Movie Reviews

Film Review: DIG! XX – SM Mirror

Published

2 years ago

January 26, 2024

DIG! XX is the reconceptualized version of one of the most celebrated rock documentaries ever made, DIG!. It is the story of The Brian Jonestown Massacre and The Dandy Warhols, two bands from the late 90s who were both considered “Next Big Things” by record company A&R representatives and label heads. It is the tale of the friendship and rivalry of the two band’s leaders, the brilliant “mad genius” Anton Newcombe, and the much more amenable and socially acceptable Courtney Taylor-Taylor, as much as it is about the fight between artists and record labels. You can watch DIG! XX online until Sunday, along with other Sundance films, on the film festival’s website.

The film’s synopsis is this: “DIG! XX is the 20th anniversary extended edition of the rock documentary DIG!, which adds new narration by The Brian Jonestown Massacre’s Joel Gion, features 40+ minutes of never-before-seen footage, and brings this epic tale to today.”

“DIG! XX looks at the collision of art and commerce through the star-crossed friendship and bitter rivalry of dueling rock bands — The Dandy Warhols and The Brian Jonestown Massacre. Through their loves and obsessions, gigs, arrests, and death threats, uppers and downers, and ultimately, their chance at a piece of the profit-driven music business, they stage a self-proclaimed revolution in the music industry.”

Ondi Timoner, director, camera operator, musician wrangler, and editor of DIG! and David Timoner, camera operator, interviewer, and editor of DIG! XX definitely deserve so much credit for spending seven years filming the documentary when the two bands were not yet as successful as they would eventually turn out to be. The film’s images, shot on several different formats, have been gloriously upscaled, and the sound mix and quality have been enormously improved.

The Timoners filmed on faith and with the cinematic instinct that they had chosen worthy subjects. They would be rewarded beyond belief by that faith as the film went on to win the Grand Jury Prize for Documentary at Sundance 2004. They should be commended for listening to that same instinct when it came time to film. When I interviewed Ondi, she said, “So, a lot of the magic of Dig! is just kind of knowing when to show up.” The proof is in the film.

The screening of DIG! XX at Sundance was prefaced by a short video from fan and musician Dave Grohl of Nirvana and The Foo Fighters, who named DIG! as his favorite rock documentary and thinks just as highly of DIG! XX. Ondi has named several rock and pop legends who are fans of the film, but Grohl has gone on the record at the festival. He also said that the film shows you what it is really like to be in a band.

One thing that I would recommend to you as a viewer of the film, and I definitely recommend that everyone watch DIG! XX, a new and even better film, is to view it from the perspective of what is currently going on in our society regarding A.I. Artists, musicians, actors, fine artists, and writers are feeling the existential threat of A.I. since many people have decided that it is a way to make art and consume art without having to deal with those pesky artists. Or pay them.

People love art but seem to hate, fear, and misunderstand artists. I believe that stems from the fear that the average consumer feels when faced with the concept of the creative urge. Many want fame and approval, but putting themselves on the line in front of a crowd and exposing their emotions and vulnerabilities is something they are terrified of.

They can’t understand the creative process, and it frightens them. It also angers them that these sometimes arrogant and strange musicians and other creatives can do it. It stirs envy that curdles into a hatred of the creators, and I think this is essentially why corporations and executives, depressed about their lack of creative ability, seek to take advantage of artists and take the majority of the profit from art that is commercially available. They enjoy swindling artists that they feel inferior to because it gives the crime that extra zest. Make no mistake: the music industry has been stealing from artists for decades.

Anton Newcombe is a highly intelligent musical savant, polymath, multi-instrumentalist, musician, band leader, producer, and fine artist who has primarily been misunderstood because of his anger and dark humor. When I interviewed him for The Recording Academy, I found out how much he loves creating music and how his live shows have actually morphed into events where he puts so much energy into creating a mystical experience.

Newcombe has also spent many years and some time in the documentary telling anyone who will listen that the music industry is a “Mafia.” If you think of some of his “antics” as being similar to the testing that Jim Morrison used to be known for, he might be slightly easier for you to understand, but remember that to him, this is a deadly serious fight for his life. Making music and art is everything to him; when he feels that his creative autonomy and survival are being threatened, he will react badly. No one else is quite like him, even though his importance in music has been likened to that of Bob Dylan by no less than Anthony Bourdain. He is one of the most extraordinary musical talents of the late Twentieth and early Twenty-first centuries.

When you watch DIG! Xan audience’s natural tendency is to side with the group that seems more normal and happy, The Dandy Warhols, and deride the seemingly more dangerous band, The Brian Jonestown Massacre – even though rock and roll are supposed to be dangerous. When you watch both bands snort coke, the audience seems to give the Dandies a pass and only consider BJM as the dangerous druggies.

They’re both doing the same drugs.

One of the advantages of DIG! XX over the original is that the Timoners added the narration of Joel Gion, The Brian Jonestown Massacre’s percussionist and frontman. The first DIG! only had the somewhat snide observations of Courtney Taylor-Taylor, where he would talk about how well-adjusted and successful his band was and what a bunch of screw-ups BJM supposedly was. Occasionally, he would admit that BJM was a better band and that Anton was more of a visionary than he, but his version of the events colored the audience’s perception in a very real way. That’s called P.R. One of the things that Taylor-Taylor and the Dandies excel at projecting an image of success and normality. Gion’s witty ripostes rip back some of the narrative control of the film and are highly entertaining and enlightening.

The other advantage that Ondi and David Timoner gave to this update is that they could use the vast archive of footage sitting in Ondi’s garage and add scenes that give more context to the events. This is integral to this new version of the film because it shines a light on the band members’ personal motivations and, sometimes, changes scenes and the course of the film with new information. Film is a visual medium, and while voiceover and telling the audience what is happening is important, showing the audience what happened is even more crucial to storytelling.

For example, in one fight that BJM had on tour in Chicago, you can see Anton peacefully napping while the others argue. Does that mean that Anton is totally innocent? No, but it does show that not all of the angry arguments involved him. DIG! XX also shows his more sensitive, gentle, and hugely magnetic side that attracts so many people. Along with the tragic sequence about his parents and their emotional neglect of Anton, it goes a long way toward showing where his anger comes from, but also why people really want to be in his orbit.

Another is that the Timoners were also able to add newer footage almost up to the current day that shows that far from being a failure, Anton Newcombe and The Brian Jonestown Massacre had not only survived but were thriving while touring the world. One thing that happens at screenings of DIG! is that people assume that the ending means the end of BJM, which is far from the truth.

It is also important to remember that musicians, as more free-thinking and emotional people, have had a tendency to engage in substances and violence. Also, when one is drinking or doing drugs, there is a pronounced tendency to behave very badly. As Courtney Taylor-Taylor observes, “When you have a pack of junkies on the road, not eating, not sleeping and drinking. A lot. Will some of them get grumpy and start fighting? No, probably not.”

A fairly recent example of a musician engaging in violence in public is Cardi B reacting to having water thrown at her onstage and hurling her mic back at the person in the crowd.

Joel Gion’s new narration and additional footage give some perspective to the infamous Viper Room fight, in particular, which is needed. While violence is not cool, it does put the fights in perspective. It’s not just random violence from a terrible person.

Ultimately, the crowning success of DIG! XX is the willingness of the filmmakers, Ondi and David Timoner, to go back and add so much that it creates a much more vivid and accurate portrait of the events in the two bands’ lives. It is the best and most truthful rock documentary ever made because it takes such an unflinching and honest look at what musicians do, how they create, and what it is really like to deal with the music industry, which is nothing but a trap.

The filmmaker’s choice to show the unvarnished words and actions of Newcombe, in particular, are very instructive to musicians in the audience. It is a cautionary tale, but not against sticking up for yourself as Newcombe insists on doing, in his own darkly charismatic way, but against believing what record companies are telling you and conforming to rules that only apply to some.

The new edition gives the audience even more of an inkling of what Newcombe is actually saying about music industry exploitation and a view of Taylor-Taylor’s lament, “If I was just a little bit smarter.” There is also a revelation about Taylor-Taylor that takes some of the shiny halo off his head, which is only fair. During the Q&A at Sundance, Dandy Zia McCabe also admitted that the inner workings of The Dandies were far from what was advertised as “the most well-adjusted band in the world.”

It gives the observant viewer the message that the system is exploitative and that unless you chart your own course, as difficult as that may be, you will lose. But concurrently, it tells you that you will pay a price for choosing your own path.

DIG! XX is magnificent and fiery, an artistic telling of a story that is frequently misunderstood because of our society’s tendency to put a premium on obedience rather than free will, even in art. Highly entertaining and shocking, it delves into the artistic soul and the insecurities that artists give to themselves and, inadvertently, to the audience.

DIG! XX is truly a new film that gives the audience the opportunity to understand everyone in the two bands better and discover why they did what they did—the beauty of music up against the greed and despair of humanity’s worst urges. It also gives people a humanistic portrait of how difficult it is to be an artist in a culture that only values artistic success in the form of wealth and fame.

Movie Reviews

Fantasia Fest 2026 Review: ‘Her Private Hell’ is Boring As Hell

Published

11 hours ago

July 19, 2026

Press Room

Fantasia Fest 2026 Review: ‘Her Private Hell’ is Boring As Hell

During the opening ceremony of the Fantasia International Film Festival, Her Private Hell director Nicolas Winding Refn was awarded a Cheval Noir Career Achievement Award for his contributions to cinema. He made an impassioned plea on the importance of a festival like Fantasia and genre cinema as a whole:

“In the mid-90s, when I began, we really couldn’t make genre movies; we had to make important movies. But we were like, f— that! How do you piss off your parents? Make a horror movie! How to tell the politicians to f— off? Make something violent! A little fun, some sexy stuff? It’s the best thing in the world! Genre is cinema!”

“Genre is cinema” may be the truest statement the Danish provocateur has ever made, which is why it felt so painful to follow such an electric and impassioned speech with one of the least impressive movies Refn has crafted. A movie that attempts to provoke and elicit strong reactions out of us but isn’t nearly as aesthetically and thematically interesting as it should be.

With characters soaked in bisexual lighting and neon colors, one would think that Refn would want to continue in the trajectory that has defined his eclectic body of work. But dying for twenty-five minutes before being brought back to life gives him a new outlook on the world, as he’s not only stated at Fantasia but during its Cannes world premiere as well.

In a way, the harrowing event he experienced mirrored a lot the character he portrayed in Hideo Kojima‘s Death Stranding, which he acknowledged during the Q&A session following the screening. Unfortunately, this shift in his thematic and aesthetic conventions yielded a movie that has nothing tangible to say about any of the images it presents or the movies it references.

Plot and critical reception of Her Private Hell

One even wonders why Her Private Hell received such vitriolic reactions at Cannes. Don’t get me wrong, it’s not a very good movie, but it’s also not the kind of movie that will piss people off. People may be inclined to walk out of it, not because of its strong and explicit violence, both physical and sexual (none of them go as far as some of Refn‘s previous movies), but because of how boring it is. It attempts to morph the giallo into a cyberpunk/futuristic visual language while sprinkling in a dash of Hong Kong-inspired action, but none of these elements coalesce into anything meaningful or significant.

An astute moviegoer might notice his inspirations (Roger Vadim, Mario Bava, Seijun Suzuki, and even Kojima), but there isn’t a single one that feels decidedly singular or meaningful enough to yield a reaction from us. Oh, sure, there are plenty of scenes where the audience may be inclined to react, but once they see how little payoff it has, they might not react to them at all.

It’s even difficult to describe what Her Private Hell is about because Refn now prefers to throw the “three-act” structure out of the window and create movies that don’t necessarily adhere to preconceived audience expectations.

In fact, when pressed on this during a Q&A moderated by film critic Katie Rife the following day, Refn scoffed at the idea of a movie having an “ending,” simply stating, “What is an ending?” While some might have laughed at such a response worthy of David Lynch‘s greatest moments, it does reveal how one has to watch Her Private Hell; which is about letting yourself be absorbed by the hallucinatory images of Refn‘s storytelling and try to see the parallels he makes between the stories of Elle (Sophie Thatcher) and Private K (Charles Melton).

A perplexing and uninteresting film from Nicolas Winding Refn

Even then, the viewing experience of Her Private Hell remains perplexing. And from a purely thematic viewpoint, it isn’t a movie worth parsing or spending your time attempting to find meaning in what’s on screen.

It’s also very loud. Perhaps too loud. Definitely the loudest movie I’ve watched in a cinema since Christopher Nolan‘s Tenet. Unlike that movie, however, the sound isn’t a character but a deterrent. Refn is convinced he must make the audience suffer agonizingly to get a reaction out of us, but, again, there’s not much here that warrants any form of reaction. Sure, some of it is violent, and a lot of it is painfully unpleasant.

In fact, Her Private Hell might be extremely misogynistic and depicts many difficult scenes with such a regressive attitude. Again, he’ll present something provocative but never do anything with it. What changed for Refn after he died? He’s still doing the same old stuff, but with nary a thing to excavate beyond the graphic violence and depictions of alpha masculinity. That treads on similar ground to Refn‘s most well-known movies, the Pusher trilogy, Drive, and Only God Forgives. It’s violence for the sake of violence, à la Michael Winner, but without any point behind said violence.

Even the cast can’t save Her Private Hell

None of the performances from a star-studded ensemble is any good, either. Sophie Thatcher, Kristine Froseth, and Havana Rose Liu are all accomplished actors in their own right and have always been pretty great in everything they do. The latter, in particular, has such a magnetic screen presence and old-school appeal that it feels perfectly suited to Refn‘s vision for elevating her innate talents.

Charles Melton was recently nominated for an Emmy for his career-best work in the second season of Beef. Their talents are all wasted. If you like to see them howl like wolves, I’ve got the movie for you. Even when viewed through a giallo lens, their respective portrayals never seem fully in tune with the unwieldy, dense image-making at play.

Only Pino Donaggio‘s ethereal music gives Her Private Hell its only signs of life. At 84 years old, the Italian composer, mostly known for his collaborations with Brian De Palma (which, according to Fantasia’s Mitch Davis, is ongoing, as he’s working on his latest movie), delivers one of the most stirring and affecting scores of his entire career, one that words can barely describe. As someone who repeatedly listens to Donaggio’s Carrie and Blow Out soundtracks, Her Private Hell is destined to be relistened to on repeat in my household. However, I will never watch the movie again.

Also check out: Fantasia Fest 2026: Our Five Most Anticipated Films

Movie Reviews

People Shared Their Thoughts About Movies They Watched And These 67 Reviews Are Comedy Gold – AOL

Published

23 hours ago

July 19, 2026

Press Room

People Shared Their Thoughts About Movies They Watched And These 67 Reviews Are Comedy Gold – AOL

If you love movies, chances are you’ve read a review or two before deciding what to watch. Most people keep things pretty simple—they talk about the acting, the storyline, or whether the film is worth your time. But then there’s Letterboxd, a popular social platform where movie lovers log, rate, and review the films they watch. While plenty of reviews are thoughtful and insightful, others take a… much more chaotic approach.

That’s exactly what the Letterboxd Reviews With Threatening Auras account celebrates. It rounds up the platform’s funniest, most unhinged, and wonderfully cursed reviews—the kind that make you stop mid-scroll and wonder what was going through the reviewer’s mind. These definitely aren’t your standard “Loved it, 4 stars” takes. They radiate such a bizarrely threatening energy that it’s almost impossible not to keep scrolling to see what wild review comes next.

We’ve all been there—sitting through a film, hoping it gets better, only for the credits to roll and leave you wondering what on earth you just watched. But if there’s one silver lining, it’s the internet’s reaction afterward. Sometimes the reviews are so funny, dramatic, or brutally honest that they’re more entertaining than the movie itself.

Whether it’s an accidental masterpiece of comedy or a hilariously savage one-liner, people have a remarkable talent for putting their thoughts into words. The truth is, movie reviews come in all shapes and sizes. They vary depending on who’s writing them, where they’re published, and what they’re hope to achieve. Some are designed to help you decide what to watch on a Friday night, while others dig deep into themes, symbolism, and filmmaking techniques.

One of the most familiar formats is the capsule review. These are the short reviews you’ll often spot in newspapers, magazines, streaming platforms, or entertainment websites. Usually just one or two paragraphs long, they quickly summarize the story, highlight a few strengths and weaknesses, and end with a clear recommendation or star rating. They’re ideal for people who don’t want spoilers or lengthy analysis—they simply want to know whether a movie is worth their time. Writing one isn’t always as easy as it looks, though. Condensing an entire film into just a few sentences while still being informative takes real skill. That’s why some of the best capsule reviews manage to say more in 100 words than others do in 1,000.

Professional critics often take a different approach. Publications such as Variety, The Hollywood Reporter, and major newspapers publish what are commonly known as trade reviews. These aren’t just personal opinions; they also consider a film’s broader impact, commercial appeal, performances, direction, cinematography, and where it fits within the industry. Their reviews are often read by moviegoers, filmmakers, studios, and even award voters. While audiences don’t always agree with the critics, these reviews provide a structured, informed perspective that goes beyond simply saying whether a movie was enjoyable. They aim to explain why a film succeeds—or why it falls flat.

Then there are academic film reviews, which take things to an entirely different level. These aren’t written for casual viewers but for students, researchers, and people who study cinema professionally. Rather than focusing on entertainment value, they examine symbolism, storytelling techniques, historical context, editing, cinematography, and cultural influence. It’s less about asking, “Was this movie good?” and more about exploring what the film is trying to communicate and how it fits into the history of cinema. They can be dense, detailed, and surprisingly fascinating, often revealing layers that the average viewer might never notice. Even a blockbuster superhero movie can become the subject of serious academic discussion.

Of course, not every review is carefully researched. Some of the most popular today are instant reaction reviews—the videos, podcasts, TikToks, or tweets people post immediately after leaving the theater. They’re fast, emotional, and completely unfiltered. You can usually tell within seconds whether someone loved the movie or absolutely hated it. Because there’s no time to overthink anything, these reactions often feel refreshingly genuine. Sure, opinions may change after a second viewing, but that’s part of the fun. They capture that immediate emotional response we all have after watching something memorable, whether it’s excitement, disappointment, confusion, or complete disbelief.

And then there’s arguably the internet’s favorite category: user reviews. Platforms like Letterboxd, IMDb, and Rotten Tomatoes have given everyday movie lovers a place to share whatever is on their minds. Some people write thoughtful essays that rival professional critics, while others somehow manage to steal the spotlight with a single sentence. One review might offer a heartfelt personal story about how a film changed someone’s life, while the next simply says something so absurd that thousands of people can’t stop laughing. Because anyone can contribute, there’s an endless variety of voices, personalities, and senses of humor. That’s exactly what makes scrolling through user reviews so addictive.

In recent years, these reviews have taken on a life of their own. Thanks to social media, the funniest ones are regularly shared far beyond the platforms where they were originally posted. Sometimes the review becomes more famous than the movie itself. A perfectly timed joke, an oddly specific observation, or an outrageously dramatic reaction can spread across the internet within hours. It’s a reminder that people aren’t just reviewing movies anymore—they’re entertaining each other in the process. For many film fans, reading the reviews afterward has become almost as enjoyable as watching the movie itself.

And that’s exactly where today’s collection comes in. Instead of looking at traditional movie criticism, we’re diving into the wonderfully chaotic world of Letterboxd, where movie lovers often express themselves in the most unpredictable ways imaginable. They aren’t polished critiques or carefully balanced opinions; they’re pure internet gold. Keep scrolling, Pandas, and see which review made you laugh the hardest—or left you wondering what on earth the reviewer had just watched.

Movie Reviews

1986 Movie Reviews – Aliens and Vamp | The Nerdy

Published

1 day ago

July 18, 2026

Press Room

1986 Movie Reviews – Aliens and Vamp | The Nerdy

by Sean P. Aune | July 18, 2026

Welcome to an exciting year-long project here at The Nerdy. 1986 was an exciting year for films giving us a lot of films that would go on to be beloved favorites and cult classics. It was also the start to a major shift in cultural and societal norms, and some of those still reverberate to this day.

We’re going to pick and choose which movies we hit, but right now the list stands at nearly four dozen.

Yes, we’re insane, but 1986 was that great of a year for film.

The articles will come out – in most cases – on the same day the films hit theaters in 1986 so that it is their true 40th anniversary. All films are also watched again for the purposes of these reviews and are not being done from memory. In some cases, it truly will be the first time we’ve seen them.

This time around, it’s July 18, 1986, and we’re off to see Aliens and Vamp.

Aliens

Really, what can you say about a classic?

Set 57 years after the events of Alien, Ellen Ripley (Sigourney Weaver) finds herself heading back to LV-426 when a colony on the planet stops communicating with Earth. Teamed up with Colonial Marines, she is still unprepared for the new horrors she will find at the claws of the xenomorphs.

I’m going to do something I normally don’t do and talk about a deleted scene. Aliens, as it stands is a heck of a follow-up to the original film, but for the life of me I will never figure out why James Cameron cut the scene about Ripley’s daughter dying. For those unfamiliar with it, there is a scene after Ripley returns to Earth where she learns her daughter passed away at the age of 66, two years before Ripley made it home. She cries over the fact she had promised her daughter she would be home in time for eleventh birthday.

This scene does so much to frame some of Ripley’s decisions throughout the rest of the movie. This scene, when included, improves the film far beyond the theatrical cut and adds immense weight to several other scenes.

The theatrical version is great, the extended cut is even better.

Where to watch: Available to stream.

Vamp

The 1980s seem to have already been fed up with vampire films with far more of them tackling the tropes instead of being straight-faced about the bloodsuckers.

Keith (Chris Makepeace) and AJ (Robert Rusler) are rushing a fraternity when when the latter promises the frat a stripper for their party to help their chances of getting in. They head downtown and wander into a strip club that features a dancer named Katrina (Grace Jones) that they are mesmerized by and decide she is the one they need. Little do they know she is actually an ancient vampire.

Considering this wasn’t long after Fright Night, it seems everyone was tired of the same old vampire stories. If they only knew what was coming several years later.

It’s a fine movie, and I mean that in the sense of “it’s fine.” It doesn’t do anything that new per se, but it has some fun visuals and sight gags.

Where to watch: Available to stream.

1986 Movie Reviews will continue on July 25, 2026, with , Maximum Overdrive, and Out of Bounds.