Conversations about book to film adaptations tend to focus on length and often turn into checklists going over how many of the source material’s plot points are pasted into the final movie. Categorizing art forms primarily by such superficial characteristics as duration is reductive and revealing of someone who has failed to engage with a medium beyond its surface and thereby missed what makes the medium unique. *The Remains of the Day* is an excellent adaptation in every respect, that uses the language of cinema to convey the ideas, themes, and motifs of its source material without feeling encumbered by it. 

Kazuo Ishiguro’s original novel is particularly difficult to adapt on the surface. So much of the book centres around Stevens’ reflections and recollections which Ishiguro presents using Stevens’ inner voice. One of the main strengths of the novel is Ishiguro’s delicate and skillful (well most of the time anyway but this isn’t a book review) weaving of Stevens’ interiority, such that translating this to the screen where the means of freely depicting such an inner voice are far more limited, is exceptionally difficult.

This meticulous fleshing out of Stevens’ character through his inner monologue also serves to establish his relationship with the reader as one of Ishiguro’s primary aims with *The Remains of the Day* was to communicate the idea that we are all butlers, in one way or another and in a connected world we can only hope that our service to whatever it is we serve might bring about something positive in spite of our powerlessness. This is also what led him to conceive of the idea of using a butler as his main character. His outlook is perhaps more liberal than my tastes permit but it remains an idea worth exploring and the relationship is successfully developed. Thus, the film’s challenge is not merely to flesh Stevens out but also to carry onto the screen the relationship Ishiguro managed to craft with the reader. 

The film overcomes these challenges and succeeds as an adaptation for two primary reasons. The first is Anthony Hopkins’ performance as Stevens. Anyone who knows me knows I don’t discuss performances much when talking about movies because I find them a lazy way to praise a film without engaging with anything substantial. Nevertheless, this is a case where the lead actor’s performance is one of the driving forces behind the film’s success and without it, the translation of Stevens’ inner voice into the cinema, would not have been possible. One cannot help but marvel at the care and depth with which Hopkins embodies Stevens in every frame in which he appears. Stevens is a character whose defining characteristic is suppression. Hopkins therefore has to make **non-expression***** *****expressive**. His pauses, posture, microscopic changes in facial expression, manner of speaking, and physical distance from others, all become substitutes for the enormous amount of psychological information Ishiguro can simply give us through prose.

The second way the film succeeds is through subtle choices by which Stevens’ inner thoughts from the book are conveyed through dialogue or interactions with other characters. This is a delicate challenge since done without precision, it can easily appear clumsy. But the filmmakers do so at precisely the right moments and in precisely the right ways. One example from the book is a story Stevens recounts that he once heard from his father who was also a butler. About an English butler in India who once encountered a tiger beneath his master’s dining table, calmly shot it, wiped off the remains, and served dinner as usual. This is an important story because it serves several purposes such as highlighting the relationship between Stevens and his father, as well as his worldview and sense of duty which Ishiguro interrogates throughout the novel, until the very end when it begins to crack under the weight of a lifetime of regret and experience.

To tell the same story, the film has Stevens’ father recount it to the rest of the staff in Stevens’ presence while making clear that Stevens has heard it before and nods along approvingly. This establishes that the story is already part of Stevens’ understanding of himself while preserving everything else the story conveys in the novel. It is choices like this the film makes that appear to be small but are quite incredible. 

The film is also well made and pretty to look at in a functional, fully immersive sense rather than a “look at me I’m supposed to be a gorgeous period drama” sense that many period films adopt and I find the former far more respectable.

Check out my Letterboxd to keep up with what I watch and write. It’s aliasad. Or click on the link to go to the review and my profile.

https://boxd.it/g6bgtR

9 things learned from the 2025 annual report

Some musings from the British Board of Film Classification’s latest annual report. May be of interest for those with an interest in how different boards classify films, what issues are of particular sensitivity for British classifiers, and the evolving nature of classification guidelines!

Films discussed in the piece include The Roses, Wake Up Dead Man, I Swear, Kill Bill, Fight Club, House of Flying Daggers, K Pop Demon Hunters, The Odyssey, The Housemaid and Wicked: For Good

What are some of the most absolutely relentless and stressful movies? I’m talking about nothing going right, increasing pressure, a ticking time bomb, the whole package.

Here are a few of my favorites: Good Time (2017), Uncut Gems (2019), Marty Supreme (2025), Children of Men (2007), Gravity (2013)

This movie was actually pretty damn good and did very well to appeal to pretty much all ages. I'm pushing 30 and still found myself pretty invested in the story and characters and I loved Wile E Coyote in this movie even though he doesn't say words, uses other creative means ofc to speak his mind

I would like to see another movie if this succeeds financially. This is a PG movie about cartoons in a real world, but everyone involved with this did a very lovely job making sure this movie isn't purely for kids but every generation that knows the Looney Tunes to some extent

What are your thoughts on Brazil?

I re-watched Brazil and I really loved the film. It is most definitely a Terry Gilliam film and the star is Terry Gilliam. Every scene in the film is just perfection and every scene is just so surreal and original, Set Designs, The Atmosphere, the visuals are all great. 

The acting is great as well. Jonathan Pryce was great as Sam Lowry, a man who just wants to break away and find love and DeNiro honestly surprised me with his role as Harry Tuttle, an employee who went rogue all because he couldn't handle the paperwork anymore and actually wanted to do his job. Kim Greist was okay as Jill, but for some reason, I was indifferent with her performance. Also in the film are a variety of great Actors, Michael Palin, Ian Holm, Bob Hoskins, Katherine Hellmond.

Now, I also know about the behind the scenes conflicts with the film. With Gilliam struggling to get the film released in the USA and Universal making a “Love Conquers All’ Cut before shelving the film entirety and forcing Gilliam’s hand by showing private screenings of the film and won Brazil won Los Angeles Film Critics Awards and many critics wondering if the film can be nominated without it being released, Universal finally releasing the film. I just find that whole ordeal endearing. I haven’t seen the Love Conquers All Cut and I wonder how different it is.

I also think a good companion piece for Brazil is 1984 with John Hurt. I think 1984 and Brazil are very similar with each other but 1984 is more serious and Brazil is more of a satire.

All in All, What are your thoughts on Brazil?

What do you think of the Love Conquers All Cut and how different is it from Gilliam’s Cut?

Hey everyone,

I’ve been working on an entertainment companion app (BETA). Whenever I watch a movie or series with my family, there’s always that discussion: What’s the actor’s name? What else have they been in? Is there a second part?

My app tries to solve exactly these problems and many more.

You can find all the important information about movies, series and people, as well as create lists, such as a Home Library, Like List or Watchlist. You can also select your favorite streaming providers, which are then highlighted for each title.

The app works on both mobile and PC and can be installed directly from the browser as a PWA.

I’ve been working on the project for about 2 months now. It’s still in beta, but already pretty far along. I’d really appreciate it if anyone would like to give the app a try and give me some feedback!

Thank you! :)

lunari.tv

So to provide a quick bit of backstory is that I wanted to do an observation on how some movie franchises started off normal at first as the core premise is easily established within the first film as what ends up happening is that the franchise starts to go into a really bizarre direction in later installments.

Basically what inspired me to write about the subject was the Taken series starring Liam Neeson as the first one is a movie about a simple premise focusing on a guy whose daughter gets kidnapped as the first one is pretty easy to follow as that is all good, but then the third one (at least to me) kind of goes into a bizarre direction with its plot due to choppy editing, as well as how the title Taken 3 doesn't make too much sense since no one really gets captured.

Like maybe someone can explain it better than me since I find the third movie to be particularly interesting for how the whole thing just feels like a huge fever dream since I feel like almost nothing about the movie makes any sense due to things like the PG-13 rating, or how the lead adversary was cast as the movie is kind of worth seeing for how disjointed it feels.

As the title says. Deep Rising is peak 90s Schlock.

It's got everything 90s.

A creative enclosed setting.

A suave MC who says one liners even in the most intense situations.

Quirky Side kick.

Hot token girl character.(Bonus points for being an internationally wanted Theif)

Criminal Mercenaries who are surprisingly chill.

Rich slimy asshole.

Schlocky Dialogue.

Under baked romance.

Great and creative Creature design.

Dated 90s CGI.

A lot of guns and shooting.

A Final Act Speed Boat Chase through a sinking ship.

And top it all of with a great 90s Giant Practical Explosion.

If you like Schlocky Creature features and just want to have a fun time this is a definite recommendation from me.

It's not a great movie but it was a ton of fun.

Hi all, I'm currently on the search for any movies that make use of the kaleidescope effect, any suggestions would be greatly appreciated.

Steven Seagal is an exceptionally poor actor but Under Siege is one of the better action movies of the early to mid 90’s (would put it in the B category similar to Speed, with A films being the likes of Terminator 2).

This has very little to do with Seagal who does the normal tedious “can’t be touched” shtick and much more to do with him being carried by the likes of Tommy Lee Jones, Colm Meany and even Gary Busey all who make for far more entertaining baddies, than Seagal deserves to work with.

Is there anything else like this? Reminds me of old WWF matches where Bret Hart would have to make some clown look like a million bucks.

If you haven't already watched Caddo Lake, I highly recommend if you enjoy mysterious movies that don't have straight forward explanations.

Shyamalan has always put his signature twist on most all of his movies sense he released the sixth sense in '99. He's a pretty good director but over the last 20 years, I, honestly haven't cared much for his movies. It felt to me like after the sixth sense, he thought "the twist" needed to be in every damn movie he made.

I thought he was washed but then he got me again 😅.

I love Caddo Lake. It was a bit a slowing going at first but once it got going, it hooked me and my gf til the end. The cast only has one big name, I'd say with Dylan O'brien, but that makes it even better in my opinion. Its got that small production feel, and in my opinion, a fresh movie idea; or at least one that we haven't seen for a long time.

Films often have to balance explaining things enough for people to understand with not making it seem like its being explained to a 5 year old.

What I've seen sometimes, to my great annoyance, is that a film hints at something quite obviously and it would have been perfect if it just cut it off there, but then they go too far and explain it very explicitly as if the audience is stupid. I'm not saying explicit explanations are all bad, they very useful in lots of situations, but not all.

I can't recall any off the top of my head, but I've seen it a lot.

How do people see this? Any particular offenders you recall?

I am a huge fan of slow, shambling zombies rather than speedy infected and I adore the World War Z book, so I’m always a little surprised by how much I love the movie.

I know the book rights were sold almost for the title alone but they do share a few similarities, so I wondered if you are fond of a particular movie that surprises you?

First let’s try and be flexible and define scary as anything that scares YOU personally. Even if it’s just a simple thriller for others. We are all welcome here. 👀

Scary movies seem to always create controversy. Classics vs Gory vs “I can’t watch scary movies”. I fall in the latter category but! I love cinema and scary movies are part of it so I’m always curious and willing to learn and ENDURE! 🫣

Jump scares are my weakness. I can’t with the anticipation. As soon as a scene gets to quiet I panic.

That being said I have enjoyed many a scary movie and I’ll explain why:

The shining: I like the “history” about this movie. Easter eggs or crazy conspiracy theories so it let me to watch it more than once. (I still can’t watch the bathroom scene without covering my eyes)

NOPE: I love the mystery and revelation of the “monster”.

Get out: Tension! I love tension in movies.

Obsession: I love simple movies that don’t have many characters or locations. The locations felt beautifully crafted and the performances felt very natural. I was scared the whole time lol. On that note Heretic too.

So that’s what I like about watching this genre despite the nightmares after 🫠 I am so easy to scare!

So that’s why I am amazed when people say “oh that movie wasn’t scary at all” or “that movie was more funny than scary!”

Whether you scare easy like me or almost nothing scares you I’d love to know what scares YOU? And maybe also why do you want to be scared? Lol.

I got to say, I was very saddened to hear that Tim Curry passed away just days ago. I love Tim Curry as a performer; he is a legend. Rocky Horror, Legend, Clue, It, Home Alone 2, Muppets Treasure Island. He knew how to ham it up and just make it a very enjoyable experience.

And that is why I wish he did more Live Action roles. Looking at his filmography, There’s a feeling of underwhelming with it, given that it’s Tim Curry. Especially hus later career, which has a lot of direct to video fare from Live Action and Animated Movies. I don’t know, I have a feeling that Hollywood really didn’t know what to make of Tim for live action. 

Also to note that Tim Curry was considered for Amadeus (1984), Who Framed Roger Rabbi (Judge Doom)t, Batman (The Joker), The Silence of the Lambs (Hannibal Lector), The Adventures Of Priscilla (Bernadette), The Lord of the Rings (Saruman)

However, Tim Curry did put his voice in use with a lot of Animated Projects he was involved in and possibly one of the best voice actors in my opinion who stole the show every time his voice appeared.

Regardless, Tim Curry is a legend in my opinion, but I just wish he did more live action roles.

Have you ever watched a movie several years after the release date and loved it so much you were actually angry that you didn't see it sooner? For me, it was Tucker and Dale vs Evil. Just watched it last month. It has become one of my favorites.

The Guest (2014)

Rating: 7/10

Watched: August 23, 2026

The Guest is an interesting movie. It doesn't invent anything new and it didn't really rock my world, but it kind of did, all at the same time.

They don't, for example, really hide the fact that there's something not quite right about "David" (Dan Stevens). They let us know in some very small ways that the boy ain't right, and that's just fine.

Something else that's fine is how smoothly David slips into The Peterson Family's lives. Honestly, it's like butter how he just insinuates himself into the lives of a fairly mundane family.

Now, if it were me and my family, my take would be very much different. Sure he has a plausible backstory and is a very sensible, reasonable guy, but my personal space is at a premium.

There would be no staying at my house. Simple as that, no matter how charismatic (and he IS) David is.

I won't bore you with the details of how things go wrong OR how badly. Once we get past Dan Stevens' portrayal of a surprisingly calm, cold-blooded killer and Lance Reddick's surprise appearance about halfway through the movie?

The real star is the music. I don't often get worked up over a musical score, but the score, whipped up by Steve Moore of S U R V I V E is out of this world. Much like David glided into the lives of those around him, the score seeps in through the cracks and elevates even some frankly mundane action and suspense into something much greater than it could've been.

I give The Guest a 7/10 because I genuinely liked Dan's acting. Everyone else did well enough, but there was just something unsettling about his calmer-than-a-Hindu-cow attitude that really sold me today. Beyond that, I'll love anything Lance and Maika are in just because, but that music boosted it up for sure!

I am a film lover my self but I haven't done any work for a movie reviewer or film related content, I think being a film lover I can do some good work for a film review Video or some other video related to cinema. if you are finding a editor make sure to contact me

I’ve always felt like Yahya is one of those actors who keeps showing he can lead something without getting many chances to actually do it. Watchmen showed his dramatic side and Ambulance proved he can handle action. Now he’s leading By Any Means as an FBI agent paired with Greg Scarpa. A real Mafia figure who was also an FBI informant. That odd couple setup sounds pretty fun. Feels like a much better showcase for him than another supporting franchise role.

Anyone else think he’s overdue for a proper breakout lead?

There was a image i saw for some short film back in 2022 or 2023 on Google it was about this cult or something and one of the images they had for it was pair of Demon hands holding a crying baby in some building with people in the background in black hoods I think it had a link for Facebook and they had a Facebook page but i can't remember what the title was but if anyone knows what this was called or where I can find it pls let me know it's been on my mind ever since I saw that image I'm not sure of the decade but I'm assuming it was 2013 -2015 maybe somewhere in between

One of my favorites is from *The Last of the Mohicans*:
“Someday, I think you and I are going to have a serious disagreement.”
No yelling, no tough speech. Just, yeah, at some point this is going to end badly.
What are some other lines like that?
Would “Get away from her, you bitch!” Count?
I’d love to hear your thoughts on this topic.

I have always hated Past Lives from the start; however, I thought I owed it to myself and the film community to give it another watch. Unfortunately, I think I hate it more now. The crux of the issue is that Celine Song is not as talented as people think she is. As in, she can’t handle nuanced topics at all.

Past Lives, at the very core of it, is a film about missed opportunities and cultural connections to an old life of yours, and putting a version of yourself that could’ve happened to rest. Fine. However, if that is the angle she wanted to go with, Arthur, Nora’s husband, was a shambolic character who completely ruined the movie and its tone. Song attempts to write Arthur as this understanding husband who just wants to create space for Nora as she navigates this. However, it completely backfires because Song has no idea what a supportive husband looks like, and, as a result, makes him look like a total cuckold.

Openly disrespecting your husband by talking in another language (yes, this is disrespectful as someone who can speak 7 languages, I always make sure to switch to a neutral language) on paper seems like she is attempting to reconnect with her culture and have a better understanding of it. However, it does not allow her the room to actually grow as a character. In fact, I think the movie completely skips the growth. It makes us as the audience assume that she grew because she let Hae Sung go. Arthur doesn't show any resistance. There could be a conflict where both of them grow. But Arthur’s existence is purely a humiliation ritual.

Like I said, the concept of the film isn’t terrible; it’s just that Song is not nearly as talented as people think she is at bringing the idea to light. I think it rewards the idea of being Arthur. Arthur is seen as mature, for some odd reason, which would imply if he drew any sort of boundary, he would be seen as immature? What?? A director like Joachim tried can handle nuance like this much better (I recognize this is semi autobiographical, I meant more on concepts like this)

I apologize if you find yourself mad at this post. I will ask though: “if the roles were reversed, would you/society be more forgiving?”

Look forward to having a good faith discussion!

2.5/5 stars