Through a Glass Darkly reminded me that there is no real definition for what is considered “cinema”. It’s easy to compare a large tentpole film like The Avengers, with say, The Lighthouse and speculate on which is the “real film”. But if that was our mentality, wouldn’t we have to do the same for films like this? They are starkly different in form, yet both films achieve a visceral response in me. This alone cemented that these arguments are redundant. On a direct level, there are no other films that should be directly compared to the one you are watching at that moment in time. The keyword here is SHOULD, because personally, I know that this is sometimes impossible to do.

In the shadows of big-budget blockbusters, "Pearl," Ti West’s 2022 prequel to "X," emerges not just as a film, but as a clarion call to independent horror filmmakers. It's a daring, vibrant scream in the face of convention, wrapping its horror in the technicolour trappings of a Douglas Sirk melodrama. This isn't just filmmaking; it's a revolutionary act in celluloid.

In a cinematic landscape where nostalgia is practically an industry, the news of a "Twister" sequel whirls in with the subtlety of a cow flying across the sky. Yes, you heard right, folks: "Twisters" (yes, with an "s" like "Aliens") is on the horizon for 2024, and it's stirring up more than just fictional tornadoes.

In good ol' chronological order let's dive into the mix of masterpieces and potential mishaps that are set to grace our screens this year.

Brendon Cronenberg's "Infinity Pool" is quite the trip, isn't it? Starting off with a "Nocturnal Animals"-esque opening and spiralling into a psychedelic second half, this film packs in a stack of enjoyable moments. Unfortunately, the director seems to be having a bit of an identity crisis when it comes to our main man James, played by the ever-brooding Alexander Skarsgård. One minute we're meant to loathe him, the next we're expected to sympathise with his miseries, which, let's be honest, become unintentionally hilarious. You know there's a bit of a character development issue when you find yourself cheering on Mia Goth as she tears strips off him, right?

As a self-professed cinema nerd, the release of "Killers of the Flower Moon" had me eagerly anticipating a cinematic masterpiece. In my quest to revisit Scorsese's works, I stumbled upon a 35mm screening of "After Hours" at Dendy, and what unfolded in the cinema left me in awe. I'd seen this film several times but never with a group, and the laughter echoing through the packed theatre caught me off guard every time. It became abundantly clear that "After Hours" deserves more credit. This film isn't just another Scorsese creation; it's arguably his most pivotal work. Here's why.

Horror fans, I’m here to tell you that you've been overly critical of "The Exorcist: Believer." Directed by David Gordon Green, horror's new anointed king of the soft reboot, the film has garnered its fair share of criticism, being labelled as "not scary" and chastised for its conceited connection to the original. But is there more beneath the surface, and is it possible that we're being too harsh? Because let's be real, the reviews are scathing!

In a time when Hollywood's favourite weapon is nostalgia, they've perfected the art of recycling beloved franchises and stories. We're bombarded with reboots, sequels, and adaptations that are more about capitalising on our sentimentality than delivering fresh content. Yet, here's the twist: our real nostalgia yearns for originality, even if it's not perfect. Enter "Deep Blue Sea" - a film that may not be a cinematic masterpiece, but it's an enjoyable relic of our craving for the unconventional.

In the ever-evolving landscape of Halloween traditions, I can't be the only one embracing a quirkier and more bite-sized approach to the spooky season. Even though it's only early September and I've already watched the David S. Pumpkins video ten times. Instead of immersing myself in spine-chilling horror movies, I find comfort and joy in more whimsical and warm Halloween content, like the enigmatic David S. Pumpkins. It's a shift that reminds us it's perfectly okay to be scared of horror movies while still delighting in the spooky season and all its delightful quirks.

In the realm of filmmaking, where predictability often takes centre stage, one name consistently defies conventionality with an unapologetic eccentricity: Neil Breen. His latest creation, "Cade: The Tortured Crossing," once again left critics scratching their heads. This bizarre oddity is edging ever closer to selling out two nights at the Hayden Orpheum picture palace in Sydney. Wtf, how does a filmmaker whose work is often dubbed "bad" manage such a feat? The answer lies in Breen's idiosyncratic choices and the bizarre world he weaves on screen. Consider, for a moment, Neil Breen's cinematic repertoire.

Ice Age, released in 2002, remains a charming animated film that introduced us to an endearing cast of characters. While it still manages to elicit some laughs and provides a heartwarming story, its age is evident, and it falls short of the standards set by more recent animated blockbusters.