Cinemorphosis

Tag: film

  • The Everyday Vampires Who Feed on Chaos

    The Everyday Vampires Who Feed on Chaos

    Olga Khazan’s article “There’s a Name for the People Who Drain You” examines one of the unavoidable pests of human civilization: the hassler. Hasslers are the emotional pickpockets of everyday life. They drain those around them through relentless criticism, selfishness, bitterness, narcissism, cruelty, cynicism, and, in extreme cases, outright sociopathy. They appear everywhere—in workplaces, families, neighborhoods, and friend groups. No community is immune to them.

    The consequences of prolonged exposure are hardly trivial. To spend years trapped in the orbit of one or more hasslers is to live inside a low-grade psychological emergency. Anxiety rises. Cortisol surges. Depression follows. Autoimmune disorders become more likely. The body keeps score while the hassler keeps talking.

    One of the defining characteristics of the hassler is an appetite for friction. Hasslers are rarely content with peace and stability. They stir the pot, manufacture grievances, incite drama, and transform minor disagreements into theatrical productions. To ordinary people, conflict is exhausting. To the hassler, it is entertainment. The discomfort of others becomes a form of nourishment. Their preferred habitat is chaos because chaos guarantees attention, and attention is the oxygen they breathe.

    Unfortunately, hasslers cannot be avoided entirely. If you belong to a family, workplace, church, club, school, or neighborhood, you will eventually encounter one. They emerge with the reliability of weeds breaking through concrete.

    As I read Khazan’s article, I found myself thinking about the horror film Weapons and its sinister figure, Aunt Gladys. Gladys operates less like a conventional villain than a supernatural parasite. She feeds upon the misery of others with such potency that she seems less human than witch-like. Her power lies not in physical force but in her ability to infiltrate the emotional lives of her victims and convert their suffering into sustenance.

    Viewed through Khazan’s framework, Aunt Gladys may be the ultimate hassler.

    What fascinates me about figures like Gladys is that they often appear strangely hollow. They possess no stable center of their own. They are ciphers, vacuums, nonentities. Because they lack an inner life rich enough to sustain them, they must draw energy from the emotional resources of others. To feed, they must first weaken their prey. They create confusion, vulnerability, self-doubt, and dependency. Only then can they begin extracting what they need.

    In this sense, the hassler resembles a vampire. Not the elegant aristocrat in a velvet cape, but a psychological vampire who feeds not on blood but on attention, anxiety, and emotional exhaustion. The vampire drains the body. The hassler drains the spirit.

    Perhaps this is why hasslers appear so frequently in horror stories. They embody a fear that feels immediately recognizable. Most of us have never encountered a werewolf. Few of us have met a ghost. But nearly everyone has known someone who seemed to feed on conflict, manipulate relationships, and leave every room darker than they found it. Horror films merely give supernatural form to a creature we already know.

    The hassler, then, is not merely a difficult person. The hassler is an archetype. Long before horror movies invented monsters lurking in haunted houses, human beings were already living among people who fed on chaos and misery. The monsters came later. The hasslers came first.

  • Tuna on the Cheek, Blood on the Screen: Review of “Send Help”

    Tuna on the Cheek, Blood on the Screen: Review of “Send Help”

    When I watched Send Help two nights ago, I kept waiting for the horror to announce itself with a straight face. It never did. The film opens in a fluorescent office where Bradley Preston—an heir in a blazer, a man-child in executive drag—struts through a company he inherited the way one inherits a bad habit. His confidence is all surface tension: glossy, brittle, and one sharp object away from collapse. From the first scene, it plays less like a fright fest and more like a comedy that knows its punchlines will land harder if they’re soaked in blood.

    The supporting cast speaks fluent “bro,” a dialect of buzzwords and chest-thumping that echoes the bleak satire of In the Company of Men—only here the jokes move faster and the air is less suffocating. Early on, the movie tips its hand with a small, perfect humiliation: Linda Liddle, a socially awkward office worker with Survivor dreams, approaches Bradley with a chunk of tuna clinging stubbornly to her cheek. He can’t hear a word she says. The camera betrays him—cuts to a close-up of his eye, deranged and hypnotized by that fleck of fish like it’s a moral crisis. The gag is surgical. It reduces Bradley to appetite and Linda to spectacle in a single, merciless beat.

    The degradation doesn’t stop there. Bradley and his phalanx of bros revel in their own language, a lexicon designed to inflate mediocrity into swagger. Then the film detonates its premise: a flight to Thailand, a thunderstorm, a crash, an island. Suddenly the hierarchy flips. Bradley’s confidence evaporates in the salt air, and Linda—quietly competent, long dismissed—becomes indispensable. Her survival skills, once a punchline, turn into the only currency that matters. The movie sharpens into what it always wanted to be: a comedy of reversal, where a cocky lightweight is schooled by the person he spent years underestimating.

    Yes, there’s horror here—gore, shocks, the occasional indulgence in spectacle—but it all feels enlisted in the service of the joke. The violence doesn’t deepen the dread; it punctuates the satire. The film moves briskly, with clever turns that keep it buoyant where LaBute’s film sinks into a kind of moral tar. And yet the two works feel like distant relatives: both obsessed with cruelty, both fascinated by the theater of male arrogance, both willing to strip their characters bare. The difference is that Send Help has the decency to laugh while it does the stripping—and in that laughter, it finds its edge.

  • One Pose After Another

    One Pose After Another

    In her essay “The Popcorn Resistance of ‘One Battle After Another,’” Hope Reeves announces her lineage with the solemnity of inherited doctrine: she is the daughter of two members of the Weathermen, the radical group that inspired the film’s insurgents. What follows is less a review than a grievance. Reeves objects that Paul Thomas Anderson’s rebels are not revolutionaries but caricatures—“deranged agitators” who seem to exist only to detonate things and themselves. Where her parents possessed, in her telling, a rigorous political philosophy—a diagnosis of America’s ailments and a plan for cure—Anderson offers chaos without a syllabus. The film, she complains, squanders its moment on spectacle. It refuses to function as a generational bugle call. It gives us handsome actors, grotesque enemies, and no promise of redemption.

    The complaint reveals more about the critic than the film. Reeves commits a projection error dressed as moral seriousness. She presumes the movie’s job is to ratify her preferred politics and then faults it for failing to salute. This is not a failure of the film; it is a failure of categories. Anderson is not staging a seminar in revolutionary theory. He is staging a wake for our appetite for performance. His rebels are ridiculous on purpose—left and right alike—because the subject is not ideology but cosplay: the human need to wear a cause like a costume and mistake the costume for a self.

    In Anderson’s world, commitment looks less like conviction than intoxication. The characters lurch from pose to pose, from slogan to slogan, as if chasing a high that keeps evaporating. The cycle is the point: one performance after another, one hit after another, each promising meaning and delivering only momentum. Politics here is not a program but a habit—tribal, theatrical, and chemically gratifying. We are not persuaded; we are stimulated. We do not think; we refresh.

    Reeves wants a call to action. Anderson offers a diagnosis. He shows a culture that confuses noise for purpose and ritual for agency, a culture that keeps returning to the stage because the stage is the only place it feels alive. The film does not rescue its characters because rescue would flatter us. Instead, it holds up a mirror and refuses to blink. It is not the movie Reeves wanted. It is the movie that understands the room.

  • “Marty Supreme” Is a Rebuttal to Liquid Modernity

    “Marty Supreme” Is a Rebuttal to Liquid Modernity

    I sat through the 2.5-hour sprawl of Marty Supreme with a mix of fascination and dread, the way you watch a man juggle lit matches in a room full of gasoline. It doesn’t take long to diagnose Marty Mauser: no self-awareness, no boundaries, no governor on his appetites. Once you see that, the plot stops being a mystery and becomes a countdown. He treats his life–and everyone else’s–as expendable material in the service of his ego. Chaos isn’t an accident; it’s the operating system. The film runs on a kind of psychological determinism: remove self-knowledge and restraint, and watch the dominoes fall. The difficulty, of course, is that Marty is repulsive in the precise way the movie needs him to be. Some viewers refuse the bargain—why spend hours with a moral vacancy? I’d argue that’s the point. Like Uncut Gems, where Howard Ratner detonates his own life in slow motion, or Boogie Nights, where Dirk Diggler mistakes appetite for identity, this film belongs to a category I’d call the Chaos Agent Antihero: a person so unmoored from self-scrutiny that he turns every room into a hazard zone.

    It’s easy to dismiss these films as nihilistic—two hours of bad decisions dressed up as entertainment, but that reading is too lazy by half. Beneath the wreckage is a stern, almost old-fashioned argument about limits: the necessity of boundaries, the discipline of saying no, the unglamorous virtue of constraint. In that sense, the Chaos Agent Antihero is a rebuttal to what Zygmunt Bauman called liquid modernity—the condition in which everything solid dissolves into options. Careers become gigs, relationships become arrangements, identities become costumes you change between scenes. The promise is freedom; the invoice is fragmentation. In that fluid world, a man like Marty isn’t liberated; he’s uncontained. Without structure, he doesn’t discover himself; he disperses.

    Follow that logic to its end and you get the customary finish for men like Howard Ratner and Dirk Diggler: ugly, terminal, and instructive precisely because it refuses redemption. Marty Supreme flirts with a different exit. Fatherhood appears like a last-ditch intervention, a chance to trade improvisation for obligation, appetite for responsibility. You sense the film asking whether a man can accept the humiliating truth of limits and, in doing so, become something sturdier than a bundle of impulses. The alternative–the radical individualist with no brakes–isn’t freedom. It’s a long fall with excellent lighting.

  • The Man Who Lost His Mind Watching Himself Lose It

    The Man Who Lost His Mind Watching Himself Lose It

    The Man Who Lost His Mind to Watches.

    It’s a good title. It has the faint whiff of Russian absurdism about it—the kind of story Gogol might have written if he’d traded overcoats for dive bezels. And why not lose your mind to watches? In literature, men have unraveled over less. But absurdity only works when it rests on a bedrock of truth. So what truth does this title expose?

    First, let’s dispense with denial. There exists an entire subculture of men who have, in fact, lost their minds to watches. A device whose primary function is to tell the time becomes an object of longing, analysis, acquisition, liquidation, reacquisition, and emotional weather. Madness doesn’t arrive dramatically. It waits patiently in the wings while the enthusiast compares lume, case finishing, and bracelet tolerances.

    Should we be surprised? Not at all. Civilization is a museum of fixation. People lose their minds over limited-edition sneakers, boutique fountain pens, vintage Bordeaux, carbon-fiber bicycles, custom keyboards, Japanese denim, tactical knives, collectible toys, and canvas tote bags that signal the correct cultural tribe. Watches are merely one exhibit in the larger gallery of beautifully engineered distractions.

    As Jim Harrison observed, the danger of civilization is that you will waste your life on nonsense. The watch obsessive understands this perfectly. That’s the problem. He knows the spreadsheets, the forum debates, the late-night listings, and the ritualized buying and selling produce more regret than joy. The clarity is there. The behavior remains.

    And this is where the story turns.

    Because the true obsession is no longer the watches.

    Once awareness enters the room—once the collector recognizes the irrationality of his own pattern—a second, more corrosive fixation takes hold. He begins monitoring himself. Judging himself. Auditing every impulse. Each purchase is followed not just by buyer’s remorse, but by a darker thought: What is wrong with me?

    The watches become secondary. The real object of attention is his own perceived unraveling.

    Shame enters. Then melancholy. Then a low-grade anxiety that hums beneath every browsing session: Am I losing control? Am I wasting my life? Is this what I’ve become?

    At this point, the original title is no longer accurate.

    The man did not lose his mind to watches.

    He lost his mind watching himself lose his mind.

    This is Meta-Obsession Syndrome: the recursive condition in which the collector becomes more consumed by analyzing, fearing, and diagnosing his own obsession than by the objects that started it. The hobby no longer drives the anxiety. Self-surveillance does. The enthusiast becomes both patient and examiner, actor and critic, compulsive buyer and moral prosecutor.

    And here lies the cruel irony.

    The watches may occupy the wrist.
    But the real mechanism now running nonstop is the mind—tracking, measuring, and condemning itself in real time.

    The second obsession is always worse than the first.

  • Why You Should Watch the Most Stressful Movie of the Year: If I Had Legs I’d Kick You

    Why You Should Watch the Most Stressful Movie of the Year: If I Had Legs I’d Kick You

    My wife and I first fell for Rose Byrne watching her volatile, oddly tender friendship with Seth Rogen implode and recombine in Platonic. When we heard she starred in a film called If I Had Legs I’d Kick You—with Conan O’Brien cast against type as a pinch-faced therapist—we were curious in the wary, “this could be a disaster” sense.

    We had just abandoned the TV series Ponies, unable to buy the premise that two American widows had any credible reason to embed themselves as spies in 1970s Russia. On a shrug and a whim, I said, “Let’s try the Rose Byrne movie.” Within minutes, I knew we weren’t watching something polite or forgettable.

    Byrne plays Linda, a mother in a state of constant triage, caring for an unnamed daughter—food-fussy, difficult, often infuriating—who suffers from a mysterious condition requiring a feeding tube. Linda’s life has narrowed to a single obsession: get her daughter to gain weight, get rid of the tube, reclaim some sliver of normalcy. That’s the plan, anyway.

    Then the ceiling collapses. Literally. Water, black mold, asbestos—biblical plagues delivered through faulty plumbing. Mother and child are displaced to a grim motel while the husband, conveniently absent on a luxury cruise, calls incessantly to bark instructions, demand progress, and outsource both parenting and home repair to his exhausted wife. Linda is alone, drowning, and being evaluated from all sides.

    About ten minutes in, I leaned over and said, “This feels like Uncut Gems.” Not long after, I learned the film was written and directed by Mary Bronstein, who happens to be married to Ronald Bronstein, a longtime Safdie collaborator. That anxious, grinding sense of no escape is not an accident.

    Let me be clear about what this movie is not. It is not a Hollywood crowd-pleaser. It is not a Conan O’Brien vehicle—his presence is cold, clipped, and deeply unsettling. It is not a date movie unless you’re looking to test the structural integrity of your relationship. And it is not a tidy parable offering uplifting wisdom about parenting.

    This is a horror film. Not the jump-scare kind, but the kind that tightens its grip scene by scene, turning ordinary stress into existential dread. The terror compounds. The center does not hold.

    The most devastating moment comes when Linda tells her therapist that she isn’t just a bad parent—she isn’t a parent at all. After years of vigilance and sacrifice, she feels emptied out, reduced to a hollow administrative shell, a being performing motherhood without any remaining sense of self. A nervous breakdown, she implies, would almost be a relief.

    After the credits rolled, I thought of a colleague from years ago who once told me about his brother’s family falling apart. Their teenage daughter, diagnosed with bipolar disorder, became violent. Doors were locked at night. Chairs were wedged against door handles. The strain was unrelenting, and eventually the marriage collapsed under it. Love wasn’t enough. Systems intervened. Judgment followed. The family was pulverized.

    That is the movie’s deepest horror: when parenting goes bad, it doesn’t fail gently. It metastasizes. Once institutions and experts enter the picture, you’re no longer just a parent—you’re a defendant. Forms multiply. Everyone watches. You second-guess every instinct. The spiral accelerates.

    If I Had Legs I’d Kick You is fearless in refusing to rescue Linda with a neat arc or a redemptive bow. The film respects her too much for that. I was riveted from start to finish, and when it ended, I felt wrung out.

    Most of all, my heart broke for Linda. She is not a lesson. She is not a case study. She is a wound. And she will stay with me for a long time.

  • The Howard Ratner School of Watch Collecting

    The Howard Ratner School of Watch Collecting

    Watch obsessives have more in common with Howard Ratner than we care to admit. Yes, that Howard Ratner—the unhinged gem pusher played with twitchy brilliance by Adam Sandler in the Safdie brothers’ cinematic panic attack, Uncut Gems. Ratner operates in the Diamond District behind bulletproof glass, drowning in sparkle and debt. We operate behind the bulletproof delusions of horological obsession, buried in brushed steel and moonphase complications.

    Like Ratner, we gamble—not at sportsbooks, but with FedEx tracking numbers. We tell ourselves, this is the one as we refresh the delivery status of the next “grail” watch. The package might as well be glowing, Pulp Fiction-style. And like Ratner chasing a cursed Ethiopian black opal mined from the bloodied crust of the Earth, we twist ourselves into financial and emotional pretzels to score that one special piece—the wrist-mounted miracle that will finally quiet the voices.

    Spoiler: it never does. Why? Because we are trapped in an Acquisitive Panic Loop–a self-perpetuating cycle of anxiety relieved only by purchase, followed immediately by renewed anxiety. Collections expand not by intention but by momentum, like debt rolling downhill.

    Like the crazed watch collector, Ratner is a man who thinks more is the cure. More bets. More jewels. More chaos. The watch obsessive runs the same play. We soothe our midlife despair not with therapy or silence, but with spring drives, meteorite dials, and limited edition bronze cases. Our collections don’t grow—they metastasize.

    Like Ratner, our problem isn’t the world. Our problem is internal. The call is coming from inside the skull. He can’t stop because he doesn’t want to stop. The thrill is the point. Every acquisition, every wrist shot, every gushing forum post—just another hit of synthetic joy to distract from the gnawing void. We call it a hobby. Let’s not kid ourselves. It’s dopamine addiction disguised as design appreciation.

    Uncut Gems is a cinematic espresso shot laced with panic. My wife and brother couldn’t sit through thirty minutes. Too stressful, they said. Too jittery. I’ve watched it three times.

    But of course I have. I’m a watch addict.

    I live in Ratner’s world. The caffeinated chaos? That’s not discomfort. That’s home.

  • The Greatest Flex Is Self-Denial

    The Greatest Flex Is Self-Denial

    In case anyone has missed it, Bruce Springsteen is seventy-five years old and still looks like he could outrun most men half his age while singing at full volume. He has the same chiseled body that powered “Born to Run” during my junior year—the song that injected an entire generation with adolescent adrenaline and the belief that escape was always one chorus away. The mystery is not that Springsteen is still performing. The mystery is how he’s performing while appearing carved out of disciplined granite.

    The answer, it turns out, is brutal in its simplicity. Springsteen eats one meal a day. That’s it. No grazing. No late-night negotiations with the pantry. His self-control has apparently spread, too. Chris Martin of Coldplay—another famous man who could afford to eat like a Roman emperor—has sworn off dinner entirely. I find all of this deeply unsettling, not because it’s unhealthy or extreme, but because it’s practiced by people who could easily afford indulgence as a full-time lifestyle.

    That’s the real flex. Not yachts. Not villas. Not decadent excess. The most impressive display of power available to the wealthy is self-denial. These men don’t lack access. They lack excuses. Their discipline quietly points an accusatory finger at the rest of us, and unfortunately, that finger lands squarely on my plate.

    If I’m being honest—and honesty is the whole problem here—I’m indulgent when it comes to food. Portions creep. Snacks multiply. I carry about twenty pounds that no amount of kettlebells or Schwinn Airdyne heroics can fully offset. Springsteen himself has said that fitness is ninety percent diet, and I resent him for being right. You can’t out-train a refrigerator you keep reopening out of habit.

    So tonight, instead of reaching for another snack, I may watch the latest Bruce Springsteen documentary for moral reinforcement. The man who once soundtracked youthful restlessness may now be offering something rarer: a model of restraint with dignity intact. Cheers to Bruce Springsteen—patron saint of senior citizens who refuse to let dinner win.

  • The Watch Relapse Spectacle

    The Watch Relapse Spectacle

    Watch addicts eventually reach a terminal stage of torment: the moment when the hobby that once delivered pleasure produces only agitation. The rotation feels oppressive. The collection feels accusatory. At this point, the addict does what desperate cultures have always done—he invents a ritual.

    Surveying the landscape for deliverance, one inevitably recalls the 2014 viral fever dream known as the Ice Bucket Challenge. The watch world demands its own purgative spectacle. Enter the One-Watch Challenge.

    The ritual is simple and public. A ten-minute YouTube video is required. The setting must be tasteful—backyard at golden hour or living room with flattering light. Friends gather. Straws are drawn. Every watch in the collection is claimed except the one the addict secretly hopes will remain. The winners strap on their spoils, grinning like looters at the fall of a city. The subject is then lifted into the air, victorious yet emptied, holding aloft his single remaining watch.

    He is reborn. He is no longer a collector. He is a Oner—a new creature who has renounced rotation days for the austere monogamy of one watch, worn for the rest of his natural life. He speaks of clarity. He speaks of peace. He uploads the video and waits for absolution.

    Naturally, the movement does not end there.

    A counter-genre soon emerges: the Relapser. These videos document former Oners discovered months later, sprawled on their carpets amid a shameful abundance of watches. Boxes are open. Straps are tangled. The men appear undone—glassy-eyed, infantile, muttering references to limited editions and “just one more.” The videos are initially consumed as comedy, shared with a wink and a laugh.

    Over time, the laughter fades.

    The genre acquires a formal name: the Watch Relapse Spectacle—the inevitable counter-ritual in which renunciation collapses into excess. What began as entertainment hardens into parable. For the first time, the wider public glimpses the pathology beneath the polish. The madness is no longer charming. It is instructive.

  • How 2025 Made Me Believe in Movies Again

    How 2025 Made Me Believe in Movies Again

    I lost my love for movies sometime in the last decade, when Hollywood began to feel less like a dream factory and more like an actuarial office with better lighting. Everything started to look like a boardroom decision in costume. I can count on one hand the films I bothered to see in theaters over fifteen years: Avatar, World War Z, Black Panther, Get Out. A few streamed titles shook me awake—Uncut Gems and Good Time from the Safdies, Paul Giamatti’s bruised soul in Private Life and The Holdovers, Paul Thomas Anderson’s sunburned nostalgia in Licorice Pizza, Ryan Coogler’s Sinners. But 2025 hit differently. Four films—Eddington, One Battle After Another, Bugonia, and Weapons—did something rare: they stared directly into the national nervous breakdown. These weren’t escapist fantasies. They were dispatches from a culture unraveling—where institutions inspire no faith, conspiracies feel more plausible than facts, politics has become cosplay, and we live in sealed-off realities that collide without ever conversing.

    Eddington blindsided me. Joaquin Phoenix plays a bitter, alienated, anti-mask sheriff in a New Mexico town during the pandemic, and he’s so fully possessed by the role that I didn’t recognize him for several minutes. I went in braced to hate the film—expecting a grim slog through our worst collective memories. Instead, I got something braver: a devastating portrait of a society that has slipped its moorings and drifted into a lonely fever swamp. The film doesn’t mug for satire or cheap laughs. It trusts the material. Every scene tightens the vise on your attention. It’s the kind of movie nine hundred ninety-nine directors would have drowned in. Ari Aster somehow swims.

    One Battle After Another turns political polarization into tragic pageantry. Sean Penn’s Colonel Lockjaw—a grotesque ICE-agent archetype—faces off against Leonardo DiCaprio’s Rocket Man, who might as well be an Antifa folk demon. But the movie’s real target isn’t left or right; it’s the theater of identity itself. We’ve become a nation of people in costumes, fighting playground wars with adult consequences. Once your political tribe becomes your personality, nuance feels like betrayal. The film suggests a hard truth: a country run by permanent adolescents doesn’t collapse in flames—it collapses in tantrums. Penn has built a career on operatic excess, but Lockjaw may be his most disturbingly perfect creation yet.

    Bugonia is stranger still. Jesse Plemons—leaner, sharper, and channeling a high-IQ Dale Gribble—plays Teddy, a man-child whose conspiracy obsessions keep him tuned to late-night AM radio and convinced that a tech CEO, played by Emma Stone, is an alien in need of kidnapping and repatriation. Once tied up in his house, she attempts to weaponize corporate confidence as an escape strategy, and her faith in managerial language becomes its own punchline. Plemons is reliably excellent, but Emma Stone has crossed into something rarer: the kind of presence Daniel Day-Lewis had in the nineties, where the screen bends around her. The film’s bizarre logic and eerie beauty sent me straight into the arms of Yorgos Lanthimos’ odd, seductive universe.

    Weapons brings the nightmare home—literally. Set in the suburbs, it tells the story of a witch who makes a classroom of children vanish. The teacher is blamed. The principal responds with bureaucratic platitudes. The town spirals. Beneath the horror scaffolding is a sharp allegory about addiction and institutional cowardice: when a society loses its ability to think clearly, every crisis metastasizes. The adults talk in slogans. The children disappear.

    Taken together, these films diagnose the same disease. Chaos becomes pandemonium when a culture retreats into fantasy and calls it identity. We dress up our impulses as ideologies. We curate personas instead of building character. The center doesn’t hold—not because of some invading barbarian, but because we’ve all invited the barbarian inside and handed him the keys. The good news, if there is any, is that there are still filmmakers brave enough to tell the truth about the mess we’re in. In 2025, cinema finally stopped trying to soothe me—and started telling me what I already knew but didn’t want to admit.