally reveal its limitations. Most notably during the scene where Kirsty is chased by the Engineer and you can clearly see the trolley on which the puppeteers are pushing the creature. But for the most part, it's a visually striking film. The score by Christopher Young is also excellent. Before scoring Spider-Man 3, Young contributed some pieces to the Spider-Man 2 soundtrack that heavily referenced his work on the first two Hellraiser films.

Perhaps the strangest aspect of the first Hellraiser is its weird transatlantic setting. It's clearly set in Britain, and when Kirsty walks along the Thames Embankment you can even see Battersea Power Station in the background.

Yet many of the British actors were dubbed with American accents at the behest of the US distributor, which renders the whole "we're not all frigid" conversation between Kirsty and her boyfriend rather confusing. The filmmakers took the transatlantic thing even further in the second film and depicted American cops with guns investigating the Cotton house. But to my mind, the first two films are clearly set in the UK. Larry, Frank and Kirsty are American (and possibly the Female Cenobite), but everyone else is British.

Speaking of Kirsty's boyfriend, he's utterly pointless and adds nothing to the plot. He's wasn't in the original novella, and I can only assume he was added to the adaptation in order to satisfy the requirement for a love interest. He's never even mentioned in the sequel. His presence also results in a confusing edit following the nightmare sequence. Barker cuts straight from the nightmare to a shot of the boyfriend sitting up in bed sweating, implying that it was his dream we just saw. But we then find out that it was actually Kirsty's nightmare, even though she was still asleep when the dream sequence ended. I chalk this editing gaffe up to directorial inexperience on Barker's part.

To wrap up my thoughts on the first Hellraiser, it's a pretty horrible, nasty unpleasant film that's stronger on visuals and ambience than it is on logic. There are lots of moments that don't make sense, especially during the finale. Why is Chatterer standing with a veil over his head? Why does the wall bleed when the Female Cenobite slashes it? Why does twisting part of the Lament Configuration banish Pinhead but not the other Cenobites? Why does the Engineer suddenly appear through the front door? Why was the vagrant eating bugs in the pet shop? Moments like this illustrate Barker's tendency to create things that evoke a strong gut response without necessarily making logical sense. He's appealing to the pit of your stomach rather than to your intellect. This might explain why the central themes concerning the pain-pleasure principle never landed with me. I could never relate to that subtext. But on a purely visceral level, I think the rest of the film works.

It's not a great movie, and it's certainly nowhere near the level of classics like The Exorcist (1973), but it's visually striking, viscerally effective and highly memorable.

On the trivia front, remember Frank and Julia's third victim? This poor bloke?

Well this is him five years later.

That's American stuntman Mike Cassidy, who doubled for Michael Keaton in The Squeeze (1987), Beetlejuice (1988), Pacific Heights (1990), One Good Cop (1991), Batman Returns (1992), The Paper (1994), Speechless (1994), Multiplicity (1996), Desperate Measures (1998) and Live from Baghdad (2002). He was also stunt coordinator on Return to the Batcave: The Misadventures of Adam and Burt (2003). But before any of that he was murdered by Frank Cotton.

As for the Hellraiser sequels, the only one worth watching is Hellbound: Hellraiser II (1988). This was the only other British entry in the series and was made almost immediately after the original film utilising much of the same cast and crew. It recaptures the atmosphere of the first film and feels tonally-consistent with it. Many fans consider them two halves of the same story.

Hellbound had a bigger budget than the first film, and it uses this to expand and emphasise the dark fantasy aspect of the mythos. It's the only entry in the series in which a significant part of the story takes place in Hell/the Labyrinth. We're introduced to Leviathan, the dark god of the Labyrinth, and we learn Pinhead's back story. It's even nastier and more disturbing than the first film, and the uncut version contains perhaps the most extreme hardcore violence of any eighties horror movie (that's not counting films like Cannibal Holocaust that contain real violence).

Hellbound is also a complete mess. The first film has a lot of things that don't make sense, but the second movie takes this to another level. At times the plot mechanics are incomprehensible. I won't go into specifics about this for the sake of avoiding spoilers, but if we ever have a more in-depth discussion on Hellraiser II it might be interesting to list all the logical lapses and inconsistencies in the story. A major reason it's such a mess is that the plot was originally meant to focus on Kirsty rescuing her father from Hell, but Andrew Robinson declined to return. Some speculate he didn't come back owing to a scheduling conflict or a pay dispute, while others claim that he was put off when he saw the extreme violence in the first film and didn't want to do another. Whatever the reason, his absence meant the entire story had to be rewritten. And so what should have been a plot-driven retelling of Orpheus and Eurydice instead became a Grand Guignol sketch show assembled from disjointed vignettes.

In his review, Roger Ebert said that you could watch the scenes in Hellraiser II in any order and it wouldn't make a difference. This is true of many of the film's Hell sequences, which are largely constructed around gruesome and disturbing images. Those set pieces don't generally follow on from one another in any logical sense, meaning that you could, as Ebert suggested, reorder many of them without it affecting the story. The result is a nightmare movie that scores low on plot and logic but gets top marks for imagery and atmosphere. It also seems to have been influenced by the George Lucas movie Labyrinth (1986), only with Kirsty standing in for Jennifer Connelly and Pinhead taking the place of David Bowie.

Hellbound's imaginative scope frequently outpaces its budget, and on more than one occasion you can see supposedly stone walls shaking as characters bump into them. In other scenes you can see walls rippling like paper under the effect of wind machines. The sets were obviously done on the cheap, and it shows. But I've got to give the filmmakers props for their ambition in trying to making such a big fantasy film using such relatively limited resources. I wouldn't say Hellbound II is a good film, but if you like the first movie and want to see a direct continuation that reveals more of the mythology then it's worth watching. I find it more disturbing than the original Hellraiser.

Hellraiser III: Hell on Earth (1992) is trash. It feels disconnected from the first two movies and was the first entry in the series to be made stateside. It moves away from the ambitious dark mythology of Hellbound in favour of a more reductive approach centred solely around Pinhead. There are some lame new Cenobites, but most of the film is just Pinhead acting like a typical slasher villain, killing people and cracking one liners. The gimmick with the third film is that he's now free of the Lament Configuration and thus unbound by rules, but all that does in effect is cut him off from the rest of the mythos and make him less interesting. I also hate how the writers started having him preface almost every line with the word "Oh" in an attempt to make his dialogue sound deep and portentous. Avoid this one.

Hellraiser: Bloodline (1996) is a mess that was plagued by a troubled production. It was directed by makeup effects maestro Kevin Yagher, but he was so displeased with the finished product that he had his name taken off the credits. This one does at least try to get back to the dark mythological feel of the first two films, and of all the post-Hellbound sequels it's the one that comes closest to matching their tone and atmosphere. There's a decent fan edit that's currently available on YouTube, where the editor has reordered the sequence of events, restored important deleted scenes and added music by Christopher Young. I'd recommend watching that version over the one that's commercially available. But even the fan edit can't save it entirely. Bloodline is better than Hellraiser III, but it's still nothing to write home about.

Hellraiser: Inferno (2000) was written and directed by Scott Derrickson, who later went on to make The Exorcism of Emily Rose (2005), Sinister (2012), Doctor Strange (2016) and The Black Telephone (2021). I saw it so long ago that I can barely remember it, but from what little I can recall it wasn't too terrible. It's more of a psychological horror film in which the Cenobites are used sparingly, but if you can overlook their lack of screen time it's ok.

Inferno was followed by Hellraiser: Hellseeker (2002), Hellraiser: Deader (2005), Hellraiser: Hellworld (2005) and Hellraiser: Revelations (2011). I haven't seen any of these, and I've only heard bad things about them. Apparently Ashley Laurence returns as Kirsty in Hellseeker, and Henry Cavill has an early role in Hellworld. I did see Hellraiser: Judgement (2018) when it first came out, but I can barely remember it. I haven't seen the new film yet.

So that covers my thoughts on the Hellraiser film franchise. One final thing I'll mention is a comic story titled 'The Harrowing' (Clive Barker's Hellraiser #17-18, January 1992), which was written by Barker and illustrated by Alex Ross. If you enjoyed the first two movies, then this is worth reading. It's better than the other movie sequels.

To reiterate, I'm not really a fan of this particular franchise. I've delved into it in the past, and I've still got the first two films on DVD, but I don't feel any affection towards the IP. It's a little too sadistic and nihilistic for my taste. Is anyone else on the site a fan of Hellraiser? Do you have a favourite film in the series? Did anyone bother reading The Scarlet Gospels or watching the latest film, and if so what did you think of them?

This thread is for discussion about Steven Spielberg's 1975 movie Jaws and its three sequels, but it can also be used to discuss any spinoffs or rip-offs related to the Jaws franchise.

I've mentioned before in other threads that I'm a sucker for speculative fiction with an oceanic theme. Any sci-fi, fantasy or horror story that's set by the sea, on the sea or under the sea is my kind of thing. So Jaws resonates with me big time. Duel (1971) and Jaws are Spielberg's two most Hitchcockian films, and the latter always reminds me of The Birds (1963). They're both suspense thrillers about coastal communities being terrorised by a force of nature. Only Jaws is a better film IMO, and I say that despite Hitchcock being my favourite director. Spielberg's idea of using John Williams' music to indicate the shark's presence, and thus circumvent the technical limitations of the mechanical shark itself, was a stroke of genius. It allowed Jaws to transcend being just another generic monster flick and to hook the audience's interest with suspense and drama rather than a reliance on special effects. It's a B movie concept executed with A movie skill.

The first half of the film functions like a horror or disaster movie, with the emphasis on the townsfolk gradually coming to grips with the unseen killer that's stalking them. The second half plays out more like an adventure thriller, with the three male leads setting sail to do battle with the shark in its own environment. If you class the storyline in terms of the seven basic archetypal narratives, Jaws is very much the Beowulf or 'Overcoming the Monster' plot: a community is terrorised by a monster, a hero is brought in to deal with it, the hero must learn more about the beast and then hunt it down in its own territory before ultimately slaying it in one-on-one combat.

I favour the second half of the movie over the first, mainly because I like the dynamic between Brody, Quint and Hooper as the latter two vie for alpha male status before eventually bonding over their scars. Ultimately it's Brody himself who emerges as the alpha male hero, and the image of him battling the shark with a harpoon and a rifle slung over his shoulder as he clings to the wreckage of the sinking Orca is one of the manliest images in cinematic history.

That has to be the second greatest man versus shark scene ever filmed. I think we all know what the greatest is.

The performances are strong all round, and especially those of Roy Scheider and Robert Shaw. There's also some terrific dialogue in the script. My favourite scene in the whole movie is Quint's chilling monologue about the fate of the USS Indianapolis.

I've always thought it would've been amusing if when the shark explodes, and we see its body parts sinking to the bottom of the sea, we also saw Quint's semi-digested corpse floating among them. Or at least his severed arm bearing the Indianapolis tattoo. But the first Jaws film is too classy to do something like that. It might have made a funny twist at the end of Jaws: The Revenge though – if the shark blew up and Quint's arm was expelled from its stomach, revealing that it was actually the same shark in all four movies. Of course then you'd have to explain why Quint's arm had failed to digest, or how the shark regenerated itself three times.

To my mind, the original Jaws is one of those rare 10 out of 10 films. In terms of where I'd rank it among my favourite Spielberg movies, I'd place it just below the classic Indiana Jones trilogy and just above Poltergeist, Duel and Close Encounters. It's a truly great film that helped launch the trend of the summer blockbuster movie. I'll post my thoughts on the sequels at a later time, but for now I'd like to argue a point that some may find controversial. However, it's a perspective I feel compelled to express.

The mayor in Jaws did nothing wrong.

There's a trope in the disaster movie genre of the obstinate authority figure who refuses to heed early warnings and ends up with blood on his hands. Admittedly Mayor Larry Vaughn is the closest thing the original Jaws has to that cliché, but his villainous reputation is ill earned. He was struggling to keep the economy going during the most crucial time of year for Amity's tourist trade. He was under pressure from the town council and local business owners to safeguard the revenue stream the community relied on from its summertime visitors: "Look, we depend on the summer people here for our very lives." Now Brody comes along making the improbable claim that a freak shark attack has occurred. The local coroner contradicts this by stating it was a "probable boating accident". Larry very reasonably decides to keep the beaches open. Based on the information he had at the time, there was no reason to close them and risk jeopardising the tourist trade.

Then the second death occurs and we learn there really is a shark. Larry clearly isn't happy about this. He didn't want some kid to get eaten. It's bad for tourism and will haunt him come election time. He makes the sensible decision to temporarily close the beaches until the shark is caught. But then fishermen catch a tiger shark, which oceanographer Matt Hooper himself admits is "probably" the shark they're looking for: "Now I'm not saying that this is not the shark. It probably is, Martin. It probably is." Again, based on the information available to him at the time the mayor was perfectly justified in reopening the beaches.

Hooper then claims to have found the tooth of a great white shark, but conveniently misplaces it. He and Brody also neglect to provide evidence of Ben Gardner's death when they discuss the matter with Larry (probably because the scene with the head popping out of the wrecked boat was added during reshoots). What was Larry supposed to do? Go to the town hall and announce he's shutting down the economy without any evidence to justify the shark's existence, all on the testimony of two men who were clearly wasted when they saw the alleged proof?

Ok, now in hindsight we can clearly see that Brody and Hooper were right about the existence of the great white shark. But based on the lack of evidence presented to him, how was Larry to know that? What was the alternative course of action? To shut down the beaches, discourage tourism and bankrupt any number of local businesses, all because of a one in a million chance there might be a giant shark on the loose? When he's presented with concrete evidence of the monster's existence, he takes the appropriate action and hires Quint to kill it. That decision ultimately results in the shark's destruction. We can thank Larry for that. Moreover, Jaws 2 takes place four years after the first film, and guess who's still mayor of Amity?

That means the people of Amity re-elected him. So he was obviously doing something right. I'd also point out a deleted scene from Jaws 2 in which the town council deliberates on whether to fire Brody as chief of police. Larry is the only one who stands up for Brody.

In another deleted scene he votes not to fire him. He eventually goes along with the decision, but only because all the other council members outvoted him and he had no hope of changing their minds. But the fact remains he was against firing Brody and tried to prevent it from happening. Meanwhile Larry's son, Larry Jr., helped rescue and protect Brody's youngest son Sean after his big brother Michael endangered him by taking him sailing during shark season.

On top of all this, Mayor Vaughn was a nice guy. He tries to comfort Brody after Mrs. Kintner publically blames him for her son's death: "I'm sorry, Martin. She's wrong." Later he goes to the hospital with Brody and his family after their son Michael is admitted with shock, and we see how distraught he is by what's happened. In Jaws 2 he takes a moment to say some words of encouragement to Michael during his first day working on the beach. Larry Vaughn was a good mayor, a loving father and a man of conscience. I'd argue this is a Johnny Lawrence situation where it's time to stop hating the so-called villain, try seeing things from his perspective and start appreciating all the good he did. Which in this case includes saving the islanders from the shark by sending Quint, Hooper and Brody to kill it, hanging up "little paint-happy bastards" by their buster browns, and maintaining a healthy economy by safeguarding the local tourist industry.

His ridiculous jackets, however, are indefensible.

So what does everyone else think about Jaws? And what do you think about the sequels? Post your own observations and reviews here.

From Aaron Price, the tech whiz behind the Superman IV remaster.

This actually feels more in character for Keaton's Batman than anything in the Batman '89 comic series.

Stallone's latest movie, in which he plays an aging superhero, is being released on Amazon Prime on August 26th. Here's the trailer.

Some preview art has been released for the upcoming prequel comic written by Paul Dano.

I wasn't interested in this show until now. But since Daredevil's in it, I figured it might as well have its own thread. She-Hulk begins streaming on Disney+ on August 17th, so there's not long to wait now.

She-Hulk will mark the first time Cox's Daredevil has appeared in costume since 2018, and it'll be the first time Daredevil and the Hulk have appeared in the same live action production since The Trial of the Incredible Hulk in 1989.

The more I look at it, the more I dig the yellow and red costume. It looks like the same basic design as the suit from the Netflix series, only with the colouring of Matt's original Silver Age costume.

I hope Daredevil gets at least one fight scene in this show. I'm assuming his role is going to be small, but I'm still looking forward to it. It would be great to see Matt back in a courtroom.

I'm also looking forward to seeing Tim Roth back as the Abomination. I've always thought The Incredible Hulk (2008) was one of the most underrated MCU films. It's certainly one of the darkest and least goofy, and I prefer Edward Norton's Banner over Ruffalo's.

What we know so far:

•   Cox and D'Onofrio are returning.

•   It'll have 18 episodes, which will make it the longest MCU show to date (not counting Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.).

•   They're aiming for a Spring 2024 release.

•   It will be part of the MCU's Phase 5.

The title is a little confusing. Born Again is arguably the greatest Daredevil comic story ever, but they already adapted it in season 3 of the Netflix show (I'll get around to posting a comic analysis of that at some point). The use of the 'Born Again' title here could be merely symbolic, to represent Daredevil being reborn on the screen, so to speak. It could also just be fan service, since that story is so beloved.

Alternatively, Marvel might be ignoring aspects of the Netflix show in favour of a retelling. I actually wouldn't mind this, as it would seal off the brilliance of the Netflix series in its own universe while giving us a spiritual continuation with the same cast members. That way if the new Daredevil content is bad, it won't retroactively tarnish the earlier show. This approach would also allow them to bring back deceased characters like Wesley and Ben Urich, and to do better and more faithful adaptations of villains that were mishandled in other Netflix shows (e.g. Nuke and Typhoid Mary).

My guess is that the new series will vaguely acknowledge the canonicity of the Netflixverse, while allowing itself the freedom to contradict it in places. I can't imagine this series will be just a straight up adaptation of Miller and Mazzucchelli's Born Again, since 18 episodes is far too long for that. But there have been other Born Again-like storylines in the comics, such as Ann Nocenti's Typhoid Mary arc. Perhaps this new series will combine some of those stories into a single epic narrative.

Here are some things on my wish list:

•   Keep it dark, spooky and gritty. Daredevil can be light and funny, and I don't mind them exploring that side of the character in other shows. But keep the light-hearted goofy Silver Age stuff in the She-Hulk and Spider-Man shows. For Echo and Born Again, keep it serious and dark.

•   Bring back Bullseye.

•   Bring back Joanne Whalley as Maggie and finish exploring the back story of why she abandoned Jack and Matt.

•   Focus on darker, scarier comic villains like Muse, Mister Fear, Death-Stalker and Hellspawn, perhaps even tapping into elements of supernatural horror like the second season of the Netflix show did.

•   Keep it TV-MA/R-rated.

•   Keep it apolitical. I know this is asking a lot from the modern entertainment industry, but there's no need for this show to be divisive. Know your audience and don't alienate them.

•   Make good use of the increased Disney+ budget, but not at the expense of the excellent action that characterised the Netflix show. Keep the one-shot hallway fights and amazing fight choreography and only use CG effects where absolutely necessary.

•   Don't focus too much on Frank Miller. They covered his work comprehensively in the Netflix show. Many other great writers have written Daredevil comics over the years, so draw from their work.

Right now, I'm cautiously optimistic.

Looks like I'm going to have to finally bite the bullet and sign up for Disney+ next year. The Hollywood Reporter has confirmed that Charlie Cox and Vincent D'Onofrio are returning as Daredevil and Kingpin in the new Echo TV series: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv/tv-news/charlie-cox-vincent-donofrio-echo-1235170929/

According to THR, Daredevil's storyline has him searching for "a former ally" that is meant to be Jessica Jones, though it's unclear whether Ritter will be reprising the role. There have also been reports that, contrary to earlier rumours of him wearing a yellow suit, Matt will get a new red and black costume. Kingpin is said to be wearing an eye patch after Echo shot him in the face in the Hawkeye series (which I still haven't watched), and his storyline is thought to be based on the Mayor Fisk arc from the comics.

The series is currently filming in Atlanta for a 2023 release. Shooting is meant to conclude in August, so we should be seeing some set pics before too long.

Yet another low quality Batman-without-Batman TV show is about to be expelled from the bowels of the CW.

Carrie Kelley is the latest redhead to be turned black. I'm starting to suspect there's an industry guideline that says casting directors have to do this now.

The original Poltergeist (1982) turns forty this month, and since we have quite a few horror fans on Batman-Online I thought we ought to have a thread on the subject. There are two topics that inevitably crop up whenever Poltergeist is discussed: firstly the so-called curse, and secondly the matter of who actually directed the film. The second topic is more interesting to me, and I'll probably come back to that at a later time.

But for now, here's my take on each entry in the trilogy.

POLTERGEIST (1982)

Fear, like humour, is obviously a very subjective thing, and I have to admit I've never found any of these films particularly frightening. I saw the first movie when I was in primary school, and even back then it didn't really affect me. It's creepy and atmospheric, but I don't personally find it all that scary. The one scene that does unnerve me a little is Tangina's monologue about the nature of the Beast. That always sends a shiver down my spine. Other than that, I simply enjoy these movies as imaginative supernatural thrillers. My appreciation for the original has grown a lot in recent years, and I consider it the perfect movie to watch with a cold drink on a hot summer's night when you're in the mood to have your blood chilled.

One of the most appealing aspects of the first film, for me, is its ordinary middle class suburban setting. Practically the entire movie takes place in this one family's home. Most haunted house films begin with the characters arriving at the house in question, but in Poltergeist the Freelings have clearly been living there for some time already. It looks lived in. It isn't some vast creepy mansion or abandoned mental hospital. This could be the house or flat/apartment of anyone in the audience, and the idea that your home could contain a portal to another world full of wondrous and terrifying things is both exciting and alarming. Similar scenarios were explored in The Gate (1987) and Hellraiser (1987), but I reckon Poltergeist did it best.

The cast is very good (look out for Predator star Sonny Landham as one of the construction workers), and the absence of any big name stars is in no way a detriment. Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams have strong chemistry, and they and the rest of the family make for likeable protagonists. The dramatic focus on the family members struggling to protect one another is, like the ordinary setting, something that most viewers can relate to. The plot takes it's time establishing the normalcy of suburban life before gradually introducing the supernatural elements at a measured rate that sustains the verisimilitude. Each ghostly occurrence is more intense than the last, resulting in a steady escalation that builds to an action-packed finale. Many of the special effects remind me of Ghostbusters (1984), which makes me wonder if the visuals of one film influenced those of the other.

There comes a point where you think the story is over, but then the filmmakers throw in one last sequence of horror that eclipses everything that came before for sheer shock value. I've got mixed feelings about that false ending (Tangina said "This is house is clean" when it clearly wasn't, and that discrepancy is never explained), but it ends the movie on the kind of spectacle you'd expect from a Spielberg blockbuster of this vintage. All in all, I don't have too many criticism of the first Poltergeist movie. I'm on the fence about the fake-out ending, the plot is somewhat formulaic, and there's one really abrupt edit that feels as though your copy of the film has just skipped forward a scene (at the 2:35 mark in the following clip).

But aside from these minor issues, I'd say Poltergeist holds up as one of the best American horror movies of that era. The score by Jerry Goldsmith is spooky and memorable, the special effects by ILM are great, and the whole production boasts a glossy sheen that most eighties horror movies could only dream of.

POLTERGEIST II: THE OTHER SIDE (1986)

It took me a few years and multiple viewings to warm to Poltergeist II. Initially I disliked the revelations concerning the apocalyptic cult. I felt it needlessly demystified the nature of the Beast and detracted from the effectively vague description Tangina gives of it in the first movie. We didn't need to know exactly who or what the malevolent presence was that haunted the Freelings. The house was haunted in the first film because it had been built on a cemetery and the family had inadvertently disturbed the graves when they dug up their garden to put in a swimming pool. I think that's enough of an explanation. I also find the whole sinister southern preacher stereotype to be a tired cliché. It was effective when Flannery O'Connor used it in her stories, but by the eighties it had become an overused trope.

Having said all that, Julian Beck does give an unsettling performance, and many viewers seem to feel that the Kane back story enhances the trilogy's mythology. So I've gradually come to accept that subplot for what it is, even though I don't think it's really necessary. Poltergeist II is quicker paced than the first film, but doesn't balance the intensity of the occurrences as successfully. Something major will happen early in the film only to then be followed by a comparatively milder apparition, thus undermining the sense of escalation that made the 1982 film's slow burn narrative so compelling. I also think the denouement is rushed and confusing. It's obvious that the whole sequence in 'the other side' was heavily edited, and while it's visually arresting it makes for a messy and unsatisfying finale.

On the plus side, Poltergeist II successfully recaptures the middle class suburban atmosphere of the first movie, but it also imprints that ambience with its own distinctive flavour courtesy of H. R. Giger's creature designs and the themes of Native American spirituality. Those ingredients help set the film apart tonally from its predecessor and give it an identity of its own. Most of Giger's designs ended up not being used, and even the few that were used aren't terribly well realised. But his unique imagination is nevertheless represented in the film's nightmarish monsters. I don't think Poltergeist II's meatier ghosts are necessarily superior to the more ethereal variety showcased in the first film, but I appreciate that the filmmakers tried something ambitious and aesthetically different.

I also enjoy the Native American elements surrounding Will Sampson's character, as well as the use of the breathtaking Arizona scenery. The opening scene of the film, where Taylor is sat beside the fire atop Spider Rock, kicks the story off on a strong metaphysical note that sets the tone for the battle to come. The film's imagery and atmosphere are potent, and the score by Jerry Goldsmith is great. The music for the first film was excellent too, but I think Goldsmith surpassed it with The Other Side's soundtrack. The heart of the story, which the music helps to accentuate, is the tender maternal bond between Carol Anne, Diane and Diane's mother. The scenes depicting Diane's grief over losing her mother add a layer of emotional depth that elevates Poltergeist II above being merely a hollow retread of the first film. It confronts the issue of family bereavement, which is something the previous movie took care to circumvent.

I know some people actually prefer Poltergeist II over the original because it's quicker paced and has a more developed central antagonist. Some fans just find it scarier. Personally, I don't think it's as good as the first film, but I do like it in spite of its flaws. It's a decent sequel and an interesting horror film in its own right.

POLTERGEIST III (1988)

This is the one film in the trilogy that I don't like and I usually skip it when I revisit the other two. The dramatic strength of the first two movies lay in the chemistry between the actors playing the Freeling family. This time the only Freeling family member to return is Carol Anne. Craig T. Nelson and JoBeth Williams wisely opted out, and in their place we get Carol Anne's aunt, uncle and cousin. The chemistry isn't as strong between these characters, and consequently the family dynamic feels fragmented. It's also weird seeing Lara Flynn Boyle play a character named 'Donna' one year before she shot the pilot for Twin Peaks, though that coincidence will be lost on anyone who isn't a Twin Peaks fan.

The middle class suburban setting is also absent from Poltergeist III, and in its place we get a skyscraper in the heart of wintery Chicago. This reflects a late eighties trend for movies set in towering buildings, and while it makes for an interesting change in location it does so at the expense of the suburban normality that grounded the first two pictures. Admittedly the building itself is strangely off-putting in a vertiginous sense. There's one particular low-angle shot looking up at it early in the film which always strikes me as ominous. The idea of Carol Anne being in the middle of a bustling city, and yet secluded by the height of her apartment, is also quite unnerving. The setting is one aspect of the movie I like, though I think the filmmakers could have made better use of it and ultimately I prefer the suburban settings of Poltergeists I and II.

The story is a retread of the earlier films and doesn't add anything substantially new to the mythology. The second half of the film has too many scenes of people running around empty corridors yelling "Carol Anne!" How many times is Carol Anne's name spoken in this film? According to the IMDb trivia page, 121 times!

There's really no excuse for this. It's just bad writing. None of the writers of the first two films returned for Poltergeist III, and neither did Jerry Goldsmith, which might partly account for the drop in quality. It does have some cool optical effects involving mirrors, but most of the set pieces lack suspense or dramatic impetus. There's always a sense of having seen this done before, and done better. The second half of the film is particularly tedious in this regard and the story, such as it is, mostly coasts along on the strength of the special effects. The first half of the movie isn't too bad, but it doesn't take the viewer anywhere worth going.

Of course we have to take into account the untimely death of lead actress Heather O'Rourke, who passed away at the age of 12 prior to the movie's release. This tragedy casts a shadow over the entire film, and I believe reshoots were conducted as a consequence of it. This might help explain why the second half of the film is so poor. O'Rourke delivers a strong final performance, and you can plainly see how her acting ability had grown across the three films. Sadly her contribution is not enough to save the film from its myriad shortcomings. The setting of the skyscraper had potential, many of the in-camera effects are impressive, and the central performance by O'Rourke is good. But everything else about Poltergeist III falls flat for me. Hence why I usually skip it when I watch the other two movies.

So that covers my thoughts on the movie trilogy. From best to worst, I'd rank them as follows:

1.   Poltergeist (classic)
2.   Poltergeist II (good)
3.   Poltergeist III (rubbish)

I never watched the TV show Poltergeist: The Legacy (1996-1999), so I can't comment on that. I did catch the 2015 remake on Netflix, and from what little I remember it was as unremarkable and as pointless as you'd expect.

What does everyone else think? Are there any fans of this trilogy on the site? How would you rank them? Do you like the second movie more than the first? Does anyone fancy presenting a defence of the third film or the remake? What about the controversy surrounding who directed the first movie? Was it Tobe Hooper or Steven Spielberg? Here's a great fan site that includes a lot of information on that subject: http://www.poltergeist.poltergeistiii.com/

Feel free to post any news, opinions and observations relating to the Poltergeist franchise in this thread.

This is truly exquisite.

Here's the final part of the Nostalgia Critic's Dark Knight Month.

I admire William Friedkin's The Exorcist (1973) tremendously. I think it's a masterpiece, and while it isn't my favourite horror film ever made I think it is objectively the greatest (that's an unoriginal perspective, I know, but it's one I happen to agree with). I own the original novel and a copy of the screenplay, and I visited many of the locations where the film was shot in Georgetown, Washington D.C. back in August 2008. I even got to walk up and down the famous Exorcist steps and visit the chapel at Georgetown University. I know a lot of people prefer the theatrical cut, but I tend to favour the 2000 director's cut by a slight margin. They're both excellent though.

The film's supernatural horror predicates on the unsettling notion of transcendent evil – of malevolence that goes beyond any rational human motive and seeks to inflict suffering for the sake of provoking despair and eradicating hope. The effect of this horror is best seen on the character of Father Damien Karras, whose fragile faith is the battleground upon which the story's theological conflict is waged. On a more secular level, the movie confronts the viewer with the anguish of a mother who is forced to watch her child suffer while being powerless to help her. What's more frightening than being ill and not knowing what's wrong with you? How about if someone close to you, your own child, is sick and you don't know how to help her? What's more terrifying than the idea of a monster wanting to molest your child? How about if that monster is literally in control of your child's body and is forcing her to torment herself? These ideas prey on our darkest fears to harrowing effect, and the film's impact, for me at least, doesn't diminish on repeated viewing. If anything, its power increases the more times I watch it. That's a rare thing.

The Exorcist is superb filmmaking on a technical level, and the clever use of lighting and cinematography contributes to the mounting sense of dread that intensifies as the story progresses. The movie takes place in October, and the early sequences are coloured by a cosy autumnal atmosphere bathed in the warm reds and browns of the Halloween season. The colour temperature gradually lowers as the horror intensifies, until by the final act we're immersed in an unnatural shade of purple and the actors' breaths can be seen fogging the cold air. The growing intensity is also reflected in the performances, and you can feel the protagonists' physical and spiritual reserves depleting as they endure the onslaught of Pazuzu's torments. By the end of the film the viewer feels almost as exhausted as the characters they're watching, and the final scene brings with it a cathartic sense of relief that the nightmare is finally over.

The editing is top notch as well. One of the most haunting moments in the director's cut occurs when the screen cuts to black following the spider-walk scene. We have the shock image of the blood issuing from Regan's mouth, then we quickly cut to black and are left in darkness for several seconds while the disturbing afterimage lingers in our minds. It's far more effective than if the camera had dwelt on the image of the blood, or if Friedkin had just transitioned straight to the next scene. Instead, that little pause makes us contemplate what we've just witnessed. It also gives the viewer a brief window in which to calm down before the next scene begins. There are other moments of respite elsewhere in the movie, where we're taken away from the horror and allowed to relax for a short while. These scenes function like a pressure release valve, lulling us into calm before Friedkin hits us with the next horrifying scene. That way we never become inured to the horror, and each time we return to it there's a sense of escalation; of each disturbing set piece being more shocking than the last. Needless to say the makeup and special effects are outstanding.

A response I've observed many times, particularly on the internet, is when someone sees The Exorcist for the first time and remarks on how overrated it is. "Is that it? That's supposed to be the scariest movie ever made? That's what the hype was all about?" This response is especially common in youngsters, and indeed my own reaction upon first seeing the film as a teenager was exactly this. I genuinely didn't find it frightening and couldn't see what all the fuss was about. I saw it several more times as a teen and reacted the same way. It wasn't until I watched the film again in my early twenties that I started to see it differently. Then I started to appreciate how well made it was, and then it started to disturb me on a profound level. Even if someone doesn't find The Exorcist frightening (fear is, after all, subjective), they should at least be able to appreciate how well written, acted, shot and edited it is.

Then there are the sequels...

In general, I don't think The Exorcist works as a franchise. It does however succeed as a trilogy. And as a trilogy, I view it as a serious artistic work and the magnum opus of writer William Peter Blatty. According to Mark Kermode, who is the number one expert on the subject of The Exorcist (he's produced several books and documentaries about it and frequently argues that the 1973 film is the greatest movie ever made), Blatty considered The Ninth Configuration (1980) to be the true sequel to The Exorcist. Blatty wrote and directed The Ninth Configuration based on his 1966 novel Twinkle Twinkle Killer Kane. He wrote and directed The Exorcist III based on his 1983 novel Legion. And of course Blatty also wrote the Oscar-winning screenplay for the first Exorcist film based on his 1971 novel of the same name. These three movies constitute what Blatty referred to as his 'Faith Trilogy', and I consider them to comprise the real Exorcist trilogy.

Blatty wrote all three of these films and directed two of them. His directorial style has been compared to that of David Lynch, but Blatty is more cerebral than Lynch and there's a clear thematic thread connecting these three movies.

On the surface, The Ninth Configuration doesn't appear to have any obvious connections to The Exorcist. There are no references to Pazuzu or any of the events in the first film, and the horror that manifests in the second half of TNC is more psychological than supernatural. Its connection to The Exorcist is more thematic. According to Blatty, the two stories take place in the same universe. One of the main characters in TNC is an Apollo astronaut named Captain Billy Cutshaw, and Cutshaw is the same Apollo astronaut that attended the party at the MacNeil residence in the first Exorcist film. He's the one Regan tells "You're going to die up there." You find out in TNC that he never went to the moon owing to a mental breakdown he suffered on the eve of his launch. In The Exorcist he was played by Dick Callinan, while in The Ninth Configuration he's play by Scott Wilson. But it's the same character.

The Ninth Configuration is a strange and unique film, and that makes it rather difficult to describe. Before turning to horror, Blatty was an accomplished writer of comedy. Among other projects, he wrote A Shot in the Dark (1964), which is easily the best entry in the Pink Panther series and one of the funniest films ever made. The Ninth Configuration combines his aptitude for humour with his skill at horror, and the result is like a cross between One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) and Jacob's Ladder (1990). The first half of the movie plays out like a black comedy set in a military mental hospital, while the second half takes a darker and more disturbing turn into psychological horror, touching upon themes of nihilism, PTSD, guilt transference and dissociative fugue states. I shan't say any more about the plot, since there's a major twist in the middle of the film that I'd hate to spoil, but it's a surprisingly complex film that veers drastically (some might say clumsily) from one tonal extreme to another.

The Ninth Configuration is also connected to The Exorcist through its philosophical and theological themes. With The Exorcist Blatty was exploring the idea of transcendent evil, while in The Ninth Configuration he's exploring the concept of transcendent good. Specifically through the character of Kane and the recurring themes of compassion and self sacrifice. Kane is portrayed by the Phantasm himself, Stacy Keach. He's backed by an excellent supporting cast that includes Scott Wilson, Ed Flanders, Jason Miller (Miller appears in all three entries in Blatty's trilogy, but this is the only one in which he doesn't portray Karras), Robert Loggia, Tom Atkins and Joe Spinell. I've also got to mention Moses Gunn, who appears as the first black Superman. Or rather a mental patient who thinks he's Superman and keeps switching back and forth between his costumed and civilian identities.

If my description of the movie's tone is confusing, that's because it's funny and disturbing in equal measure. While the first half veers more towards comedy, the second half is more violent and dramatic. The final act contains an intense slow burn sequence taking place in a bar which culminates in one of the greatest barroom brawls in movie history. It's also a very well written film full of quotable lines and memorable characters. The script earned Blatty the 1981 Golden Globe for best screenplay and it was also nominated in the best picture and best supporting actor (Scott Wilson) categories. Like The Exorcist III, its Rotten Tomatoes score has been gradually creeping up over the past few years as more and more critics are reappraising it and learning to appreciate its merits.

Some might describe The Ninth Configuration as weird, undisciplined or pretentious, and the tone is glaringly uneven, but I honestly think it's great. It's a really fascinating unique piece of American cinema that deserves more recognition than it gets. Apparently Blatty financed much of the film's budget out of his own pocket, which would explain why the finished product so strongly reflects his personal vision and creative idiosyncrasies. And as Blatty himself said, it's the middle entry in his trilogy that thematically connects The Exorcist with The Exorcist III. It's a film that I think needs to be seen more than once to fully appreciate it, as the first viewing can be a little overwhelming, but it's also the kind of movie that rewards analysis and intelligent consideration from the viewer. There's nothing in the plot that makes it essential viewing for Exorcist fans, but it's one of only three films that Blatty acknowledged as being part of the Exorcist canon and it is thematically integral to the trilogy as a whole.

The Exorcist III is the second of the two films Blatty directed. I wish he'd directed more movies, and had he done so I think he would have ranked among the best cult auteur filmmakers of that era. The Exorcist III should really be called Legion, which was the title of the novel from which it was adapted, but the studio insisted on it having the word 'Exorcist' in the title. Blatty's original cut didn't even contain an exorcism sequence, but the studio made him go back and shoot one for the theatrical version. A rough assembly of Blatty's original version was released by Scream Factory in 2016, but unfortunately it was pieced together from elements of inconsistent quality. The original film prints of Blatty's cut were lost, and so video transfers of the missing scenes were used to fill the gaps. This results in jarring shifts in picture and sound quality, but it still makes for a fascinating insight into what the film might originally have been like. I'd recommend newcomers start with the theatrical cut first, then check out the Legion/director's cut if they're interested.

The plot of The Exorcist III focuses on Inspector William F. Kinderman, the detective played by Lee J. Cobb in the first Exorcist film. Kinderman had a smaller role in the first movie than he did in the original Exorcist novel, but Blatty makes up for this by making him the central protagonist in The Exorcist III. This time he's played by George C. Scott, since Cobb passed away in 1976. The plot sees Kinderman investigating what appears to be a copycat serial killer who is terrorising Georgetown using the same MO as the deceased 'Gemini Killer'. His investigation leads him to Patient X, a mysterious John Doe locked away in a mental ward, who bears a striking resemblance to the late Father Damien Karras. Karras of course died at the end of the first Exorcist film, but now he is apparently alive again and claiming to be possessed by the Gemini Killer. The Gemini tells Kinderman that the 'master' (Pazuzu) helped him reanimate and take possession of Karras as revenge for Damien's role in the exorcism of Regan MacNeil, so the plot does connect directly with that of Friedkin's movie. Pazuzu doesn't appear in Blatty's original cut and is only mentioned, but the reshot ending of the theatrical version climaxes with an elaborate special effects sequence in which Pazuzu takes possession of Karras

In the final cut of the film, Patient X looks like Karras but physically transforms into James Venamun/the Gemini Killer when talking with Kinderman. So Jason Miller, as Karras, suddenly becomes Brad Dourif, who is playing the Gemini. This wasn't the case in Blatty's original cut. Originally Miller wasn't even in the film and Dourif was playing Karras. So there was no transformation. Patient X only ever looked like Dourif, and photographs depicting a young Karras showed him portrayed by Dourif.

Then the reshoots took place, during which Jason Miller was brought back to play Karras and Dourif's role was reduced to that of James Venamun. This required many of the most compelling scenes in the film, namely those between Scott and Dourif, to be rerecorded. You can see the original versions of their conversations in the Legion/director's cut while the theatrical edit features the reshot scenes. Some fans have voiced preference for the ending of the theatrical cut over Blatty's original version, and I can understand why. The theatrical ending includes Pazuzu, gore, lots of special effects and an actual exorcism, none of which occur in the finale of Blatty's original cut. Instead the director's cut ends with a shorter and more subtle verbal confrontation between Kinderman and the Gemini Killer, and Pazuzu never appears. I personally prefer the ending to Blatty's original cut, but I can see why others like the theatrical version better.

There's a particular jump scare in the Exorcist III which is often highlighted as being one of the best in movie history. If you haven't seen the film yet, then don't read any more about that scene or it'll ruin it for you. I've noticed lots of comments online from people saying that they were disappointed after getting hyped for the jump scare, or that they watched the relevant scene on YouTube and found it underwhelming. But of course it was going to disappoint them if they were expecting it. The whole reason it works on the unsuspecting viewer is the way Blatty lulls them into a sense of relaxation immediately before it happens. If you're not expecting it, it's one of the most startling jump scares ever. My advice is to not research it in advance, but just let it hit you. You'll enjoy it more. Another thing to look out for is the blink-and-you'll-miss-it shot of a desecrated statue resembling a certain comic book villain. The Ninth Configuration had Moses Gunn as Superman, and The Exorcist III has a Joker statue.

The central themes of The Exorcist III connect with those of both Friedkin's film and The Ninth Configuration, with Kinderman struggling to fend off nihilism and despair (much like Cutshaw in TNC) and retain his belief in good despite the tremendous evil and suffering his job exposes him to on a daily business. It's not as gruelling as the first Exorcist film, nor quite as funny or cerebral as The Ninth Configuration. Instead it fits somewhere in between those two films, with the emphasis on police procedural elements and the Gemini plot foreshadowing other nineties serial killer movies like The Silence of the Lambs (1991) and Se7en (1995). The cast brings back Scott Wilson and Ed Flanders from The Ninth Configuration, only here they're playing different characters. There's also a really weird dream sequence in which Samuel L. Jackson and Fabio make cameos. Again, it's Lynchian touches like that which make me wish Blatty had directed more movies. All in all, The Exorcist III is a satisfying albeit flawed conclusion to Blatty's Faith Trilogy and a good horror film in its own right. It was unfairly dismissed on its initial release, but in recent years its reputation has thankfully begun to improve.

This post's already ridiculously long so I'll stop here. I just wanted to share my thoughts on these three films and the ways in which they connect to form one of the most compelling horror trilogies in cinema history. Of course there were other entries in the Exorcist franchise, but these were the only three films that Blatty, the original creator, acknowledged as being part of the canon. They were the only three he wrote and all three were adapted from his novels. I'll post my thoughts on the other 'apocryphal' Exorcist films at a later time.

Here's a fascinating look at how DP Greig Fraser achieved The Batman's beautiful cinematography.

Between his work on Dune and The Batman, Fraser has proven himself to be one of the best cinematographer's in the industry. He's currently up for an Academy Award for his work on Dune, and I wouldn't be surprised if he receives another nomination next year for The Batman.

I've been re-watching all the old DCAU films lately, including the ones edited together from TV episodes, and I was surprised by how well World's Finest holds up. It's been a long time since I last watched it – maybe more than a decade – and it was a lot better than I remembered it being. As far as animated Batman/Superman films go, I'd rank it up there with Superman/Batman: Public Enemies (2009).

Using Lois as the emotional lynchpin to connect Batman and Superman's civilian lives was a good way of streamlining things and keeping the plot focused on those three characters, although it is a little strange hearing Conroy's Batman woo a woman voiced by Delany who isn't Andrea Beaumont. The acting is good across the board, and it's particularly enjoyable to hear Hamill's manic Joker playing off Brown's calm and reserved Luthor. The movie does a good job of contrasting their very different personalities, just as it does a good job of visually contrasting Gotham City against Metropolis. I hope one day we'll see a live action Metropolis that looks as interesting as the S:TAS version.

There's a bit of an "I won't kill you but I don't have to save you" moment towards the end where Batman saves Harley and tells Superman to save Lex, but then leaves the Joker to perish on the exploding wing. Ok, so the Joker had a parachute. But it was Batman's fault the exploding marbles spilled onto the floor in the first place, and he could've easily told Superman to save the Joker as well as Lex. This leads to what is arguably the funniest one-liner ever spoken by Conroy's Batman.

Good stuff. I'm sure we've already discussed this film before, but I can't find a thread on it anywhere on the site. So I figured we ought to have one.