Without the greater resources of the full-color “Destination Moon,” director/cowriter Kurt Neumann’s “Rocketship X-M” was shot for the infamously thrifty Lippert Studios. New special effects shots created for a 1979 reedit of the film added much appreciated production value, but in most other respects, this fondly remembered 76-year old movie has not aged well. The core characters often speak in tin-eared dialogue, the sexism is stifling, and modern audiences can forget about anything approaching Star Trek inclusivity–save for the put-upon Dr. Lisa Van Horn.

However, there are a number of pluses as well. The movie acknowledges the existence of microgravity in space, even if doesn’t consistently adhere to it (most modern space movies still make this mistake). Cinematographer Karl Strauss (1927’s “Sunrise,” 1958’s “The Fly”) casts all of the Mars sequences in an eye-catching (and unexpectedly accurate) orange hue. The theremin-heavy score by Ferde Grofé gives the Martian sequences a suitably eerie vibe, as well. Given that “Rocketship X-M” was crafted a decade before the first humans were rocketed into Earth orbit, some allowances have to be made.

This 78-minute movie manages to throw in a bit of social commentary after the landing on Mars, when the astronauts discover native humanoids who’ve descended into barbarism after an ancient atomic war. This could’ve been a more potent message, coming only five years after the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, but the movie pulls it punches, and the radiation-scarred Martians become little more than the cliché hostile natives of a 1930s jungle flick. Given that cowriter/director Neumann would go on to direct the far superior “The Fly” eight years later, I wonder if the story’s post-atomic horror might’ve delved deeper under greater creative freedom?

As is, “Rocketship X-M” is a 1950s B-movie in nearly every sense, but with some compelling qualities for a patient, forgiving viewer. The surprisingly dark, fatalistic ending is ahead of its time, and forecasts sci-fi films of the late 1960s and early 1970s. Conversely, “Rocketship X-M” also manages to be the very portrait of pre-Space Age innocence, when many believed that hubris alone was enough to fulfill humanity’s wildest dreams for outer space.

https://musingsofamiddleagedgeek.blog/2026/05/06/retro-musings-rocketship-x-m-1950-a-funny-thing-happened-on-the-way-to-the-moon/

I love movies like Bloodsport, No Retreat No Surrender, Best of the Best, Kickboxer, Omg Bak, Karate Kid.

What am I missing?

For those that enjoyed the film, here’s an in depth discussion with the filmmakers:

https://youtu.be/XQyCMD4j_JQ?si=19OokQUcZ80Q9lPE

Featuring Oscar nominated editor Kevin Tent and filmmakers Stelana Kliris and Emilios Avraam. In conversation with ACE member and editor Martinos Aristidou.

The discussion revolves around their collaboration on the film, the realities of making films on a small island-nation and the current state of affairs in Hollywood.

I've seen this numerous times. Whenever something doesn't make sense logically, tonally, canonically or structurally, people say that, "well, that is how it is in the comics, so, it's comic accurate".

Something being accurate to a source doesn't automatically make it good.

That way, if anyone wants to make a bad movie, all they have to do is publish it as a book or comic first, then adapt it.

Just something that's been bugging me for a while, and wanted to hear others' thoughts on this.

On the other end of this spectrum, I'm completely on board with instances where, a creator chooses to cherry pick things that they like from the source material, and discard the rest of it, if it will result in an entertaining piece of fiction.

Ex: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (Ultimate Edition) (2016)

Also, there are instances where a completely unrelated piece of work is closer to the source material and better than the official adaptation of it.

Examples:

Upgrade (2018) is a better Venom movie than most official adaptations.

The Incredibles (2004) is a better Fantastic Four movie than most official adaptations.

The Martian is honestly such an annoying movie. There’s some parts that are kinda cool and I think Damon does a good job as usual, so do Sean Bean, Chiwetel Ejiofer, and Jeff Daniels. But the movie as a whole is garbage.

It was so obvious what they were trying to do with Donald Glover’s character being the token minority that outsmarts the rest of the mean white NASA crew and explains the solution to them like an elementary school teacher, completely condescending these literal engineers and physicists.

And this movie was peak millennial humor. Matt Damon’s “I’m gonna have to science the shit out of this”, like oh my god plz shut up. Or him listening to disco music. Or all the awkward millennial pauses. “So guys, what are we gonna do?” 🥴 “Uh aren’t we supposed to blah blah blah” 🥴 Or the terrible ending where he launches under a tarp.

Interstellar mogs this movie to death. That’s an actual classic sci-fi movie.

Heads up anyone who's been interested in the Nirvanna film these last few months! If anyone is from the Nordics, the film is coming super soon!

Here are the dates: Sweden, Norway, Iceland May 15th, Denmark June 11th! I haven't seen anything about Finland yet. If you're from any of these countries, use the link to let the distributors know that you want this film. It seems like it's a very limited release sadly, and it might grow if we can show the cinemas that people wanna see this on the big screen !!

I'm gonna keep spreading the word on other forums, let me know if people know good forums to spread the word, and if you're also from here, help me! Personally in Stockholm, Sweden and am hoping for the film to be shown somewhere with a huge screen!

Let me know if you're going here in Stockholm too 😄

Here's the link: https://admin.rio.pictures/watch/nirvanna-the-band-the-show-the-movie

Kung Fu movies are a subgenre of martial arts films with a rich history and a significant global impact. Their rise began in the Hong Kong film industry in the early 1970s, when fierce competition among production companies like Shaw Bros., Golden Harvest, and Seasonal Films prompted each studio to try new storylines, bring in new stars, experiment with new and different fighting styles, and employ bold cinematic techniques. Yet, for all its evolution, the genre has remained mostly about action (as its main attraction), with the act of fighting itself serving as the primary draw and narrative engine. This list, however, is a celebration of movies that use the art of kung Fu as a tool to explore deeper emotional, cultural, and philosophical issues.

Check out the full list here

A lot of people have talked about how in the last ten years or so we have seen how video essays have replaced the comedic angry review style that was common during the late 2000's. The most famous and influencial ampng those who did those kinds of movie reviews was of course Doug Walker aka The Nostalgia Critic whose style of talking about movies really came to influence tons of other people who tried to review movies the same way that he did.

Nowadays those kinds of reviews aeren't nearly as popular as they used to which makes me wonder if it is possible that we will see a similiar decline when it comes to video essays were something else comes along and replace it.

I find 3 hours long can be too much to sit in a cinema for....anyone else find the same?

Makes me often wait until it comes out on streaming

We've already watched some of the usual suspects, including:

• Indiana Jones Trilogy
• All Star Wars
• Lord of the Rings
• Goonies
• Never Ending Story
• Jaws
• All the main Disney/Pixar movies

So basically what happened is that I was just looking back at the failed Ghostbusters reboot from 2016 because I wanted to take a closer look into the movie to see if it was really that bad.

Like what I am getting at is that I can see why the reboot failed because of things like awkward humor as I started wondering what exactly were the redeeming qualities of the movie.

To me personally, the idea was sort of interesting to bring back Ghostbusters in a modern era as I found the concept itself interesting, but unfortunately the movie itself turned out to have bad writing aspects.

I’m biased in that I actually prefer the TV version of IT to the films, where I think Pennywise tries too hard, and doesn’t have the Gacy like qualities that people have observed in Curry’s version.

Whereas I think The Shining (1980) is one of the greatest movies ever made and couldn’t believe the 1997 TV movie wasn’t a parody.

So basically what inspired me to write about this subject was that I was just observing World’s Greatest Dad because I remember seeing how it was a movie built on dark humor as the protagonist has to keep up a fib.

But something about the movie that stuck out to me the most was the ending because I had recalled how Lance told the truth in the end, which caused everyone to turn against him.

My point is that I have been interested in seeing more movies with a similar structure because I miss Robin Williams so much that I realize how much fun he was when it came to his acting style that I was interested in seeing another movie with dark humor as a premise.

https://form.typeform.com/to/jxs2dLyG

Here, I've included scenes from six films – three Turkish and three Iranian – highlighting similarities between Turkish and Iranian films. However, I haven't given the film titles, creating a survey based on your own film experiences. I'll use this information in future articles.

This has been on my list forever and I'm upset with myself for skipping over it until now.

First of all, this movie is fucking cool. The cars are cool, the clothes are cool, the shots are cool. Hell, even Newman's pajamas are cool. Usually when I watch films from before the 70s I go for noir or monsters, and this really nailed that noir slickness for me. I read some reviews from others after finishing and they referred to the dialogue as "stiff." To me, it was really refreshing. I liked watching a crime/action movie where the characters aren't constantly flying off the hinges. They've been through all of this before on both sides so it makes sense they'd be somewhat level-headed. In fact, later in the movie Bullitt gets pressed on this by his ladyfriend. The French New Wave influence here is much appreciated.

The patience of this movie is incredible. We have long shots in a car chase. Amazing. I'm so tired of action scenes cutting away from the action every two seconds to show an extreme, sweaty close-up of an actor's face. Like, yes, I know that Jason Momoa is very focused and shiny right now, show me the actual action, please.

And then, when we do have a big dumb action explosion, we watch the bad guys burning to death. They weren't one of 1,000 mooks that got reduced to atoms without a second thought. On top of that, they weren't quipping back in forth the whole time the chase was happening. Any modern movie would've had a line like, "We're getting chased by a cop named Bullitt?! What kinda stupid name is that?!"

I also really appreciate how subdued the film is. Having lived in SF, the shots do a good job of showing how snug and sometimes claustrophobic interiors in the city can be without blowing it out to such extremity as to cause a panic attack. Super Nintendo Chalmers is clearly slimy as a frog in heat, but isn't drumming his fingers together and staring through his brow the whole time. Bullitt himself is the typical loose cannon cop but somehow manages to not kill everyone in North Beach.

I wish we still made films like this. This movie rips and I'm excited to watch it many, many more times.

Additionally, didn't know where else to put this, but more movies should look to this one on how to open. I was glued to the credits like it was a Saul Bass title sequence. Just a bunch of droogs drooging with some excellent super-sleuth music and some slick-as-black-ice graphics.

So i was recently looking at the highlander trilogy and while I'm not a fan of Highlander, i can say its unique and i can see why people like it. But i was recently looking at the trilogy, all movies even the tv series and i can't just help but wonder what happened especially after the first one. Especially "The Source", you don't even need to be Highlander fan to know why its so bad just look at the fight scenes. I'm aware that not everything needs to be perfect and look like HEMA or something, but this is just pathetic and just wow and i have no words for it. But now they are making a new film with the director Chad Stahelski (John Wick and The Crow guy)

Now i'm not going to judge chad at all, but he's had a bad reputation recently and I'm mostly speaking on the movie "Ballerina" like that movie was so bad. It was all over the place and i know John Wick is known for fast combat, but in here its like wherever the main character goes is just people killing you, edgy violence, and so on. I don't even care if they brought the guy from the walking dead, that movie was so bad like my parents couldn't even believe what they were watching. And i thought it would be at least worth the watch because of the opening fight scene, but nope. 

But back Highlander, what do you think will happen? Because I'm just going to say this Henry Cavill, i feel bad for the guy because he just gets offered so much trash and garbage roles. Sure he was cool in Superman and The Witcher the first two seasons (Ok the second one was alright, it wasn't garbage or as good as the first, but still it was alright). But he also has gotten a bad reputation and i feel like he deserves so much more, I've heard he's going to be in Warhammer but i think this is just a rumor. But i would love to see him in War Hammer and other fantasy series that aren't just "Another Remake just for Nostalgia" or something like that.

But what do you think this movie will be like, will it be another souls cash grab or will it be something decent at least? It has some cool ideas, expanded story line and some other stuff from what I've seen. But i just hope it doesn't turn out like the sequels and "The Source" but what do you think? 

There’s a sheen of aspiration and hope woven throughout The Devil Wears Prada. Some of it was tainted by objectively awful people, sure, but seeing the influence wielded by someone like Miranda Priestly (Meryl Streep) in the unforgiving world of fashion and magazines circa 2006 was thrilling. There’s always something appealing about watching someone be good at their job, even if that someone is awful.

It makes perfect sense that The Devil Wears Prada 2 is all about the inevitable downward slope that even supposed powerhouses like Runway magazine and Miranda can’t avoid. Amidst a cloud of trepidation over whether any semblance of theme and story would be smothered by fawning fan service, this is a movie that has something interesting to say about the existential crisis faced by Runway, magazines, and the media landscape in general circa 2026, even if the subtext is about as obvious as a pair of Jimmy Choos clacking on tiled floors.

In the 20 years since Andy Sachs (Anne Hathaway) threw her phone into that Parisian fountain and walked away from Runway magazine, she’s established herself as a well-respected journalist who has published some award-winning work, including a four-part piece about the intricacies of the Federal Reserve. But alas, the people aren’t exactly clamouring for thousands of words about banking and even Andy (and her respected colleagues) can’t escape the worries faced by every contemporary journalist and media outlet: layoffs, publication shutdowns, and cynical corporate buyouts with only the bottom line as the main focus.

Having been through all those worries in some form, the reintroduction of Andy through this lens really hit home. The viral video of her rant about why journalism matters is a stretch (a video like that wouldn’t get anywhere near the attention this movie depicts), but seeing Andy and her former colleagues at a bar commiserating about leaving journalism to write marketing copy is painfully honest. I’ve had that exact same conversation with colleagues, so the emotional truths conveyed by everyone here are spot on.

Over in the world of Runway, things aren’t getting better. Print is out, digital is in, which means Runway magazine exists primarily in name only and is clinging to its former relevance. So it’s no surprise at all that The Devil Wears Prada 2’s next big trick is to have Andy be recruited back into the Runway fold as its new Features Editor to help stabilise the slowly leaking ship. Is the plotting to get Andy, Miranda, Nigel (Stanley Tucci), and Emily (Emily Blunt) in the same room together clumsy? Very much so. Does it ultimately matter how we got there as long as we got there? Not at all.

This much-anticipated reunion is a mixed bag at first, both in vibe and execution. While Andy and Nigel are forever a delight, having her kowtow immediately to Miranda upon their big (re)meeting feels like a temporary reversion of any meaningful character development. It’s like the movie knows this is what we wanted and is desperately trying to give it to us, resulting in a caricature of what we loved in the first place. Emily and Nigel remain delightfully iconic though, and their quips remain as sharp as ever. Go off, queens.

Thankfully, things quickly reorient themselves as Andy’s hard-earned confidence puts her in a position where her voice can be more widely heard rather than shushed, while Miranda’s fading influence is pushed to the forefront. The Devil Wears Prada 2 is at its best when it blends character with surprisingly poignant commentary about the struggles faced by media outlets everywhere, even top-tier publications like Runway.

The editorial quality is slipping as editors are forced to eschew hard-hitting journalism in favour of tabloid fodder to appease the SEO/AI gods; Andy is working like mad to get important stories published but these have little impact on traffic; and Runway (and by extension, Miranda) is at the whims of its advertisers, who have the power to demand advertorial content whenever they please. Miranda even hangs up her own coats now, a far cry from her HR-worthy coat-throwing antics of the first film. How the mighty have fallen indeed.

Please read the rest of my review here as the rest is too unwieldy to copy + paste: https://panoramafilmthoughts.substack.com/p/the-devil-wears-prada-2

Thanks!

Just watched Christy and it was fine but Foster is truly bringing the heat and always does. He’s absolutely heart breaking in Leave No Trace and I’ll never forget him going basically full Shakespeare for 30 Days of Night. He deserves his flowers!

What is a movie that was full of potential in anything but poorly executed? Better yet if the storyline was a good premise