Saccharine (2026)

I guess weight-loss horror isn't new, but this hit a lot different than Thinner. It's a good time and is definitely recommended to anyone in the mood for horror.

I'm unsure what to think about The Highlander reboot. I don't mind it's being rebooted, to be clear - at least it's been long enough, in my mind, to warrant one. I mean, much as I love that movie, it's not some "untouchable" classic. Could make for a fun reboot.

I suppose Cavill isn't terrible casting but I'm not sure about Dave Bautista as Kurgan. Or Russell Crowe as Ramierez. To be fair, to some of us oldies, Clancy Brown can never be replaced. The other two could easily be, but not sure they picked the right actors this time.

Actually, I might've liked Cavill better as --- Kurgan.

Edited September 13Sep 13 by LadyCrimson

On 9/13/2026 at 10:53 PM, LadyCrimson said:

I'm unsure what to think about The Highlander reboot. I don't mind it's being rebooted, to be clear - at least it's been long enough, in my mind, to warrant one. I mean, much as I love that movie, it's not some "untouchable" classic. Could make for a fun reboot.

I suppose Cavill isn't terrible casting but I'm not sure about Dave Bautista as Kurgan. Or Russell Crowe as Ramierez. To be fair, to some of us oldies, Clancy Brown can never be replaced. The other two could easily be, but not sure they picked the right actors this time.

Actually, I might've liked Cavill better as --- Kurgan.

One of the selling points of the original for me, was the soundtrack by Queen. Disclaimer, I haven't seen the reboot, not even a trailer, so no idea if the music is any good. There was something charming about Christopher Lambert speaking English with a French accent, pretending to be a Scot 😆

It hasn't come out yet, and no trailers to judge by.

Crowe playing Ramirez, an Egyptian playing a Spainard (played by a Scot) is kinda weird if they keep that background. Wonder why they didn't try to cast either an Egyptian or Spanish actor instead? Of course they could be changing the character and Crowe is playing a new character filling the Ramirez role....Haven't kept up with the production.

I see it's got Djimon Hounsou in it, I hope he'll have a bigger/better role in the film than Hugh Quarshie did in the original.

22 hours ago, Amentep said:

It hasn't come out yet, and no trailers to judge by.

Crowe playing Ramirez, an Egyptian playing a Spainard (played by a Scot) is kinda weird if they keep that background. Wonder why they didn't try to cast either an Egyptian or Spanish actor instead? Of course they could be changing the character and Crowe is playing a new character filling the Ramirez role....Haven't kept up with the production.

I see it's got Djimon Hounsou in it, I hope he'll have a bigger/better role in the film than Hugh Quarshie did in the original.

Is it weird for an immortal though? If you life forever then you can have as many backgrounds as you want.

On 9/19/2026 at 2:35 PM, rjshae said:

Is it weird for an immortal though? If you life forever then you can have as many backgrounds as you want.

I'm assuming that the average Egyptian didn't really look Scottish. 🤔

Anyhow, saw the new Resident Evil

Thought it was good.

36 minutes ago, Amentep said:

I'm assuming that the average Egyptian didn't really look Scottish. 🤔

Probably not, but if you stick around for long enough presumably you'd become culturalized. Plus the lack of Sun could turn the skin somewhat paler.

Obsession

I am Abeloth, Beloved Queen of the Stars, and Bringer of Chaos. Or not. Nikki's eyes sure do look like tiny stars, but there's a distinct lack of tentacly appendages.

Introish Things

Thrice I've begun this post, and thrice I did not finish. So, perhaps somewhat uncharacteristically, the fourth time shall be the charm. As the headline suggests, I watched Obsession, and unlike @Sarex , I did not find it to be a waste of time. It was, however, extremely uncomfortable to watch. Which is partially by design, and partially a bit more, well, meta than I would like. More on that later though, assuming I manage to finish the post this time. Huh. Funny, one would think that a wall of text wouldn't be that much of an issue, coming from me, but apparently the fun does end at some point.

Filmish things that should be longer

Anyway, back to the film. If you, dear reader, will recall, I have complained about films consisting of mostly static shots in the past. Obsession has a lot of static shots too, but they're used in conjunction with set and scene design to a point where they make everything exceptionally uncomfortable to sit through. Perfect, one would argue, for a horror movie not overly reliant on jump scares. There are some, mind, but one generally sees them coming from two and a half miles away, so they may or may not work. Inde Navarrette's perfect performance rounds everything out.

But, here's the thing, the film itself is not all that worth talking about. I mean I could, you know, argue that the scenes are set in a great way, that it, at times, way too deliberately invokes The Exorcist while at the same time clearly not being intended as demonic possession (although, sadly, some of Nikki's dialogue suggests as much). There's also the slow movements and the creepy movements and the creepily quick movements from Nikki that are generally possession tropes. They add to the general tension of the film, but there are too many of them, and they become distracting. One could also argue - relatively successfully - that the ending of the film is its biggest weakness, something it shares with Heretic (which I also enjoyed a lot).

No, the actual thing to talk about here is the meta commentary on the film. At least, well, in my opinion. Which is a shame, because it's a nice, well made low budgety film that became a runaway smash hit for a good reason.

Meta commentary gone wrong

So what is this now? Is it a feminist horror film for gender flipping the domestic abuser trope? Is the wishing willow that drives Nikki crazy and obsessive, a metaphor for date rape drugs? Does the film gender flip the classic slasher horror villain? Is the film actually misogynist and invoking the clingy girlfriend trope, just overdone to the point of it becoming satire? Should we laugh at it?

I wouldn't be me if my answer here would not be: none of the above.

First and foremost, for Nikki to become a wish-induced, gender-reversed slasher villain, she'd actually have to start killing people way, way earlier than the very end of the film. Arguably - minor spoiler ahead - three-quarters of the film's main cast die by the end, but in reality, it is a film with mostly four actors and a couple of extras strewn about, and the deaths are clustered around the culmination of Nikki's descent into insanity. Reading her as a revenge monster, so basically a wish-induced Bride from Kill Bill, is also a little, say, well, insane. Arguably, anything she does while under the influence of the wish is not consensual, and that would count as rape, but then her "revenge" by becoming an insane domestic abuser is not intentional either (and as such, invalid as an, uhm, intentionally made point). Classic case of having a cake and partaking in it, or however that idiom goes. Cakes, generally, are lies. Yep.

Secondly, the idea that the film can be seen as having an overexaggerated clingy girlfriend can be dismissed simply by none of this being the actual choice of Nikki. Even with only the scant information of how the wish actually works that we have available - dialogue stronly suggests that Nikki's actual personality is replaced by what Bear, the film's "protagonist" wished for, but such a reading is categorically denied by the director, for whatever reason - we can just dismiss the idea out of hand.

That leaves the final idea - that Bear is, for some reason, not just an insecure guy with a friend he has stronger feelings for, but a feckless and entitled male whose only thought revolves around controlling Nikki's desires, because that is what men do. The wish, viewed from such a point, really does become a date rape drug metaphor. Post-wish Nikki certainly is coded as domestic abuser, she exhibits all the telltale behavioral traits and certainly acts as such. That is the entire point of the film. Reading this as a smart, feminist role-reversal requires two things: mental gymnastics, and a very distinct lack of empathy for Bear's initial position, especially since the film - from the very start, mind - suggests that he's being manipulated by both his best friend and Nikki (who, is, also, for whatever reason, implied to be somewhat bipolar - Freaky Nikki, and all that), and possibly even Sarah (who is in Bear's friendzone, but no one ever talks about that, figures). He's insecure, sure, he's probably a couple of YouTube videos away from becoming an incel and a few more away from red pilling himself, but he exhibits none of the traits when casting his wish.

It can also be examined by flipping genders for a moment. If we, say, were to cast Bear as girl who is in the friendzone of a guy she's friends with, and then casts a wish for him to love her more than anything, we'd watch what? So answer this riddle, and we can continue with the examination. Well? Well. Well, indeed. Reverse the genders, and we could make a romantic comedy out of the film. Bear-Girl's best friend could even comment on how romantic it is that Nikki-Boy would be this into her. At least until Nikki-Boy becomes an actual case of domestic abuse, and Bear-Girl can fall into the trap of thinking that if she just loves Nikki-Boy enough, she can totally change him.

Yeah, doesn't really work now, does it? It's the nice thing about art, I guess, one can draw conclusions and walk away from the film being secure in their knowledge that the film's a satirical take on the clingy psycho girlfriend, but that requires a certain mindset when watching the film, or you can walk away from it and see it as a smart, feminist horror film. Bear’s wish is clearly coercive in effect without necessarily being coercive in conscious intent. In fact, him casting his wish is not even a controlled, thought out action. It is a spur of the moment way to deal with his own frustration of being unable to answer Nikki's question that she posed to him: "Do you want to tell me something else?"

Both takes say more about the world view of the person making this observation than what's actually in the film. Which lands us right back with Hamlet, except, well, looking into art's mirror, the commentators don't see an exaggerated reflection of their own view - but a fundamental truth. Either women are clingy, or men are trying to control women's desires. #surefinewhatever. I mean, hey, there's some meta fun here to be had, as the film very clearly draws out and reflects the rift in between our currently hyper-polarized culture war front lines. Oh, how clever the film really is, allowing for both readings in such a fashion, and I'm the only one high enough on my own farts to see it. Clearly, I should be paid to review art. Alas, I actually have to work for a living. :p

More meta?

Eh, that leaves the one thing that I said I'd come back to. Which is my personal meta part. Bear is extremely uncomfortable to watch. Partially by design, naturally, but also because it's like watching a much younger version of myself. Which is most of the reason these posts died before finishing them. It's kind of weird to be seen as someone whose desire is a very typical male wish to dominate women. Because I really don't remember that part of my past self. I, for one, just wanted to be accepted the way I was.

Well, I also never had the ability to wish for something, so there's that. Who knows.

Edited 10 hours ago10 hr by majestic

None of these characters resonated with me and I am beginning to wonder if the difference between West and East is really that big culturally, because the story was just uninteresting. Felt the same way with The Substance and Don't Look Up.

Maybe it's just me.

Edited 4 hours ago4 hr by Sarex

39 minutes ago, Sarex said:

Maybe it's just me.

It's not.
But I'm also the type who didn't find Arrival or Interstellar or similar very entertaining or even philosophically interesting either. Although I can/do admire cinematography direction/artstyle, sound-design etc separately.

I remember when Fatal Attraction inspired tons of articles re: stalkers and mental health/psychology etc. Didn't understand the mega fuss in that direction - I mean it definitely wasn't a "message" movie, heh - just thought it was a fun thriller and that Glenn Close was awesome playing a very OTP disturbed person (not the same/as good as, but akin to what Misery did for Kathy Bates). :D

Edited 3 hours ago3 hr by LadyCrimson