How did you first hear about the last movie you watched? As most of you likely said, it was through an online source. But it was also entirely out of your control. If you saw it from a social media post or a content creator like me, an algorithm pushed that content in front of you. If you saw a movie poster on Reddit, an algorithm pushed that to your front page. If you saw an article in your Google news alerts from Variety featuring an interview with Ben Affleck on his new movie, an algorithm made the decision to prompt you with that link.

This is what I and experts in this field of study would call “the illusion of choice.” We have more choices than we have ever had to get our news, connect with our friends, listen to music, engage in our communities, and of course, watch movies and TV shows. But we aren’t truly choosing any of that. It is all based on a machine that sucks up all of our data and spits it back out into tightly curated experiences that it believes we will enjoy.

While there are no definitive numbers on just how many algorithms we interact with each day, educated guesses by industry experts put that number around several hundred, if not 1,000 or more, every day. There are algorithms determining our healthcare, education, careers, criminal justice system, and of course, entertainment. If you are looking for a deeper dive into algorithms and the massive impact that they have in modern society, I highly recommend Hannah Fry’s book Hello World: Being Human in the Age of Algorithms, which is a fascinating and occasionally terrifying look into this recent phenomenon.

Subscribe now

These algorithms can also be difficult to break, or reset, which amplifies the echo chamber that users can get trapped in. There is a fascinating recent study out of the University of Pennsylvania and their Annenberg School for Communication’s Computational Social Science Lab that aimed to determine how much impact YouTube algorithms versus user input played into the content that users would see on the platform. The main goal of the study was to investigate the impact that YouTube’s algorithm has on the radicalization of individuals. However, the most interesting part of that study for me was the experiment the team ran to determine how long it took to “break free” from the algorithm’s grasp.

To do this, researchers took one of their bot accounts that had a long history (120 videos) of watching far-right news and changed the bot’s consumption to more moderate news channels for the next sixty videos. The findings surprised me. From the report:

If partisan consumers switch to moderate content, YouTube’s sidebar recommender “forgets” their partisan preference within roughly thirty videos regardless of their prior history, while homepage recommendations shift more gradually toward moderate content.

In the world of YouTube, thirty videos would equate to roughly six hours of viewing based on an average length of twelve minutes per video. For many people, this may not take long at all — a couple of days with consistent viewing and you could “reset” your algorithm. However, this study did not consider all of the other data points that YouTube would have on a typical user as part of the Google ecosystem. These bots did not have a documented history of search inquiries, emails, website logins via Google, tons of phone data from Android users, and more. With this data included, I am sure that it would take even longer than thirty videos to break free from the algorithm’s hold.

Subscribe now

If we apply some of that data to streaming apps and assume that they are using similar algorithms to YouTube and other entertainment apps, it is likely an even harder task to break free. Even if the streaming algorithms required less content, say ten to fifteen movies or TV shows to “break free,” that is multiple days or weeks for the average user. It also would require a consistent shift, which might be even harder to do.

For example, say you had a month or two where you were on a big comedy kick. Every time you opened Netflix, you went straight to I Think You Should Leave or Seinfeld or Arrested Development. Naturally, the algorithm is going to recommend similar content to keep you engaged. But say October rolls around and you want some horror movies, or it’s July and you are in the mood for some summer romance movies. Well, you won’t see those recommended to you, even after several watches. And if you do jump back into Seinfeld in the middle of this shift, it will set the algorithm straight again.

There are ways to manually reset recommendations, usually in user settings, by deleting all of your existing history and starting fresh. But even then, you are served recommendations based on what’s trending and popular amongst the masses. The reality is that you can’t put people into a box, but that is what these algorithms want to do. Humans don’t fit nicely into a single category. We are too complex for that. Algorithms will continue to improve and get “smarter,” but as long as they rely on user input for their learning, it is so hard for a streaming service to make a solid recommendation or challenge you to try something new without being human and thinking outside the box.

Is it depressing? Sure. Scary? Yep. But luckily, we don’t have to live that way. There are ways out of the bubble, and there are ways to break out of the algorithm and find movies that aren’t trending. There are so many great movies out there, even from just the past decade, that you likely missed. And if you are a member of the younger millennial or Gen Z generations, even more “old” movies don’t get nearly enough love from these algorithms because they aren’t “sexy” and new. They don’t drive clicks and new user sign-ups, so some of them disappear from the zeitgeist.

But they don’t have to disappear. You control what you watch. You control where you click. You control what you buy. And it is time that we all took back that control.

This post is an excerpt from my book, Lost in the Stream, available now wherever books are sold.

I have a bit of a unique perspective here. I was born in 1992. I grew up in what I’d consider to be the heyday and peak of children’s television. Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, Cartoon Network — it was truly a golden era for live action and animated shows.

Subscribe now

I also have a perspective from the 2010s that most people my age missed. I started dating my wife in 2010, just three months after her youngest brother was born. At the time there was a three-month-old, a four-year-old, and a three-year-old in the house. We spent a lot of time babysitting and hanging out with those kids through the decade, watching the evolution of programming in real time, before we had our first kid in 2021.

So from 2021 through today, I’ve had a deep understanding of the children’s television market through both my work as a creator in this space and my role as a father. I try to research and pick the best options for my kids — screen time is inevitable no matter what idealistic view you have of raising a child before you actually have one. I want to make it count. And more often than not, I find myself putting on older programming because most of the new stuff just doesn’t cut it.

Growing up, I watched animated shows like Angry Beavers, Dexter’s Laboratory, Rugrats, SpongeBob, Hey Arnold, Doug, KaBlam!, Recess, Ed, Edd n Eddy, and Rocko’s Modern Life. I watched live action shows like Even Stevens, All That, Kenan and Kel, Drake and Josh, and Lizzie McGuire, and game shows like Figure It Out, Double Dare, GUTS, and Legends of the Hidden Temple. Tell me that wasn’t a golden era of children’s TV programming. It’s a hill I am willing to die on.

Those shows were insane. Silly. Completely irreverent at times. It all explains my current sense of humor and why I love comics like Nathan Fielder, Tim Robinson, and Tim Heidecker — weird, funny, and completely off the wall. But they all had something even more important in common: the pacing and the way they were shot and edited.

Even Stevens was revolutionary for kids. It was a multi-camera sitcom shot well in realistic set pieces and real environments. Lizzie McGuire was the same way, as were Kenan and Kel and Drake and Josh. All That was a sketch comedy show for kids — an adult concept adapted for a younger audience, but presented in a way that didn’t baby the viewer or treat their brain as lesser than. These shows challenged you to keep up, told real stories with multi-episode timelines, and entertained while teaching. The cinematography was exceptional at times. There was real effort put into these shows, the same kind of effort going into the major sitcoms on ABC, CBS, and NBC.

The animated shows felt the same way. Crazy visuals, genuinely insane plots — but no cuts every three seconds. No constant need to overstimulate. The jokes had a setup and a punchline, not just some brainrot meme that could be dropped into any situation for a cheap reaction. The show runners treated kids like they had a brain.

Think about some of those shows and their themes if you grew up in this era. The Rugrats Passover episode was a masterpiece. The SpongeBob Hash-Slinging Slasher episode was a major reason I grew up to love horror media. It was genuinely great television. This was real storytelling, and the people making these shows understood exactly what they were doing.

Blue’s Clues, which premiered in 1996, is probably the best example of how seriously the good ones took this responsibility. The pacing was completely deliberate, with pauses calibrated to be long enough for the youngest viewers to think, but short enough that older kids wouldn’t get bored. That style came from actual developmental research. Fred Rogers did the same thing, meeting regularly with his mentor, renowned child psychologist Margaret McFarland, to make sure every script authentically reflected the real concerns and feelings of children. These creators had researchers in the room. They cared about what was going into kids’ brains because they understood that television was powerful — and that worked both ways.

Subscribe now

As the 2000s rolled into the 2010s and social media and YouTube started to rewire how our brains consumed entertainment, the shows changed with them. They got faster. More cuts. Less storytelling. Less impact. Like everything else in that era, it started to feel like content instead of television. It was becoming disposable. Disney started casting influencers in their shows for clout. The attention economy ate the programming room alive. Don’t get me wrong — genuinely talented people came out of this period. Sabrina Carpenter, Zendaya, Keke Palmer, and Olivia Rodrigo are all superstars. But they were the good among a lot of bad changes in the industry.

The 2020s continued this trend and then floored the accelerator. YouTube became the dominant platform for children’s content and it was built on a completely different philosophy than anything that came before it — fast cuts, animations in your face, loud noises — it was about distraction and consumption instead of entertainment and story. The goal was not to tell a great story. The goal was to get kids to watch the next one. YouTube’s algorithm is engineered to maximize watch time, recommending content it predicts will hold a viewer’s attention — because longer watch times signal viewer satisfaction and push a video higher in the feed.

Kids no longer had three options for TV. They had thousands. One moment of boredom and they can find something else. Streaming platforms practically panic the second you hit pause, throwing five recommendations in your face and begging you to stay. And instead of creating programming that earns that attention through quality, the industry went the opposite direction, optimizing for thirty-second chaos followed by an immediate hook into more chaos.

Here’s the thing — and this is where I stop being the nostalgic dad and start citing actual science. Researchers at the University of Virginia found that just nine minutes of watching a fast-paced cartoon had immediate, measurable negative effects on four-year-olds’ executive function — including self-regulation, working memory, and the ability to delay gratification. Nine minutes. Not a four-hour tablet session. Nine minutes.

A 2024 systematic review in BMC Psychology backed this up, finding that children exposed to fast-paced programming switched activities more frequently and spent less time on tasks afterward — a pattern the researchers identified as a shortened attention span. And it gets worse: fast-paced editing and rapid scene changes reward fixed attention to a constantly changing stimulus, which means kids who watch a lot of this kind of television can become less tolerant of slower-paced activities — like reading, or learning, or just sitting still. They’re being conditioned to need the chaos.

This brings me directly to CoComelon, which I’ll say plainly is one of the worst things to happen to a toddler’s developing brain. I know that sounds dramatic. I don’t care. I would not let my kids within 100 feet of that show, but unfortunately I appear to be in the minority. The CoComelon YouTube channel has over 183 million subscribers and its videos have accumulated over 190 billion views. The company behind it, Moonbug Entertainment, tests content on young children using a device called the Distractatron — a system that monitors whether a child looks away from the main show, essentially the same feedback loop that social media platforms use to keep adults scrolling. They are literally optimizing for your toddler’s eyeballs.

The screen shifts every one or two seconds, there is almost never a quiet moment, and the constant high-contrast animation gives kids’ brains no time to rest or process what they’re seeing. The bright colors and relentless stimulation trigger dopamine responses that can lead to addictive patterns — over time, children may struggle to play creatively or tolerate any activity that doesn’t deliver the same level of constant input. Parents aren’t imagining it when their kids melt down after the tablet gets taken away. That’s documented.

It’s not to say that Rocko’s Modern Life or KaBlam! weren’t chaotic. They were. But it was controlled chaos, and the timing was different. The younger shows from this era actually built in space for kids to participate. Blue’s Clues paused for answers. Dora the Explorer waited for responses. Bear in the Big Blue House talked directly to the child watching. Kids were invited to be part of the show. Now the kids — mostly their eyeballs and developing brains — are just the product. Viewing hours and engagement metrics. No real interaction required.

Luckily, there are still people making children’s television the right way. Bluey is genuinely great, and my kids are proof of it. Unlike most modern children’s shows that lean on fast-paced editing and non-stop action, Bluey uses soft colors, natural dialogue, and moderate pacing to create a calming experience that fosters comprehension and emotional engagement. Researchers recently analyzed all 150 episodes from the first three seasons and found that nearly half included a clear resilience message — covering emotional communication, problem-solving, self-regulation, and empathy.

That’s a show made with intention by people who view kids as more than revenue streams. It also became the most-watched program in America in 2024 — not just among children’s shows, all shows, with 55.62 billion minutes watched on Disney+ and 143 consecutive weeks in Nielsen’s streaming ratings. So parents know the difference when they see it, and they will support these shows!

Trash Truck on Netflix is genuinely great. Lucas the Spider is wonderful. PBS Kids is still doing incredible work with animated programs like Carl the Collector, Secret Museum, Daniel Tiger, Wild Kratts, and even live action shows like The Odd Squad which gives me serious childhood flashbacks. Ms. Rachel was transformative for my son who had speech delays. And YouTube isn’t entirely without value — there’s a tremendous archive of older programming preserved there, and legitimately educational channels do exist if you look for them.

Subscribe now

My kids watch Bear in the Big Blue House, Dragon Tales, and The Magic School Bus. They love Bill Nye, Crocodile Hunter, and Little Bear. They’re already into the 1990s Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles and they’ll go through every era of Scooby-Doo before we’re done. And I see the difference in how they engage — their attention, their retention, what they bring up days later. These shows were built by teams who understood how to entertain and challenge a child’s developing brain at the same time. That’s not nostalgia. That’s just a higher standard that we’ve largely abandoned.

I’m not as familiar with what’s happening in the 8–13 demographic these days since my kids are younger, but I’d guess it’s much of the same. What I know for certain is that more teenagers watch YouTube than anything else, and Mr. Beast isn’t doing a single thing to further a kid’s education or inspire them with storytelling. He’s selling views and chocolate bars. And kids eat it up — literally.

So something has clearly shifted. It isn’t for the best, and I genuinely fear that too many parents are missing how much the media their children consume actually matters. A study examining what infants and toddlers were actually watching on YouTube found that less than 6% of videos in the sample contained any learning goals whatsoever. Less than six percent. And that’s the platform that now dominates children’s screen time.

Do I want regulations for children’s programming? No — free speech is free speech, and I tend toward the libertarian end of that argument. You should be able to do what you want and make your own choices. But consequences don’t disappear just because we don’t legislate them. It’s up to all of us as parents, as people working in the entertainment space, and as advocates for the generation that’s currently sitting in front of these screens to talk about this problem loudly and vote with our time and our wallets.

Support the programs that get it right. Support PBS Kids. Find the educational YouTube channels that are built on actual research. Go to the library and pick out a DVD. Go to the thrift store and find some movies and shows your kids have never seen. Sit with them and watch. Ask them questions about what’s on the screen. Research shows that when parents watch alongside their kids, those shows become active teaching tools — turning passive viewing into conversation.

Kids can watch TV. They can learn from it. Screen time is not the devil. What’s on the screen is either working for your child’s brain or against it, and right now the industry’s incentives are almost entirely pointed in the wrong direction. The golden era of children’s television proved that you could do both — entertain a child and respect the brain that was watching. We just have to demand that standard again as a society.

What are your kids watching? What shows from your childhood do you still put on? Drop it in the comments — I’d genuinely love to know.

This newsletter is always free. If you want to support the work and help me keep writing pieces like this, becoming a paid subscriber means the world.

Before we get into it, I have to get petty for a second. This is the New England in me coming out for you all to see. My grandmother would be proud.

For years, when you searched my name on Google, one of the first results is a Reddit thread about how people don’t like me. That’s what you get for being a public figure. But one comment from CletusVanDamnit — who is clearly a massive fan of me personally — was the one that bugged me the most because he was just dead wrong about something I first said years ago. But I had to wait for this all to play out.

Cletus, sometimes you gotta let things play out, my friend. They don’t happen overnight.

And I was correct. Here is a YouTube video I made about the news today. For those who prefer to read, carry on below!

Over two years ago, Disney moved all of their physical media production over to Sony. Sony was taking over which titles came out, the packaging, the remastering, the distribution, the manufacturing of the discs. You name it, Sony was doing it. So already, Disney had done away with physical media internally. They were basically licensing it out.

Fast forward to April 14th, 2026. Disney had mass layoffs — about a thousand people — and it included what was left of the home entertainment department. Everybody from the top on down. There is no home entertainment department left at Disney.

Disney’s sole focus is now Disney+. I’ve had industry people tell me that if Disney had the opportunity, they would probably pull all of their movies and TV shows off of every digital service — no Fandango, no Apple TV, no Prime Video for rental or purchase. They want it all streamlined into Disney+. So it’s natural that physical media would also go away.

But I don’t think this is the end for Disney physical media. It’s just the end at Disney.

And it truly is the end of an era. Disney Home Video was the juggernaut of the home video boom. Everybody had those clamshell VHS tapes. Everybody knew the coming-soon-to-video intros. The Lion King was the bestselling VHS tape of all time with over a billion dollars in sales. It was absolutely insane what they were putting out in the ‘90s and into the 2000s. And now they’ve stepped out because the money isn’t there anymore, and Disney follows the money.

But this is a trend you’re going to see across all the major studios. Consolidation is already happening. Studio Distribution Services — the joint venture between Universal and Warner Bros. — has been around for five or six years. They’ve picked up Shout! Factory and sell everything on GRUV.com. Sony has picked up remastering and distribution for other studios, with Disney being one of the main ones. And I trust Sony. Their CEO recently said the theatrical experience needs to be better, with longer theatrical windows and fewer ads. They really seem to get what the industry needs to thrive, and physical media is one of those things.

At the same time you’re seeing licensing explode. Arrow Video is picking up Warner Bros. titles, Kino Lorber is getting Paramount and MGM, and Vinegar Syndrome is continuing to expand. I wouldn’t be surprised if Disney and Fox catalog titles start getting licensed out too. This is exactly what happened with vinyl. The major labels walked away, boutique labels filled the void, and eventually everybody just licensed it out to the people who actually knew what they were doing.

That’s what’s happening here. Physical media will go back to the hands of Vinegar Syndrome, Arrow, Kino, Radiance, Criterion, Terror Vision, Severin, Synapse — the labels that actually love this stuff. This is nearly a billion dollar industry that is gaining ground in 2026. It is not going away.

I’m not worried. It’s another domino to fall, but all those dominoes are falling toward the same conclusion — the studios back out and the labels we love take over. This is now their industry.

Don’t be a Cletus. Keep things positive. Physical media is alive and well, even when the news makes it seem like it isn’t.

Roger Ebert said it best. In connection with his love for many genres, he talked about rating a movie according to its “generic expectations.” It translates like this: “The star ratings are relative, not absolute. If a director is clearly trying to make a particular kind of movie, and his audiences are looking for a particular kind of movie, part of my job is judging how close he came to achieving his purpose.”

I agree with that one hundred percent.

If you look at my Letterboxd, you will see a lot of high rankings. A 5-star slasher movie that I loved is not on the same level as The Godfather. I feel like that should be obvious for most film lovers. I rated Super Mario Bros. Galaxy a 3.5. My kids loved it, it was visually impressive, it kept their attention, and they had a ton of fun. So that is a great kids movie. It did its job. But if I also rate something like National Lampoon’s Vacation a 3.5 as a live action adult comedy from the 80s, those ratings are not equal. Everything has to be judged within the context of the genre, the era, and the intended impact.

Without context, what is art anyway? All art is created with context and none of it exists in a bubble. Cave paintings are fantastic pieces of art and history in the same way that Picasso and Monet are. You can’t hold a cave painting up against a Monet and call it trash. I am sure that there are cave paintings that are better than others — but you can never compare them to modern artistry. The context is everything.

So what makes a bad movie? In my eyes, it is a movie that fails on the simple goal of all movies: to entertain or expand my knowledge. This could be intentional, or unintentional based on audience reactions. If the movie fails to do any of that, it is a bad movie. But take a movie like The Room for example. Historically known as one of the worst movies ever made. But can it be a bad movie if it sells out screenings 20 years after its release? If it inspired a best selling book and then a movie based on that book, all about the making of this “bad” movie? It is one of the most well known and quoted movies in the world of film, so is it truly bad? It may have been unintentionally hilarious and become a bit of a meme, but in that context, it is hard to call the movie bad when it has become so popular.

On the other hand, I think about a movie like Solo: A Star Wars Story. That movie was about 80% complete when the studio stepped in, fired the creative team, and reshot and reworked a ton of the film. The end result was a sort of Star Wars slop — uninspired, honestly pretty boring, with its only redeemable quality being a small appearance from Darth Maul (who I think is still the coolest character in Star Wars). That movie failed because it didn’t entertain. It was boring. It was a classic case of studio interference causing a bad product. I have a feeling the original version was much better. The failure of that movie is no fault of the actors or the people who made it before they had their legs cut out from under them. But that is what makes a bad movie in my eyes. It didn’t do its basic job. It’s Star Wars! It should be fun and high energy and a great popcorn movie. And it wasn’t, in my opinion at least — but that is the important part. This is just me.

Movie reviews and ratings are completely subjective, and no film degree or decades of experience makes any opinion — including my own — any more valid than someone else’s. I think that is why platforms like Letterboxd are so valuable and why they are replacing traditional film criticism and sites like Rotten Tomatoes. It is a community aggregate score, not a score from a hundred top critics. To me, that is more valuable. Are my like-minded peers having a good time? Are the people who follow me and share my taste rating it highly? If you like my recommendations and trust my personal taste, then my Letterboxd ratings should hold more weight for you than a stranger’s — but take everything with a grain of salt and look at the entire picture.

I am not putting down critics who do the work. I am not putting down creators on social media. I am not putting down the person with three followers on Letterboxd who posts passionate reviews of their favorite films. I am putting down the idea that any of these people, in a bubble, as a singular individual, should impact your viewing habits.

What you should be mad about is anyone who puts Citizen Kane up against Friday the 13th and expects that comparison to mean something. Those films are doing entirely different things for different audiences in different time periods. To rank everything on the same scale as if it is all equal is a horrible way to write about film. Roger Ebert knew it best. I did not agree with all of his reviews, but I always knew his intention, I knew the way he judged movies, and I knew that he genuinely loved all sorts of different films. He graded with context and more than technical merit in mind. That is why he was the best to ever do it.

At the end of the day, you need to just watch movies and not worry about what other people think. Don’t get upset if you watch something that critics loved and you didn’t like. Don’t skip a movie because a critic said it wasn’t good. Be your own critic. Your brain is the most powerful algorithm in the world, and it is the only one that you can directly affect. Watch stuff that you think you will like. Sometimes you will love those movies, like others, hate others. But doing that is what builds your own personal context, based on your knowledge, experiences, and brain. Rely on that rather than critics.

And I say this as someone who recommends movies and talks about them every day — but I am only one source. People like me are a starting point, trying to point you in the right direction based on our own experiences. But the only way to truly know what you like, love, and despise is to watch more movies and take those risks. Try something new and different. Get uncomfortable and go outside your box. But never let someone else’s opinion discourage you from watching something. The only opinion that truly matters at the end of the day is your own.

I spoke with Ricky and Oscar about where the film came from, how they built two of the most compelling characters I’ve seen on screen in years, and why they were so deliberate about never telling you what to think.

The film was inspired by a real detail connected to the Uvalde shooting — a young woman in Germany who received an ominous message from the shooter and did nothing. That’s a haunting starting point. How did you go from that real-world moment to the story of Balthazar and Solomon, and how long did it take to get from that kernel of an idea to a finished script?

RICKY: That kernel took a while to pop. We talked about it for a while, the same way we do all our ideas and then one day when it feels ready you start writing. It wasn’t until Oscar added the fake crying that it felt like we could get going. All in all, the process from idea to draft was about a year and then another year to find the money which we kept writing through.

OSCAR: It’s also important to mention, that shooter messaged many, many people. There were a lot of people corresponding with him on various social media platforms. We’ve become so desensitized to “heinous thing someone is talking about on the internet that I can’t do anything about”; you obviously can’t blame a child in another country for not calling the cops in that situation. But the experience of receiving that message felt connected to what its like to grow up with these social media platforms so ingrained in your life. More recently in British Columbia, we know that the shooter was corresponding with Chat GPT and sharing their violent intentions, but the employees at Open AI did not alert authorities, because that would mean actually taking responsibility for something besides stock dividends. That is fatal negligence on Open AI’s part, symptomatic of the same problems, and even more haunting than where we were at when we started writing in 2022.

Were Asa and Jaeden part of your vision from the beginning, or did they come to the project later? Watching them, it’s hard to imagine anyone else in these roles — they disappear into the characters completely.

OSCAR: We try not to write for actors, though it can be hard because you want to have a mental picture of your character and to hear their voice. But, we tried to create an environment where Asa and Jaeden could take over their characters and make them their own, so if we WERE ever imagining anyone else, I can’t even remember who it would have been because those are Asa and Jaeden’s roles now.

The names Balthazar and Solomon both carry significant biblical and historical weight. Was that intentional, and what did those names mean to you as you built these two characters?

RICKY: The characters have no biblical significance other than in the case of Solomon, it’s possible his father or Mother heard the name spoken in a Christian context of some kind, but most likely never dug into symbolic meaning in the name. Like most Americans, Christian in name only.

OSCAR: I heard the name Balthy once because my former roommate had a friend with that name, and I liked the way it was shortened from balthazar. I never met that Balthy, but I knew that he had a boat that he could take people out in, in Manhattan, so in my head he was a wealthy guy.

Watching it, I kept feeling like the film could go anywhere at any moment — which is genuinely unsettling in the best way. Did you always know where Balthazar and Solomon were headed, or did the ending evolve as you wrote?

OSCAR: The ending always featured the final violent act, but who Solomon was and how we got there changed over time as we continued to discover the character.

RICKY: The fact that the film feels like it could go anywhere and is still entertaining is beautiful to hear. It’s very hard to craft a story that feels accessible and inevitable but not contrived or like you’re going through the beats all others movies do.

The promotional campaign has been really creative — Jaeden staying in character and bringing Balthazar into the real world in real time is a genuinely smart move. Was that always part of the plan, or did it develop organically? And do you think that kind of character-driven, social-native marketing is something more indie films should be doing?

OSCAR: It was always part of the plan, because Balthazar is so online and it felt like a no-brainer not to exploit that. I can’t control how well the movie performs at the box office, but I wouldn’t have been able to forgive myself if we didn’t at least make a splash with our marketing. Especially after so many distributors told us they loved the movie but didn’t know how to market it…that activates the most competitive part of my brain where I’m like “okay I’ll show you.” I’m not sure it makes as much sense for like, a period film where the character doesn’t actually have social media. But for Balthy it allowed us to build intrigue in the character without giving up any of the actual movie, which is exactly what a good campaign should do.

RICKY: This is Oscars department. As an avid hater of social media I was a negative Nancy all the way up until the success of this campaign was obvious. Now I’ve jumped on board like it was my idea from the beginning.

More indie movies should be like our movie in many ways, but then our movie might not stand out of the pack as much - so scratch that.

You have mentioned in other interviews that there is no moral to this story, and you’ve been deliberate about that. But do you think the film has a warning? And if so, who is it directed at?

RICKY: We were deliberate about not being didactic or attempting to present a call to action/solution to gun control, masculinity or any of the other contemporary cancers plaguing modern American life that the movie presents. That said, within our story you’ll find a clear morality on the part of Oscar and I because there were rules set while we were writing such as; we cannot offend parents of victims of gun violence nor should we offend those kids that are truly, sincerely attempting to change the world via their committed and impassioned activism. We do not present ALL the kids as opportunistic activists, nor do we actually show footage, or mock anyone that could be a victim, in fact the movie presents family members of victims such as Supes as deeply wounded whether he’s a snake oil salesman or not and that was to say that everyone in America, no matter their cynicism or venality is touched by this issue. Because at the end of the day it is children being senselessly murdered solely because our policy makers care more about lobbyists and donations than they do our health and safety. There’s a message. Maybe the movie says it, maybe it doesn’t.

OSCAR: I think there is a morality in presenting our sicknesses without flinching, but the least entertaining thing you can ever do is tell people what to do about it or lecture them.

Oscar, this is your feature directorial debut, and it already feels like you have a defined sensibility — kinetic, chaotic, anxiety-inducing in the best way, which makes sense given your producing background on films like Uncut Gems and Good Time. Is that the filmmaking mode you feel most at home in, or is there a completely different genre or tone you’re eager to explore next?

OSCAR: Yeah, it feels true to the movies that I grew up on, which I think in a lot of cases were the same ones that Safdies did. Ricky and I have bunch of completed scripts, all very different. Mostly I’d just like to make another movie, but if I can be picky about it, it will be a completely different genre.

How do you personally categorize this film? I’ve been using the term “Doomscroll Thriller” for movies like this — films that are technically grounded in reality but weaponize social anxiety and human behavior in ways that feel genuinely terrifying. But I’m curious whether you see it that way, or whether genre labels matter to you at all as filmmakers.

RICKY: We knew there was an inherent tension in the “oh Jesus what’s going to happen? It can’t go well” set up of the story, but I don’t feel like I can define the genre of the film. Once we define it as horror or something else, I can’t write.

OSCAR: We tried calling it so many things while pitching it. It was like “if we call it a thriller, are you in?” Looking back, I think it’s a character drama with comedic elements. NOT satire. Satires always feel like they’re bragging about themselves while you’re watching and we tried very hard to not be that.

RICKY: Network, the greatest American movie of all time is excluded from that last sentence.

You’ve talked about wanting to subvert the typical tragedy narrative — where a community suffers and then triumphs. What made that framework feel wrong for this story, and what did you replace it with?

RICKY: I think that framework regarding school shootings in the US is wrong generally. When I watch a movie about how a community healed following a mass shooting I feel like I’m watching propaganda for school shootings. A kind of “these things happen, but don’t worry, you’ll get over it.”

OSCAR: We thought more of the Paul Schrader movies where you’re building to an act of violence or the Tommy Orange book “There, There” where a fabric of societal ills contribute to a powder keg that eventually explodes.

The score uses a one-of-a-kind instrument called the Pandemic Box alongside BABYMETAL as Solomon’s sonic signature. How did sound and music shape the identity of these two characters, and how early in the process did that come together?

OSCAR: Those were both post-production discoveries! Asa and I had a playlist of Solomon’s music, but it wasn’t until after the shoot and I’d had some time to think and dig and chat with one of our EPs, Adrian Simon (who also wrote the theme song for Solomon’s favorite animated series), that I discovered BabyMetal. And shout out to BabyMetal for licensing us the music instead of getting hung up on the movie’s logline, which is what happened with a number of other artists (that will remain nameless) I was interested in licensing. The Pandemic Box, which was designed and performed by Jeff Rosenman in the film, was something our composer James William Blades discovered and just, immediately had our attention. It was like seeing an audition or something and knowing, Mulholland Drive style, “this is the girl.”

You shot scenes all the way through as if they were theater pieces, prioritizing performance over traditional coverage. That’s a bold choice — what did it cost you in the edit, and was it worth it?

OSCAR: I met Matt Dillon a few months before we started shooting, and he was talking working with Lars Von Trier on “The House that Jack Built,” which I think is an incredible performance of his. He was like “I don’t know how they figure it out in the edit, but for us actors its the absolute best way to work” talking about shooting the scene all the way through and sampling from those long takes in the edit versus breaking it into pieces as you shoot. I’ve been working with editors Nate De Young and Erin DeWitt for over 10 years now, and known them even longer than that. We’ve done so many weird and crazy doc and archival projects together, I had no doubt they’d be able to figure it out and what we would gain in performance would be worth it.

Ricky, you come from a live media and interview background — HuffPost Live, Build — where authenticity and performance exist in constant tension. How much did that experience shape the themes of this film?

RICKY: I was working in a live newsroom when Sandy Hook happened and I remember the announcement over the newsroom there’d been a bad school shooting at an elementary school and one of the supervising producers said, “all right, here we go!” And I get it, it was their chance to work hard and prove themselves in the control room, but then you have anchors going on air and presenting this phony sympathetic/objective tone and it all just felt like the presentation of morality without the process of truly feeling it. That one experience always haunted me and I think, although there isn’t a news room in Balthazar that feeling lingers over the entire film.

The film deals with grief narratives, performative empathy, and the attention economy. Do you think audiences are ready to see themselves honestly reflected in Balthazar? Or is that discomfort part of the point?

RICKY: With a film like this, I don’t think Oscar and I can concern ourselves with an audience’s readiness for the subject matter. That would kill the creative process. We focused on the story we wanted to tell and whether we thought it was entertaining enough for an audience to enjoy it.

OSCAR: That’s the thing, people worry too much about what audiences are ready or not ready for. It all depends on how you present the ideas, stories and characters and I hope we presented them in a funny, accessible enough way that whether they were ready or not before, they’re ready now.

Horror movies and intense psychological thrillers are two of my favorite film genres. I love the way they give me an adrenaline rush like no other genre can. I also struggle with anxiety, and high-stress situations in my life can really throw me off. It seems like a contradiction, right? Wouldn’t these high stress movies make the anxiety worse? In reality, it’s one of the most calming things I can do after a tough day with a lot of anxious energy.

I have been medicated and diagnosed with generalized anxiety for about a decade now. Some days are better than others, but the medication has really helped me out quite a bit to avoid panic attacks and physical symptoms from the anxiety that I was having before. After stressful days, I can still get tightness in my chest, headaches, or just pure fatigue. And on those days, I tend to find a comfort movie — something like Hereditary, or Zodiac, or Sinister. Insane, right? But it works, and I have a theory why, as well as some real science to back it up.

I am not a doctor, so don’t take my advice as medical treatment, but something about the adrenaline rush I get from watching intense movies seems to negate the anxiety symptoms and calm my brain. This is somewhat true for any movie, where the distraction helps to get my mind off of the stress, but it works especially well with films that lock me into their dark storytelling. It’s almost like watching something horrible happening on the screen to someone else makes me feel better about my own situation, in a weird way. It puts things into perspective for me. Like, hey, at least I am not being hunted down by a serial killer, or haunted by generational demons passed down from my grandmother, right?

As it turns out, there might actually be a scientific explanation for what I’ve been experiencing. Researchers at Aarhus University’s Recreational Fear Lab have found that horror movies may provide a context in which people can practice emotional regulation — getting better at managing their own fear and anxiety through engaging with recreational fear. Even more interesting: a study of horror fans found that they reported less psychological distress than non-fans during the COVID-19 lockdowns — suggesting the genre builds a kind of emotional resilience over time.

Some people may refer to those studies as an example of how movies can desensitize people, and that is true to an extent. But if it desensitizes anxious people like myself who are stable enough to realize that this is all fiction, then where is the harm? In my eyes, these movies have given me a bit of a superpower over my brain.

Speaking of the brain, there’s also a neurological explanation for why it works. When watching a horror movie, the amygdala — known as the brain’s fear center — detects those emotions and prepares us for frightening events. Meanwhile, our conscious perception recognizes that the threat isn’t real. This means we can experience intense negative emotions in a controlled environment, which researchers suggest may be useful for managing anxiety. Essentially, your brain gets a workout it didn’t know it needed, and the movies are a great warm up.

Here’s the part that really resonated with me: researchers have noted that people prone to anxiety seem to be among the most likely to seek out movies with anxiety-inducing plots. That all sounds counterintuitive, but I totally get it! The thinking is that horror gives anxious people a rare, controllable way to engage with fear on their own terms. It is basically exposure therapy in film form. Horror movies offer a highly controllable, repeatable, and predictable way to amplify fear responses. For someone like me and many others whose anxiety often feels random and uncontrollable, that structure can feel grounding.

Outside of the science, I also think that there is something more immersive about these genres, at least for me as a fan of them. Maybe others who are more into comedy, or love a good drama or sci-fi film, experience the same thing. But when I get into a horror movie or a psychological thriller, I lock in. The outside world is gone, and I am in the story. My phone is away, the lights are off — it’s full immersion. And that part is also important. You have to put away the external stressors, turn off the lights, let yourself shut off for a bit, and just dive into a story. Too many people cannot do that at home, but it is truly so important to be able to destress and manage your anxiety.

So maybe it is the horror genre and all these thrillers that keep me on the edge of my seat instead of on the edge of a panic attack. Maybe there is something to watching horrific things happen to fictional characters that makes your brain realize how good you have it. Maybe I sound like a serial killer myself when I say things like that — but I cannot deny that something is happening. Something about these movies is making that shift in my head. And Science seems to agree.

These were the books that made me a reader, re-reading each one as I eagerly waited for the subsequent entry in the series. The first movie released on November 16, 2001, just six days after my 9th birthday. I had my party at the movie theater with my friends that weekend. I played the video games for hours on end. I had all of the merchandise. Hell, for a few years in elementary school I wore glasses and had my own Harry Potter look going. In high school, I was at the midnight premieres for the final films. I was all the way in, the way only a kid can be all the way in on something. That was over 25 years ago, and this world has never fully left me.

So I want to have an honest conversation about something a lot of people are struggling with right now — because I don’t think most of what people are seeing on the Internet within the vocal minority (on both sides) is a true representation of the general public.

Let me be clear about where I stand first: I am pro-trans. I have all the love in the world for the LGBTQ community. What JK Rowling is doing — using her platform and her wealth to actively lobby against the rights of trans people — is wrong. I’m not here to minimize that or explain it away. She has openly used money from the Harry Potter franchise to fund efforts aimed at restricting transgender rights in the workplace, in public life, and in protected spaces. That causes real harm to those communities and I’m not dismissing that for a second.

But I’m also not going to pretend that Harry Potter is one person.

You have to think about who actually built this thing. The original golden trio — Daniel Radcliffe, Emma Watson, Rupert Grint — have been among the most outspoken allies of the trans community throughout all of this. Despite backlash from the stars of the film adaptation, Rowling has continued to double down and trash the cast who blew this franchise up to massive proportions. That tells you everything you need to know about whose side those actors are on.

But you can’t forget about the makeup artists, the costume designers, the creature workshop artists, the visual effects teams, the writers, and the composers. There are the hardworking people who put Cursed Child on Broadway. The publishers at Scholastic who put these books in the hands of millions of kids like me. The cast members at Universal and crew who build Harry Potter attractions. And now, the cast and crew of the HBO series — including Nick Frost, who plays Hagrid and has said Rowling’s views don’t align with his “in any way, shape or form,” and Paapa Essiedu, who plays Snape and signed an open letter expressing solidarity with trans and non-binary people.

These are the artists and hard working people who are being supported by the movies, books, plays, shows, and theme parks. There is a whole economy behind this franchise, and although its extremely unfortunate what the creator spends her time on, I support everyone else.

Andrew Garfield said something recently that I keep coming back to. He admitted he’d only just watched the Harry Potter films for the first time while also acknowledging the controversy directly and agreeing that it was terrible. But then he said this about his friend Daniel Radcliffe and the films that made him famous":

“Daniel is so goddamn good…And honestly, I hadn’t watched [the Harry Potter films] until recently. He’s really good in those Harry Potter movies. Those Harry Potter movies are really good. I really liked them. I know we shouldn’t be putting money in the pocket of inhumane legislation right now through She Who Shall Remain Nameless, but the soul and spirit of those films … the kids are so good … and all the artisans — I’m working with a wonderful makeup artist right now, Clare [Le Vesconte] who was working in the creature workshop [on the films]. And I’m like, oh man, we can’t throw the baby out with the bathwater, there are so many beautiful artists who worked on those films.”

John Lithgow, who plays Dumbledore in the HBO series, said he nearly quit due to the backlash — but ultimately stayed because he felt the books themselves stood against the very intolerance Rowling now represents. I agree — the books gave me confidence, built a moral compass for a young 7 year old, taught me about courage and the dangers of evil in power, and stand for so much more than their creator’s current ideas.

So here’s my genuine question for anyone who says they won’t watch a frame of Harry Potter or spend a dime connected to it:

Are you bringing that same energy everywhere?

If you are, then you need to cancel HBO entirely. You need to call on the original cast to give back their (surely substantial) earnings from the films. You need to stop buying books from Scholastic. You can’t go see another Broadway production. Throw out your DVDs. Throw out the books you already own. If the argument is that any dollar touching this IP eventually benefits Rowling, then the circle of complicity is enormous. The only truly consistent position is to go scorched earth. And I want to be clear: I respect anyone who genuinely goes there.

But most people won’t. And I don’t think that makes them bad people or bad allies. I think it makes them human. The world is not black and white, and neither is this controversy and the decisions that people make.

Here’s the thing about boycotts that online “activists” don’t talk about: they’re blunt instruments. Some Potter fans have grown skeptical of how effective a boycott could even be, noting that there’s a question of how much more influence Rowling could possibly have at this point. She is, by any measure, one of the wealthiest people on earth. She has the money, the influence, and the platform already. A boycott doesn’t meaningfully move the needle on any of that — but it does hurt the grip department who worked 80-hour weeks on set for the HBO show, and the Broadway stagehands, and the costume designers, all the way down to the employees working the Butter Beer stands at Universal.

So what actually moves the needle? Voting. Donating directly to trans advocacy organizations. Show up for the people in your life who are affected by this. Support the politicians who will fight for human rights. JK Rowling is powerless if the government doesn’t support her efforts, or we have a Supreme Court that rules on the right side of history. That’s where your effort can change something real.

I’ll be honest with you about where I am personally. I want to watch the show, and I am still upset about what Rowling stands for. It is so exciting to see each book get adapted into a longer form season of television, where characters and storylines can fully develop in a way that a movie can not. I will read the books with my kids some day. We will watch the movies. It is a huge part of me and my life, and I am not going to let one awful woman take that away from me.

If you don’t agree and want to go scorched earth, then all the power to you. I respect what you are doing. And I would hope that you also respect others views on this the same. The creator is not equal to the creation they put into the world, and I am opting to find all the positive that a franchise of this level can bring instead of thinking about the one witch behind it all.

There has been a niche movement in the horror and psychological thriller world lately that focuses on modern Internet culture, social media, loneliness, and a deep descent into the most horrifying elements of our contemporary world. These aren’t mainstream blockbuster movies making millions at the box office, but an independent and artistic movement being led by millennial filmmakers who grew up with the Internet and have lived with its horrors. They are part horror, part thriller. and part social commentary. At times they lean into dark comedy/satire as well. They have become a true collage of themes and styles, subverting traditional genre norms to create their own niche.

So what do we call it? I’m going with “Doomscroll Thrillers”. I find them all fascinating and terrifying, and I sense this is a trend we will see more of in the coming years.

I am talking about movies like Lurker, CAM, Red Rooms, We’re All Going to the World’s Fair, Spree, Influencer, and most recently a new film called Our Hero, Balthazar — which inspired this article. Even TV shows are in on this trend, like the incredible miniseries Adolescence. They take the distraught and confused people dealing with these online epidemics and tell absolutely bone-chilling stories. The Internet is this vast, never-ending, ever-expanding part of our world. It is completely out of control and past the point of no return. And with that comes some deeply upsetting stuff. It happens in the real world, and these movies reflect the fears we all have about these types of people.

Now, there have always been movies about what crazy people will do when driven by society — American Psycho, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, The Silence of the Lambs, and Deliverance all come to mind. They tend to focus more on the victims, showing us the monster to scare us by putting audiences in the victim’s mindset. It is the common angle for most horror films. We could be the victim, we imagine how they must feel. But this new niche flips that on its head. This new wave of horror is not about watching a monster, its about watching someone become one from their own point of view. These films all get very introspective, almost first-person in a way. They are much closer to things like Taxi Driver, Nightcrawler, and Joker than traditional horror.

Red Rooms touches on deep true crime obsession, the dark web, and a world where humanity’s worst actions are broadcast online for all to see. Spree tackles streamers and the need for constant attention that is always creating a higher, and more unhinged, bar for people to reach. Lurker is all about the depths to which people will stoop for celebrity and notoriety in a digital world. Our Hero, Balthazar tackles an even deeper rabbit hole, touching on incel culture, mass murder in America, and the desperation for love in our increasingly isolated world. All of these films focus on the sickness spreading throughout culture — a world where more kids want to be influencers and streamers than athletes or movie stars. Internet fame is the new currency, one-upping others is the way ahead, and that is a scary place to be.

It makes total sense why this new wave is shaping up. Horror and thrillers focus on the fears we deal with every day. It’s why there was a rise in the torture-porn genre after 9/11 and during the “War on Terror”. There was a generation dealing with having seen some of the most horrific things imaginable play out on live TV. It traumatized people. It is the same reason we had films like The Deer Hunter, Rambo, and Taxi Driver after Vietnam, and films like Godzilla, Invasion of the Body Snatchers, and The Manchurian Candidate in the post-WWII, Cold War era. Horror and psychological thrillers are a direct reflection of the fears of the current society, and they always will be. When society is in a good place, horror movies can take a back seat. But when we are going through something, there is always an explosion of these types of films.

I expect more movies from this new wave in the coming years. It is morbid, but there are people live streaming mass murder every year. Horrible wars are happening all over the world, and we are watching missiles hit civilians on social media apps every day. We have become desensitized to the sheer volume of violence and death we see on our phones in the 24/7/365 news cycle we live in.

The media needs clicks, and violence brings the attention. I am as guilty as the rest of us — I can’t avoid it even when I try, and it legitimately makes me upset on a daily basis. Luckily, I feel pretty stable and live a good life, but I can absolutely see what happens to people in less stable situations, or those carrying emotional trauma that this type of media will feed on. The current media ecosystem catches the eye of unstable people who want notoriety, want a community, and want to be seen — it’s a recipe for disaster.

Creative people are translating their fears to screen, and there is an entire generation of younger filmmakers who have grown up with this specific trauma. Our parents grew up worried about serial killers in the ‘70s and ‘80s. Their parents grew up worried about nuclear attacks in the ‘50s and ‘60s. We all grew up worrying about being killed in public spaces by maniacs who fell down the Internet and social media rabbit hole. It feels more real to me, being of that generation, and it is genuinely shaking me every time I see one of these films in a way that traditional horror dealing with the supernatural, the occult, or masked killers simply cannot. I love the traditional horror genre to death, but this new wave of films is what is really keeping me up at night.

Horror Won Big

Horror won big! Sinners took home 4 Oscars, including Best Actor, Best Cinematography, Best Score, and Best Original Screenplay. Amy Madigan took home Best Supporting Actress for playing a new horror movie icon in her role as Aunt Gladys in Weapons. Frankenstein won 3 Oscars for Costume Design, Makeup and Hair, and Production Design. Even K-Pop Demon Hunters — while not straight horror — has plenty of horror elements in a kid-friendly presentation. Demons are demons, no matter how they are portrayed, and it took home 2 Oscars including the big one for Best Animated Feature Film. Horror is here, on the main stage, and there is no denying that it is a major force driving Hollywood right now.

One Battle After Another Had a Great Night

I was surprised One Battle After Another won the Casting award early, and knocking off Sinners for that award cleared the way for the rest of the wins. Paul Thomas Anderson winning 3 Oscars after having none for all of his illustrious career was great to see. He deserved it, and even though One Battle may not be his best film — hard to beat There Will Be Blood — it was a timely one and definitely a bit of recognition for his amazing career. In any other year, Sinners likely would have come out on top in multiple areas where One Battle won, including Best Picture. But this was PTA’s year, and he deserved it.

Sinners Still Did Well

But Sinners did not get shutout by any means. Best Actor for Michael B. Jordan was awesome and so well deserved. I loved Chalamet in Marty Supreme, but the more I sat with that movie, the more it felt like he was playing a version of himself. Jordan had to carry three characters — Stack, Smoke, and (spoilers) Vampire Stack. It is so hard to act against a character who is not there, and not once during Sinners did I ever forget that he was not two distinct people. I was so happy for him.

I was also pumped for Autumn Durald Arkapaw from Sinners for her amazing cinematography win. The way that she shot that movie — so many different formats, aspect ratio shifts — it was just perfection and a huge reason why the movie was so successful. This was a movie that campaigned and marketed based on formats, bringing the conversation in the film world to a more technical space, and she deserved that award. After Michael Bauman (One Battle) won the award at the American Society of Cinematographers, I thought this might be tipping back to his side. Both were worthy contenders, but making history by giving the award to Autumn as the first female winner for cinematography was a big win for women in film, and it was so well deserved.

No Major Surprises

I was not really shocked by most of the results during the show. Most of the awards went exactly as I expected. Cinematography might have been the biggest “upset” based on past awards results. I also thought The Perfect Neighbor might win for Best Documentary, but Mr. Nobody Against Putin is certainly a great pick and an extremely relevant movie in the times we live in. I do wish they had given Best Supporting Actor to Delroy Lindo. Sean Penn was excellent in One Battle, but he hates awards shows and never shows up. It makes the whole win so anti-climactic. Delroy Lindo winning would have been an awesome shoutout to a veteran actor.

Warner Brothers and Netflix Owned the Night

The big winners of the night were Warner Brothers and Netflix, the two juggernauts who at one point almost got together to create a major power shift in Hollywood. Now it looks like Warner Brothers will be sold to Paramount, and Netflix will remain on their own. But it was their show, and almost nobody else had a presence. Disney won a single award for Avatar (Visual Effects), Apple took home one for Sound (F1), Focus Features and Universal took home Best Actress (Hamnet, Jessie Buckley), and NEON won Best Foreign Film (Sentimental Value). Nothing for Paramount or A24.

It was a shift from the last few years where indie studios like NEON and A24 dominated the awards circuit. This was a push back from the big studios, and it was all well deserved for Warner Brothers. They banked on original content from amazing voices and won big for their gamble. Other studios should learn from what they did here.

But This Might Be Warner Brothers’ Swan Song

Warner Brothers is set to be acquired by Paramount, and I have zero faith that Paramount ownership would greenlight films like One Battle After Another and Sinners. Paramount has so far focused on franchises and established IP. Don’t take my word for it — take a look at their slate for 2026 and beyond. It is almost entirely IP or franchise based. And honestly, I don’t see filmmakers like PTA, Ryan Coogler, or other prestige directors and producers working with the new Paramount ownership group in the future. The best case scenario is that the whole deal falls apart, David Zaslav steps down from his position, and Warner Brothers builds off of a great 2025 and continues to take chances and win big. We shall see…

The Ceremony Itself Was Underwhelming

Was it just me, or did the whole production seem off? Conan was fine as the host. I am a big Conan fan, but outside of the monologue he didn’t have much going on within the show. The audio was off, or delayed at times. The live music sounded terrible. Speeches were rudely cut short, sometimes allowed to continue, sometimes they were not. It all felt messy.

I do wonder if YouTube taking over in 2029 will bring some new life to the show and introduce it to a new audience. At the end of the day, I wanted more celebration of the movies and the filmmakers, and less theatrics. I want the original song performances back. I want more highlights on filmmakers and the people we lost — the Rob Reiner and Robert Redford tributes were on point. I want to learn more about the people behind these movies and let them speak. The awards show is for them!

So what did you think? Any surprises? Anything you wish they showed more of? How did your Oscar pool go? Let me know in the comments!

What strikes me about these films the most is that I do not think a man could have directed any of them. Several of these movies deal with experiences that I will never fully understand, and yet they communicated those experiences to me in ways I couldn’t shake. That’s what great horror does best - it makes you think and evaluate your own perspectives.

1. The Slumber Party Massacre (1982) · Directed by Amy Holden Jones · Written by Rita Mae Brown

This is a prime example of a film that is amazing precisely because of who made it. The Slumber Party Massacre was directed by Amy Holden Jones and written by Rita Mae Brown. Brown wrote the original screenplay as an explicit parody and satire of the slasher genre. The studio, doing studio things, had it shot as a straight slasher. And yet the original message of the script still bleeds through every frame.

The result is something genuinely strange and brilliant. This is a movie that functions perfectly well as a by-the-numbers 80s slasher. It has gratuitous nudity and gore, a drill-wielding maniac, and all the exploitation trappings you’d expect, while simultaneously operating as a feminist critique of all of it. The killer’s giant power drill is not subtle symbolism...

Whether you watch it as a fun, cheesy genre exercise or a knowing satire depends entirely on your mind set. Either way, it’s a blast, and its back story, two women at the helm of a Roger Corman production in 1982, makes it historically fascinating.

Where to watch: Shudder · Prime Video · Tubi (free) · Plex (free) · Pluto TV (free)

Find all streaming options at JustWatch

2. Near Dark (1987) · Written and Directed by Kathryn Bigelow

Kathryn Bigelow made an incredible vampire movie that still scares people all these years later. She might be the most successful female director in Hollywood history - including becoming the first woman to win the Academy Award for Best Director, for The Hurt Locker - and Near Dark is the film that announced her arrival. You can see the threads of everything she’d go on to do right here: the tension, the brutality, and the ability to make something deeply uncomfortable feel completely cinematic.

The film stars an incredible ensemble cast of 80s legends including Bill Paxton, Lance Henriksen, and Jenette Goldstein. It is basically the cast of Aliens relocated to the American Southwest (no complaints there) and the combination of western mythology and vampire horror is unlike anything else from the era. The cinematography is dark and gorgeous, the violence can be shocking, and the whole thing has a bit of a punk-rock, sun-scorched energy that feels completely fresh for the genre.

Near Dark is truly like a proof of concept for Bigelow’s entire career. She was always more interested in masculinity, violence, and moral ambiguity than she was in playing it safe, and this film, made in 1987, showed she could be tougher and more stylish than nearly anyone else working at the time. It is an unbelievable solo film debut that deserves far more attention.

Where to watch: Shudder

Find all streaming options at JustWatch

3. The Babadook (2014) · Directed by Jennifer Kent

This is one of the most chilling movies on this list, especially for the mothers out there. The grief, the trauma, the child who cannot get it together and is clearly disturbed by events in his life - its terrifying. All of the troubles are filtered through the lens of a paranormal entity that will absolutely give you nightmares. As an owner of one of the original Babadook pop-up books from the film (humble brag), this one holds a close place in my heart.

This is another debut feature film, and yet another masterpiece from director Jennifer Kent. The Babadook is one of the most precise and devastating portraits of grief and maternal exhaustion ever committed to film. Essie Davis gives a performance that is raw and hard to watch in the best possible way. Noah Wiseman plays her son, who many fans consider to be one of the most annoying characters in horror history. But that takes a special kind of performance to achieve as well. He was meant to be annoying and unbearable, and he nailed it. The horror is all terrifying on a surface level, but the real dread comes from watching a woman be slowly consumed by something she cannot name and cannot escape. I genuinely believe only a woman could have directed this film and made it work.

This was also one of the first films of what would become the “elevated horror” or “auteur horror” wave - the movement that gave us films like Hereditary, It Follows, The Witch, and a decade’s worth of horror that took the genre to new heights. Jennifer Kent helped kick all of that off.

Where to watch: Hulu · Shudder · AMC+ · Tubi (free) · Kanopy (free)

Find all streaming options at JustWatch

4. Jennifer’s Body (2009) · Directed by Karyn Kusama · Written by Diablo Cody

Karyn Kusama made a movie that was so far ahead of its time that it bombed at the box office and got dismissed as a dumb Megan Fox horror comedy. But slowly, over the next 15 years, it has gained the cult status it always deserved. This film is one of the most misunderstood studio horror movies of the 2000s, and I am always happy to see viewers re-assessing and re-discovering its genius.

It is a slasher movie, a dark romantic comedy, a high school party movie, and above all else a deeply gory horror film with a lot on its mind. The themes are heavier than the surface of the film lets on, about how women deal with exploitation, male attention, the predatory music industry, and beauty standards. These themes are all delivered through the language of a cheerleader-turned-demon, and somehow, it works. The cast alone is stacked, featuring Megan Fox, Amanda Seyfried, Kyle Gallner, Adam Brody, J.K. Simmons, Amy Sedaris, Johnny Simmons, and Chris Pratt. And best of all, the storytelling is fast and funny in the way that Diablo Cody scripts always are.

It bombed because it was made for women, by women, and marketed by men to other men who didn’t get it. This is another one where the female authorship is essential. Kusama and Cody understood exactly what they were doing, even if studio execs did not, and you need a woman behind the camera to make it read correctly.

Where to watch: Starz · Philo

Find all streaming options at JustWatch

5. Censor (2021) · Written and Directed by Prano Bailey-Bond

This is one of my favorite hidden gem horror movies that I love to pull out as a recommendation. Censor follows a woman named Enid who works for the British Board of Film Classification in the 1980s, right in the middle of the “video nasties” craze. The “video nasties” came from the moral panic around gory VHS horror films (think Evil Dead and The Texas Chain Saw Massacfe) that led to mass bans and even arrest and prosecutions in Thatcher-era Britain. It is a genuinely fascinating piece of film and cultural history, and the way Prano Bailey-Bond works the censorship of horror movies and the making of these grimy b-movies into its own horror film is perfectly meta and appealing to hardcore genre fans like myself.

The visuals in this movie are completely mesmerizing. Bailey-Bond shot the film with 80s period texture, moving between the beige world of the censors’ office and the colorful grain of the exploitation films Enid reviews. As Enid begins to lose her grip on reality, those worlds bleed into each other in ways that are deeply unsettling. Niamh Algar is extraordinary in the lead role, going through a wide range of emotions and intense situations throughout the film.

The story takes twists and turns right up to the final scene, and the ending is one of those genuinely “what did I just watch” moments you’ll be thinking about for days. What’s real? What isn’t? We may never know. But I know that Censor kicks ass.

Where to watch: Shudder · fuboTV · Kanopy (free) · Hoopla (free)

Find all streaming options at JustWatch

6. I Saw the TV Glow (2024) · Written and Directed by Jane Schoenbrun

Jane Schoenbrun made one of the most chilling movies I have ever seen with I Saw The TV Glow. I don’t know that I will ever fully understand the trans experience as a straight man, but this film felt like it explained it better than any other piece of media I’ve encountered. It communicates something about the terror of not being able to inhabit your own body in a way that goes straight past anything words can do and hits you right in the soul with pure feeling.

The scenes at the end with Justice Smith absolutely wrecked me. It’s heartbreaking and terrifying, but not in the way you would expect. The scares come from the reality and weight of the situation. It shakes you with an empathetic guilt from knowing there are many others who feel the same way as Smith’s character, and are stuck.

The way Schoenbrun weaves a Goosebumps/Are You Afraid of the Dark-era supernatural TV show into the story is a lot of fun for genre fans who grew up in the 90s. That aesthetic hits a very specific nostalgia, and watching it get slowly corrupted and distorted is deeply effective for viewers of the right age. The practical effects are awesome, the score is incredible, and the whole thing is visually unlike anything else.

This is a slow burn with a lot of metaphor and a lot of ambiguity, and I understand it’s not for everyone. But if it connects with you, it will feel like a gut punch you didn’t see coming. Schoenbrun is one of the most distinctive voices in American cinema right now and I am very excited for whatever she does next.

Where to watch: Prime Video · Max · Kanopy (free) · Hoopla (free) · Plex (free)

Find all streaming options at JustWatch

7. Watcher (2022) · Directed by Chloe Okuno

Chloe Okuno made one of the best serial killer mysteries I’ve seen in some time with Watcher. Think Rear Window meets Silence of the Lambs - high praise, but it earns it. As a man, this film made me genuinely better understand the constant fear that women navigate in the world, and that alone makes it essential viewing.

The setup is straightforward and simple: Julia moves to Bucharest with her husband for his job, becomes isolated by a language barrier and new country, and begins to notice a man in the apartment across the street who seems to be watching her. Is he following her? Is he a creep? Is he a killer? Or is he just an odd guy who happens to live nearby? The film forces you to sit with that ambiguity - the same ambiguity that women live with every single day - and it is genuinely frightening in a way that’s hard to articulate. It’s something I thankfully do not have to think about in my day-to-day life, and Watcher made that gap in my experience very clear.

Maika Monroe is absolutely incredible here. She is a true horror legend at this point, between this film, It Follows, The Guest, and Longlegs. Do not sleep on this one - an you may not sleep after watching it either.

Where to watch: Netflix · Shudder · AMC+

Find all streaming options at JustWatch

Women in horror are doing some of the best work in the genre right now. After being shut out for so many years in Hollywood, regardless of the genre, it does seem like the horror world has been more welcoming and open to these stories, and I am glad they are. Don’t miss any of the films on this list, and please add more recommendations in the comments! And to all my women readers - happy Women’s History Month! I hope we get many more additions to this list in the future.

Libraries are one of the most underrated resources for film fans. Beyond their massive collections of books, most carry an impressive selection of movies on DVD, Blu-ray, and occasionally even 4K Blu-ray. Many libraries also take special requests, so if you want to watch the new 4K remaster of as classic like Ben-Hur, or something more niche like The Exorcist III on 4K Blu-ray, your library can often track down a copy through their network or order it directly, just for you.

What’s Actually on the Shelves

But do they really have a good selection? Well, I went and looked for myself, searching the local library in my small New England town of about 25,000 people. Here’s a sample of what’s available through them right now: One Battle After Another, F1, Five Nights at Freddy’s 2, The Black Phone 2, Freakier Friday, Caught Stealing, The Long Walk, indie films like Bone Lake, Sovereign, and The Last Showgirl, and even Warner Archive titles like The Hudsucker Proxy.

A quick search of their online catalog shows 27,742 DVDs and Blu-rays available through my library or the local shared system. And that is for a few small towns in New Hampshire. At the much larger Boston Public Library, I see in their catalog that they have over 34,000 DVDs and Blu-rays.

For context:

• The average Blockbuster carried around 8,000 titles

• Netflix currently has around 15,000 titles

• My small-town library system: ~30,000 titles

It won’t rival the legendary independent stores — Vidiots in LA has 60,000 titles, and Scarecrow Video in Seattle holds an astonishing 150,000. But most libraries absolutely blow away what the chain video stores ever stocked, and it isn’t close to what any streaming service can offer.

Free, Fast, and Better Than Streaming

It seems too good to be true, but all of this is free with a library card. Most libraries are part of shared networks, meaning your card also gives you access to the collections of multiple branches in your region. A new Blu-ray typically runs $25 at retail. It gets expensive fast - I would know as a passionate collector with credit card statements that are not always ideal. But your library can have it waiting for you on release day at no cost. If you love it, you can always buy it later.

Beyond physical media, libraries also provide free access to streaming services like Kanopy and Hoopla, which give cardholders a limited number of credits each month to watch films and TV shows at no cost. Similar services exist for eBooks, audiobooks, and even music.

The Value Is Almost Absurd

Take a second and think about what this is actually worth. Most libraries let you check out 5 to 10 movies at a time, with a one-week rental window. Renewals are often available if you need more time.

Remember what that would have cost you at Blockbuster? New release rentals ran around $5 each in the late ‘90s for a 3-5 day window with no renewals. If you wanted ten movies? That’s $50. In 1999 money. The library gives you the same new release titles, for a longer term, for no cost. They did back in the 90s too. I remember renting quite a few movies from different libraries. It is kind of amazing that Blockbuster ran a business model around a service that most towns offered for free.

And using it couldn’t be easier. Every library has an online catalog where you can search their entire collection and see exactly where a title is located and whether it’s available. If you can’t find something or need help navigating the selection, a librarian can help you in ways that many video store clerks (no offense to the great clerks out there who knew their stuff!) never could. These aren’t teenagers processing rental returns, they’re professionals who know their catalog inside and out and can often recommend titles or request options you wouldn’t have thought to ask about.

Why This Matters In The Streaming Age

So why are libraries an important archive for media now more than ever? Because streaming libraries have less archival depth than ever. Films and TV shows constantly move between services, disappear without warning, or never make the jump to digital at all. Physical media remains the most reliable way to watch films as they were intended, and it’s the format most likely to include all the goodies like director’s cuts, supplements, and restored transfers.

Libraries let you access all of that without the expense of buying everything at new release prices, and without the frustration of hunting down what’s available where.

I keep hearing from film fans who say libraries have re-ignited their love of physical media. People are using them to take risks with what they watch without the financial burden of buying a movie at retail price. If you haven’t checked what your local library has lately, it’s worth a look. You might be surprised.

That is not what it looks like anymore.

Now every time I go there are people, usually from generations like Gen Z or younger millennials like myself, filling carts with VHS tapes, hunting for Blu-rays, and flipping through DVDs. The other day I watched a kid who could not have been more than 20 pull out a classic orange Nickelodeon VHS tapes and hold it up like it was treasure. I know that is just anecdotal evidence, but when something you have been doing alone for over a decade suddenly has a crowd, you start paying attention.

It turns out that some of the numbers back it up.

According to the Digital Entertainment Group, 4K Blu-ray sales in the United States rose 12 percent in 2025 compared to the year before - the first year of growth since 2018. The overall physical media market is still contracting, but the rate of decline slowed dramatically from a 23 percent drop in 2024 to about 9 percent in 2025. The premium, media market is actually growing even faster. Steelbooks, the limited collector-friendly metal cases that have become the holy grail for serious movie buyers, saw sales jump 25 percent from 2023 to 2024.

These are not people passively picking up a movie they sort of want - those days are gone with digital rentals and streaming. These are intentional, deliberate purchases from people who care about owning something physical and permanent.

The used market tells a similar story, except it is almost impossible to track. Every Goodwill, every pawn shop, every Facebook Marketplace listing, every Whatnot live stream where someone is selling stacks of media on camera while people bid in real time - none of that shows up in the DEG report. But if you spend any time in those spaces, as I do, you know it is booming.

Thrift stores that used to have $1 DVDs sitting ignored for months are now getting picked clean (at least the good movies). VHS titles are selling for real money on eBay. The prices on media have gone up at these stores - supply and demand, an unfortunate side effect - but I will gladly pay a couple dollars more if the enthusiasm is there. The used physical media economy is completely invisible to market researchers but it is absolutely alive to everyone participating in it.

If you wanted to design a marketing campaign to push people back toward physical media, you could not do a better job than the streaming services have already done on their own. The need for infinite growth has started to give consumers sticker shock.

Netflix was $8.99 a month in 2020. The cheapest ad-free plan today is $17.99, and the premium 4K tier is $24.99. Disney+ launched at $6.99 and is now $18.99 for ad-free, which is a 172% increase in under six years. Peacock went from $4.99 to $10.99 at its cheapest tier, which is a 120% jump for a service that spent its first few years struggling to convince people it needed to exist (I am still not sold). HBO Max, Hulu, and Paramount+ have all done the same.

If you subscribe to six major services at their cheapest tiers, you are spending close to $75 a month. Don’t want ads? It is closer to $125 a month. And here is the thing that should bother everyone: you own none of it. The movies and shows get pulled and rotated constantly. Entire series get cancelled, removed, and disappear forever. You are basically just renting temporary access that can be revoked at any time. It is amazing they have managed to survive when other digital media, like e-books and music, are so well consolidated into single platforms with nearly unlimited options.

A used Blu-ray might cost $2, and you own it forever. Nobody can raise the price on it. Nobody can take it away from you. And best of all, it looks and sounds better than any streaming version you are going to find, because even 4K streaming is compressed to a lower level than a standard 1080p Blu-ray. 4K Blu-ray takes it to the next level.

For a generation already getting crushed by housing costs, student loans, inflation, and global economic uncertainty, the math on streaming subscriptions is starting to feel genuinely absurd compared to buying used media for a few dollars at a time.

But the real story is not just about cutting costs, although that matters. I think it is about longing for an era that younger generations never got to experience.

Gen Z grew up in the most algorithmically optimized attention environment ever built. Every platform they have ever used was designed by engineers to make sure they never had to make a choice and never had to stop watching. They barely got the tail end of cable TV before everything became a streaming service with a personalized feed. They never had the experience of renting a movie on a Friday night, or watching the Sunday night movie on cable because it was the only way to see it.

There is a nostalgia here too, but it is a specific kind because it is not someone returning to something they lost. It is someone wanting an experience they never got to have in the first place. These are kids who grew up hearing about going to Blockbuster on a Friday night, browsing shelves full of movies. They hear about a world where your entertainment was not chosen for you - you chose it. They did not get that experience because the world took it away, and now they want it back.

I think about this every time I am at the movie theater and the person most likely to pull out their phone mid-film is the 55 year old in the row ahead of me and not the 22 year old next to me. The generation that grew up with a device in their hand since childhood has, in a lot of cases, developed a healthier relationship with it than those of us who came to it as adults. Buying physical media is an extension of that same impulse control, rejecting algorithms for personal selection and curation.

The vinyl market already showed us this was coming. There have been eighteen consecutive years of record sales growth, driven largely by new Gen Z buyers. Even cassette tapes and CDs are selling well again, both on the used market and for new releases. This pattern is consistent and it is pointing at physical home video being next.

I think this physical media comeback is real and will continue to grow. We are seeing movements in the used market, and growth in the new market with the latest formats. Young people are revolting against this world they were handed and looking for something more meaningful - something more human. That trend is real, and will shift a lot of the way the world thinks about media, consumption, and intentional decision making. As a long-time member of this movement, I welcome them all and applaud them for coming to this important conclusion.

Nepo baby billionaire David Ellison got his way with the help of daddy Larry Ellison’s money, some banks that I think are making an insane investment, and a boat load of money from the Middle Eastern Sovereign Wealth Funds, backed by Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE.

First off, its important to understand what this means if the deal goes through. If Paramount is successful in their bid, passes regulatory boards, and wins the WB shareholders votes, it means that the Ellison family now owns CNN, CBS, TikTok, Warner Brothers, HBO, Paramount, Oracle, and various cable channel stalwarts like MTV, Comedy Central, HGTV, TLC, TBS, TNT, Nickelodeon, Discovery, and Cartoon Network.

Should one family own all of that? No, in no right world is one family in charge of all of that technology, entertainment, news, and media. It is insane, and scary. No matter which side of the political aisle they fall on, this would not be good for anyone who wants creative freedom and free expression. If I had to rank the greatest threats to America right now, Larry and David Ellison are at the very top. Forget the President. Forget foreign countries. Forget any politicians. The Ellisons own all of the major media streams, the news, the social media apps, and the technology - they can control any narrative they want. It is terrifying and truly unprecedented.

So while Paramount and Warner merging might be better for movie theaters and the theatrical experience than Netflix (which was unproven anyway, based on how Netflix said they would support theatrical exhibition with the WB deal), it is almost certainly worse for all of the people working under the movie studio system and the media ecosystem in America as a whole.

Secondly, I think it is important to point out the real winner here - Netflix. Netflix is still the most dominant force in entertainment in 2026. They are the cultural cornerstone that WB and Paramount used to be. The only companies who match up with Netflix at this point are Comcast/Universal, Disney, Amazon, and Apple. And as much as Netflix probably wanted Warner Brothers, they are walking away with a $2.8 billion break up fee (that is a lot of content!), and they have convinced one of their major rivals to overpay in a bad deal. Paramount is losing hundreds of millions every quarter. So is Warner Brothers. If I am Netflix, I am going to sit back, watch this all burn down under the failed leadership of David Ellison (who has proven he cannot run a media company so far with Paramount) and scoop up what remains in a few years.

Is that ideal either? No, not at all. It means we are likely looking at a world in 2030 where the major media companies left will be Disney, Apple, Amazon, Comcast/Universal, and Netflix. The consolidation will continue, creativity will be even harder to express in this system, and it will mean we see less originality than we have now. But it does open up opportunity...

A24, Mubi, NEON, Bleecker Street, IFC Films, Plan B Entertainment, even Sony/Columbia - these are the names who can also benefit from the collapse of the traditional studio system. They can scoop up IPs for cheap, expanding into their own franchises, but they also become the voice of the independent creator. The days of the $300 million blockbuster that needs $1 billion at the box office to recoup costs is going to go away. Even James Cameron is starting to admit that the Avatar movies aren't making enough money to keep investing.

The future of all of this is the low risk, high reward. The $5 million movie that can win an Oscar and gross $100 million. The $1 million horror movie that cracks $50 million at the box office. These are the types of projects that are letting the A24 and NEONs of the world rise over the last decade, and the same projects the other studios are ignoring as they lose hundreds of millions and keep rising prices on their increasingly disappointing streaming services.

2030 might look like Netflix, Disney+, Universal, and a host of indie players working smaller budgets and keeping theaters alive. HBO will almost certainly fall off under Paramount ownership (look at what Paramount+ has done - nothing), the movies will struggle, and the attempt to recoup this massive $111 billion deal (debt) that they do not have the revenue to cover.

So in my eyes, the studio system is dead. It is Doomsday for Paramount and Warner Brothers. Netflix is going to take their cool $2.8 billion and make some shows for "free" with that money. And the Ellison family will hopefully run things into the ground and sell it all off to others - doing the job the regulatory boards will not by simply failing at running a successful media company.

Speaking of the regulatory boards, that is still the best outcome in my eyes, whether it was Netflix or Paramount winning the bidding war. I have faith that either they will work to block this, drag it out long enough to hopefully get in front of a new administration in the US, or simply make it too difficult and have both parties step away. The more people who own media, the better, so my preference is definitely that Warner-Discovery stays alive on their own.

Ultimately, nobody knows what will happen. Only one thing is certain - the Ellison family is not good for America. They are a major risk to the continued imbalance of our economic system, a major risk to the art form of TV and film, and a major risk to whatever is left of unbiased news and journalism. And all of that is bad, no matter what you think about their politics. And I sincerely hope with all of my heart that they fail, with deep sympathies for all the employees who will get caught up in their insanity for no fault of their own.

So these are ten picks that are widely available, reasonably priced, visually impressive, and most importantly, great films. If you’re starting a collection and want a guaranteed mind-blowing entry to the 4K format, here is where to start.

Note: Affiliate Links are used in this post which support me and my work.

Jaws

This is my favorite movie of all time, and I’ve seen it on every format imaginable, on 35mm, IMAX, Laserdisc, VHS, DVD. You name it, I have seen it. The 4K restoration is the best it has ever looked. And it is still the greatest movie of all-time in my book.

The restoration is clean, detailed, perfectly color graded, and incredibly natural. The texture in the water, the clarity in daylight scenes, and the overall stability of the image make it feel brand new without losing its filmic quality. It’s also extremely affordable (usually on sale around $10) which makes it one of the easiest recommendations for anyone starting out.

Buy Now

The Shining

If you’ve only seen The Shining on DVD or standard Blu-ray, the 4K disc is a major leap forward. The detail inside the Overlook Hotel is razor sharp, and the HDR (High Dynamic Range) adds depth to the shadows without crushing them.

It’s one of those transfers that makes you appreciate the craftsmanship of the original cinematography all over again. As both a classic film and a technical showcase, it’s a perfect pickup for new collectors

Buy Now

Lawrence of Arabia

Originally shot on 70mm, this film was built for the big screen, and the 4K transfer delivers that scale in a way home video rarely does. The desert landscapes are breathtaking, with incredible sharpness and depth that almost feels three-dimensional.

For a long time it was expensive and hard to find, but now that it’s widely available again, it’s one of the strongest arguments for what 4K can do with large-format classics. Good rule of thumb - if the film was shot on 70mm or another large format, the 4K Blu-ray probably kicks ass.

Buy Now

Blade Runner and Blade Runner 2049

If you want to see HDR color at its best, these two discs are essential. The original Blade Runner restoration balances neon highlights and shadow detail beautifully, giving the film a richness that earlier formats couldn’t quite capture.

Blade Runner 2049 might be one of the most visually impressive modern films on 4K, with bold color grading and stunning contrast that really pushes the format. Either one works as a starting point, but together they’re a perfect home theater demo pair for a new collector.

Buy Now

2001: A Space Odyssey

Another 70mm production that absolutely benefits from the format, 2001 looks shockingly modern in 4K. The added resolution and HDR give the image weight and presence, especially during the space sequences.

On a large screen or projector, it becomes a full cinematic experience at home. Nothing can beat actually seeing a 70mm print (I have, its a religious experience) but this is one of those discs that instantly justifies upgrading your home setup.

Buy Now

Interstellar

You could pick several Christopher Nolan films, but Interstellar feels like the most complete showcase. The IMAX sequences are stunning in 4K, with immense clarity and scale, and the sound design is equally powerful.

It’s a modern blockbuster that fully takes advantage of the format, and it’s still easy to find at a reasonable price. For newer collectors who want something contemporary and epic, this is a strong choice.

Buy Now

The Red Shoes

For anyone who thinks older films don’t benefit from 4K, this disc proves otherwise. The Technicolor restoration is vibrant and immersive, with HDR adding depth and richness to the already stunning palette.

It truly feels like watching a pristine theatrical print, but with modern stability and clarity. It’s not the most obvious pick for beginners and might be the most “out of the mainstream” pick on this list, but visually it’s one of the most striking.

Buy Now

Glory

This powerful Civil War drama looks fantastic in its Sony 4K release, with strong detail and natural color grading. Beyond the technical quality, it’s simply an important and emotionally impactful film that deserves a place in any serious collection.

It balances historical weight with impressive presentation, making it both meaningful and visually rewarding. I recently saw it in theaters, and I have to say, the 4K Blu-ray was a better presentation. Maybe my theater had a rough print, but this is one excellent transfer.

Buy Now

Ben-Hur

Often considered one of the greatest films ever made, the new 4K remaster is absolutely pristine. The deep blacks, rich colors, tight film grain, and meticulous restoration work elevate an already legendary film to a new status on 4K Blu-ray.

It’s reference-quality material that demonstrates both the artistic and technical potential of the format. If you want one disc that feels definitive, especially since this is a newer restoration at the height of the technology, Ben-Hur is a must-buy.

Buy Now

Starting a physical media collection doesn’t have to be complicated. Focus on great films with meaningful upgrades, and build from there.

If you’re already collecting, I’d love to know what disc first blew you away in 4K. What would you add to this list? Anything I completely missed? Drop your favorites in the comments so newer collectors can benefit from your recommendations too.

I spent a lot of time digging through eBay sold listings. Not looking at asking prices. Not optimistic Buy It Now listings. Actual completed sales. That is the only place you can really see what something is worth.

Before getting into the specific titles, one quick note. If you own anime DVDs or Blu-rays, it is absolutely worth looking them up. I am not deep into anime at all, but during my research, some of the highest sold prices I saw were anime titles going for $500 to $700 or more. If that is a genre you own, do the homework.

Now, onto the movies.

Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah / Godzilla vs. Mothra Double Feature Blu-ray

This Toho Godzilla double feature is a perfect example of a disc quietly becoming valuable over time.

These used to be cheap - I distinctly remember paying around five dollars for similar Godzilla double packs. They were common and easy to find, usually in Wal-Mart $5 bins or on bargain websites.

However, this specific release of Godzilla vs. King Ghidorah / Godzilla vs. Mothra is now out of print (meaning there are no more being made) and copies regularly sell between $150 and $200. Sealed copies can go higher, but even used copies can realistically hit $150.

If you bought this years ago without thinking much about it, this is one of the biggest sleepers on the list.

My Super Ex-Girlfriend Blu-ray

My Super Ex-Girlfriend is a 2006 superhero romantic comedy directed by Ivan Reitman and starring Uma Thurman, Luke Wilson, Anna Faris, and Rainn Wilson.

This was not some obscure release. It did solid box office numbers and was widely available at the time.

Today, the Blu-ray sells for over $100 for a sealed copy, with used copies in the $50-$75 range. Most likely this is one of the 20th Century Fox catalog titles that quietly went out of print after the Disney acquisition.

If you are not particularly attached to it, this is an easy disc to turn into meaningful money to, of course, buy some other movies for your collection! Or pay bills. Whatever, be responsible…

Braindead (aka Dead Alive) Blu-ray

Peter Jackson’s infamous gore-soaked early film has been difficult to find on disc for a long time and its cult status increases its value very year.

The Blu-ray routinely sells for close to $150, sometimes more depending on condition. Sealed copies fetch closer to $200. Horror collectors have always chased this title, and the lack of a modern re-release keeps demand high.

There have been rumors of a new edition for years (Peter Jackson, where is that remaster!) but until that actually happens, this one continues to hold value. Just make sure it is the official US release - there are many bootlegs and overseas editions which are not worth more than $20-$30.

Airheads Blu-ray

Airheads has quietly climbed in value over the last few years, and continues to grow each year we go without a re-issue of this classic comedy.

Starring Adam Sandler, Steve Buscemi, and Brendan Fraser, this Blu-ray used to sell in the $100 to $150 range. More recently, it has pushed into the $150 to $200 territory.

There is nothing special about the release itself. It is a pretty standard, simple Blu-ray. It simply went out of print, and demand has increased, especially with renewed interest in Brendan Fraser’s career and Adam Sandler’s mass appeal.

At Long Last Love Blu-ray

I had never heard of this movie before researching this list, but boy does it have some value.

At Long Last Love is a 1975 musical starring Burt Reynolds and Cybill Shepherd, and it was not particularly well received. None of that matters when it comes to scarcity - the less copies printed, the more valuable a movie can be, especially if its also hard to find on streaming services..

The Blu-ray regularly sells around $200 for sealed copies, and around $100-$150 for used copies.

This is exactly the type of disc that could be buried in a box, sitting in a thrift store, or found on Facebook Marketplace without anyone realizing its value. So always keep a sharp eye out!

Stranger Things Season 2 4K (Target Exclusive)

If you bought the Target exclusive Stranger Things physical releases early on, the Blu-rays were pretty widely available. I still see them sometimes on clearance racks. But if you have the 4K edition of Season 2 in particular, you are sitting on a valuable set.

Sealed copies of the Season 2 4K Ultra HD set sell between $100 and $150, with used copies closer to $100.

I vividly remember these being marked down to under ten dollars at Target, which makes this one hurt a little. I never did buy one, and now they are too expensive for my taste! Here’s hoping for a complete box set someday.

Sleepaway Camp (with slipcover)

The original Sleepaway Camp Blu-ray from Scream Factory can be worth quite a bit of cash, but only with the slipcover included!

With the slipcover, this movie can sell for up to $100. Without it, you would be lucky to get $10.

It’s crazy that a piece of card stock adds 10x value to a movie, but that is what collectors want! Think of it like a hardcover first edition book with a dust cover - its more valuable and desired by collectors than the paperbacks.

The Human Centipede Full Sequence Box Set

The Shout Factory Human Centipede Full Sequence Blu-ray box set is another one that exploded in value after going out of print.

This used to sell for around $30. I remember getting mine for about that price on sale. But today, it typically goes for $100 to $150.

Individual releases are also valuable, but the box set is what most collectors are after. Horror collectors pay attention when something becomes rare - its no surprise many of the movies on this list are horror movies!

Black Christmas Blu-ray

This is the one I have been personally hunting for years. Not the 1974 original. Not the 2019 remake. The 2006 remake of the horror classic Black Christmas.

For reasons that still make no sense, this major studio horror release has become incredibly difficult to track down on Blu-ray. Copies regularly sell for $150 to $200. Even the DVD can sell for $30.

I have found several titles on this list while out hunting for movies over the years, but I have never found this one. It was even hard to find a recent eBay listing - it is a real diamond gem from this list.

If you have it and love it, hold onto it. If not, horror collectors will buy it quickly. But ask me first - I may have some money for you!

Do you have any of these Blu-rays in your collection? Are there any other valuable movies you think should be on this list? Let me know in the comments, and happy hunting!

For context, NTBTSTM is a movie based on a show about a band that wants to play at a classic Toronto music venue, the Rivoli. The show was created by Matt Johnson (Blackberry, The Dirties) and Jay McCarrol (music composer on many of Matt’s films) and started as an internet video series in the early days of online video, around 2007. It then became a cult hit that eventually turned into a Vice TV series in 2017. It has been a long time Canadian favorite with some niche appeal in the States.

The point of the show, and the movie, is the same: to get their band to play at the Rivoli through whatever schemes and plans they can think of, filming mockumentary and guerrilla style in the streets with real people. It’s sort of like Borat meets It’s Always Sunny in Philadelphia. Imagine real people interacting with Charlie, Dennis, Dee, and Mac in the streets of Toronto. That’s Nirvanna The Band The Show, and now the movie. It is an unlikely story from internet video series to major indie film, especially with so much going against it! So really, how is this movie real?

First off, look at the title. Have you ever seen a movie title like that? It is insane. Is it a band? A show? A band documentary? A documentary about a band that made a show? Is the band real? Is the show real? It raises quite a few questions right off the bat. If you check listings for genre, it’s a mockumentary, sci-fi, time travel comedy film. But Nirvanna the Band the Show the Movie (NTBTSTM for short - is that short?) is so much more than what can fit into a genre descriptor.

Secondly, this show is full of recognizable copyright material, especially from Back to the Future, which the film serves as a love letter to. It is a time travel movie, and they use things like the flux capacitor, the 88 mph jump to time travel, and clips straight from the film. They are also using footage from movies like The Hangover, as the film is shown inside a movie theater during their time travel adventures. On copyright issues alone, its a miracle that this movie made it to the big screen.

Third, there are several likely illegal acts in this movie that were filmed, all in good fun of course with no harm to anyone, but still surprising a legal team signed off on the release! It makes for great evidence in any future court cases, but also makes for great movie moments. These guys got through CN Tower security with parachutes on their backs and snipping pliers to cut their safety harnesses. While there is debate about whether or not they actually jumped off the tower (I doubt they could have done so), the fact that they went through security like that is insane and very funny.

I don’t want to give too much more away, but the way they made this film with a limited budget and crew is simply amazing and inspiring. The VFX work was insane. These moments all felt so genuine that I truly don’t know what was real and what was not. It’s literal movie magic, the kind we don’t see on screen as often with the overuse of obvious CGI and green screens. Things aren’t blended together in the real world like this, with a mix of practical effects and VFX, and it’s what makes Nirvanna The Band The Show The Movie so special.

So if you have a free night and can find a screening near you, go see it. If you can’t see it in theaters, rent a digital copy. Buy the eventual Blu-ray release. Show it to your friends. Have a good laugh. And be amazed at what this team, on this budget, was able to put together.

It is a movie that deserves to be seen and celebrated in the day and age of AI-generated content. It is a truly magical movie experience with heart, ingenuity, creativity, and the kind of genius that defines great indie films. If you truly love movies, this is one you absolutely need to support, because it may unfortunately be one of the last of a dying breed. I hope that isn’t true, but if it is, at least we went out with a bang.

I also can’t look at Disney naming Josh D’Amaro as its next CEO without seeing a worrying pattern across all of Hollywood. This isn’t just about D’Amaro - it’s more about what Disney, and really Hollywood as a whole, seem to be prioritizing right now. If that priority keeps shifting away from filmmaking and more toward monetizing existing brands, the long-term future of studio movies starts to look a lot less certain.

Before Bob Iger came back to “save” Disney, the CEO was Bob Chapek. Chapek was the chairman of the Walt Disney Parks and Resorts segment of the business, and he came in and led an admittedly disastrous period of Disney history. Bob Chapek’s tenure as Disney CEO (2020 to 2022) is widely viewed as a failure due to strained talent relations, public relations blunders, and financial miscalculations, leading to his abrupt termination and the return of Bob Iger. His leadership was characterized by cost-cutting measures, a controversial streaming-first strategy, and a lack of, or delayed, response to cultural issues, culminating in a loss of trust from stakeholders.

Chapek went all in on streaming, was tone deaf to the changing world around him, and ultimately did not know how to run a film studio. 2020 to 2022 were not good years for Disney. The stock fell by 44.58% in 2022, mostly because of a lack of streaming growth, declining park attendance, and poor box office output mixed with COVID and a slow return to theaters. Disney was failing because there was a man in charge who knew nothing about the entertainment business. He went all in on streaming, which had short-term results during a pandemic and then tapered off significantly. He wanted movies on Disney+ instead of in theaters.

If Disney had not had Avatar in 2022, which made almost half their annual box office returns, they would have been a total disaster. Iger had to step back in because the board was pissed, they had no faith in Chapek, and he was clearly in over his head.

So Iger stepped in, did his thing, and in 2025 Disney became the first studio to hit $6 billion at the box office since 2019. They were back. The stock rebounded a bit, still not near 2021 peaks, but better, and there was some excitement again about IPs like Star Wars and the MCU. Flops were still there, like Tron: Ares and the live-action Snow White, but at least movies were going back to theaters and off streaming services.

Now they are bringing in Chapek’s successor in the parks division as CEO, and it signals another shift in Disney’s strategy. They seem to be going all in on the theme parks, raising prices by 5 to 8% each year since 2020. Spending is up 40% at their parks. They seem to view the parks and experiences as the main money driver now, with studio films, Disney+, and the box office as secondary.

That’s troublesome because I can see Disney coasting on this. They can live off all the different IPs they already own that have huge fan bases, mail in the actual content, and put things like AI slop videos on Disney+ to keep the lowest common denominator engaged, while driving park sales and in-person experiences as their major revenue stream.

Especially as TV revenue shrinks each year from properties like ABC and ESPN, Disney is looking for an additional growth stream, and they seem to think it’s the parks. But what will it mean for their film projects? Probably less creativity. Less focus. Less risk. They are going to turn Disney into an expensive, experience-driven company that rides on the back of IP like Star Wars, Marvel, Avatar, and their animated classics to keep funneling money from audiences.

It’s going to get more expensive every year, catering more and more to the upper class while likely offering things like payment plans and financing to those who cannot afford it. They will become a resort company, not a film production studio.

Walt Disney is probably rolling in his grave at this, because that was never the intention of the parks. The parks were built to celebrate the films they were making. It was a genius idea. But without the films, the parks don’t exist. After 100 years of films, they can coast on that success and not have to create anything new or unique, driving sales from nostalgia and their ultimately cult-esque following instead of doing anything new and exciting.

It’s sad. It’s another studio likely going away. Warner Bros. is for sale. Paramount is under hostile, and completely incompetent, ownership. Disney is going to focus on theme parks. We still have Universal, but the future of film is almost certainly in the hands of indie companies like A24, NEON, IFC, and Mubi, and self-financed films like the massive success of Iron Lung from YouTuber Markiplier, or the surprise smash hit Terrifier 3, an unrated gory slasher film with no major studio backing that almost cracked $100 million at the box office on a $2 million budget.

You will see more self-financed movies, more indie players owning the big screen, and more small productions with low budgets from studio offshoots like Searchlight and Focus Features mixed in with those indie players, alongside a couple of big tentpoles each year from the major studios.

Hollywood is dead. The studio lots are dead and empty. The future of film is not in the hands of Disney, Warner, Paramount, or even Netflix. It is in the hands of smaller companies that are still taking risks and making unique movies like the ones we grew up on, instead of constant IP-driven sequels and franchise films that others will churn out, likely in the near future with AI, catering to the lowest common denominator.

I hope it isn’t true. But everything I see points to this shift, and it being a permanent thing. Disney’s choice of CEO, Netflix buying legacy studios, and Paramount’s disastrous ownership focused on news instead of film all suggest that Hollywood is falling apart.

A lot of people online are saying it’s the lack of appeal for zombie movies, competition in January from other horror movies, or a lack of interest in this franchise, which I reject based on the success of the rest of the movies in the franchise. For me, I think it all comes down to the release plan and rollout and a very confusing marketing plan.

For one, 28 Years Later only released on June 20 of 2025. I remember it like it was yesterday, because it was. I was on a work trip and saw the movie in a small indie theater in Austin, Texas, and it was awesome. Shoutout to Violet Crown Cinema in downtown Austin.

I didn’t love the movie as much as I wanted to, but it was an effective movie with a great storyline, a little too much setup for me, but an excellent cliffhanger that had me hooked for the second movie. A lot of buzz online felt the same. People wanted to see more of Ralph Fiennes and the Bone Temple. They wanted to figure out what the hell was going on with the Jimmies and that weird cult we were introduced to. It was a great setup from a solid movie.

Now for a major franchise, I would think you would want to spread out the hype a bit. Let the movie hit streaming, physical media, digital rental, and gather that continued word of mouth after its theatrical run, especially in a day where a lot of people watch movies at home. By the end of July, people could rent it at home. In late September, people could stream it on Netflix and buy the Blu-ray. So that gave audiences only about four months to watch the first film at home and get excited for the next one. I think it’s far too close together.

Movies need time to find audiences. And traditionally they had that time. Sequels took years in between. I just don’t understand the rush and this new trend. The Strangers tried it, and they failed with bad movies and poor box office returns. 28 Years Later is trying it to little success. Even filmmakers like Oz Perkins are cranking out three movies in less than 18 months and seeing diminishing returns each time. I love his films, and I saw both Longlegs and The Monkey in theaters, but I just didn’t have time to fit a third film into my schedule when Keeper came out. It’s a first world problem, but it was too much, too soon, even as a massive horror fan. I have kids, a day job, family events, and other things I like to do. If I can’t find time for a horror movie from one of my favorite genre directors, then will average moviegoers? Most likely not.

People need time to catch up. There is a reason why Avatar makes so much money even with several years in between sequels. People show up in droves to a Nolan movie, or a Tarantino movie, because it’s an event. It’s special. When you ram movies together like this, in some weird Frankenstein streaming/theatrical release model where you want to give the audience everything all at once, it doesn’t have that feel. I do not think that model will ever mean box office success. What works for streaming does not work in the traditional theatrical model. And really, does it even work for streaming? That is another article for another day…

The other problem was the marketing. The marketing of 28 Years Later spent a lot of time showing visuals of Ralph Fiennes and the bones and the gritty post-apocalyptic world. It felt like we were going to get that in the first movie. And we didn’t. We got a story about a boy and his parents, surviving on an island, and finding peace within the world of hell. We got a coming-of-age story more than anything, with short glimpses of this other world. And in that way, the marketing was a bit misleading, especially the trailers. But it’s even worse looking back because the Bone Temple marketing looked largely the same.

The Bone Temple marketing showed more of Ralph Fiennes again. It was focused on the creepy bone structures. It had the weirdness and the gory look and feel we thought we would get in the first movie. And that confused audiences. I have seen several Reddit threads about this movie where fans of the franchise didn’t even know it had been released. They thought they were still seeing promos for the first one. And these were people who were excited. Average general audience members had no chance. It was poor marketing which confused audiences combined with a drop on ticket sales in an awful month for movies in January.

If they had waited until June of this year, I think the movie would do much better. More exposure. More time to build an audience. More time between the movies to explain that they were different films, that this was a continuation, that it was something fresh. But as it is, the franchise is now in the dumps and is set to lose a massive amount of money, up to 100 million if you take a look at the film’s budget and marketing dollars. It is a massive loss and could bring problems for the third and final film of the new trilogy. And it shouldn’t be that way.

Nia DaCosta made a great movie by all accounts. I have a feeling most of the people like me who were kind of meh on 28 Years Later will love Bone Temple. It’s the movie they probably thought they were getting in the first one. But because of a rush to market, poor visibility for the movie in a bad month surrounded by confusing marketing, it’s become a failure.

If you can, go and buy a ticket. The film deserves it, even if the studio heads failed it.

If you have seen it, you know exactly the moment I mean. If you have not, the setup is deceptively simple. Jesse Plemons plays a soldier. We do not know what side he is on. We do not even know if he is a real soldier. He is standing in front of what appears to be a mass grave, filled with people we assume he has already rounded up and killed. Our protagonists are captured and lined up in front of him. One by one, he asks them questions while holding a military-grade rifle.

What kind of American are you?
Where are you from?
What state were you born in?

What makes the scene so horrifying is not just the threat of violence. It is the way those questions function. He does not actually care if they are citizens. He does not care where they were born. He has already decided, in his own head, what value these people have and what he is going to do to them based on their answers. The questions are not an investigation. They are justification.

That is what makes the scene so chilling.

Because that same question is being asked every day in America right now.

I have watched videos of ICE agents stopping people who say they are U.S. citizens. That is not enough. The follow-up is always the same. Where were you born? Where are you actually from? There are so many parallels between that reality and this scene that it is almost unbearable. Civil War was the scariest movie of 2024 to me not because of explosions or violence, but because of how realistic it felt. It did not feel like a warning about some distant future. It felt obvious that something like this could happen here, now.

And we are already seeing the baby steps toward it.

I saw someone on Threads say that watching Civil War in 2024 felt like watching Contagion in 2020, as COVID was shutting the world down. I completely agree. Alex Garland did not need a crystal ball. He just paid attention to the writing on the wall, the way all great science fiction writers do.

Some people will say movies are not political, or that they only watch movies to be entertained. To those people, I honestly say be thankful. You are lucky. You get to live in a bubble where these things do not affect you personally. You do not have to think about other people when you watch a movie like this. If you did, these stories would hit whether you wanted them to or not.

If you are part of a minority group, a child of immigrants, or an immigrant yourself, it is almost impossible to watch a scene like this and not feel its weight. The underlying message is unavoidable.

That is why movies matter.

For over a hundred years, film has been one of the most powerful art forms for expressing ideas, challenging systems, and pushing for change. Artists make things to express their worldview, whether it is Star Wars or Schindler’s List, Captain America or Malcolm X. The message is always there. Characters have purpose. They have motivations. If they did not, what kind of movie would that even be?

This is why we should watch movies that make us uncomfortable. We should let them do that. Living in a bubble does not make reality go away. It just makes us less prepared to confront it.

This scene in Civil War works because it feels so real. These are unarmed, helpless people being held at gunpoint by a man in a uniform. They are journalists, chasing a story, trying to report the truth. And that is exactly what threatens Plemons’ character.

On some level, he knows what he is doing is wrong. Just like the masked men in the streets today know what they are doing is wrong. But they do it anyway. Blind hatred and a hunger for power make it easy to shut that voice out. And when that power is challenged, when transparency enters the picture, they lash out.

Why do you think they hate being filmed? It is not because it impedes investigations. It is because it exposes the truth. Transparency threatens them. When small men feel threatened, they respond with violence. They cannot regulate their emotions. Eventually, they turn themselves into emotionless killers. That is exactly what Plemons’ soldier has become.

Civil War is a warning. It shows a future that is avoidable, even if parts of it already feel familiar. It is a reminder that lines do not get crossed all at once. They get tested, step by step, to see how far they can go.

But it does not have to end that way.

Things can change. And I hope they do. So what kind of American are you?

This list is focused strictly on 4K Blu-ray releases that arrived in 2025, regardless of when the movies were originally made. Some of these titles are modern classics, others were long-neglected cult films, and a few are cornerstone franchises that finally received the upgrades they deserved. What they all have in common is strong transfer work, thoughtful presentation, and discs that genuinely show off what the 4K format can do.

This is not a ranking - it was impossible to put one in front of the other with such great options - so these titles are listed alphabetically.

For a more detailed breakdown, make sure to check out the video version of this list on YouTube!

Dirty Work

Vinegar Syndrome delivers a meticulous restoration that finally does justice to this buried comedy. Beyond the upgraded image quality, the real achievement here is the reconstruction of the dirtier cut, with material sourced from degraded elements and seamlessly reintegrated into the film. It is a rare example of technical restoration and historical preservation working hand in hand, turning a long-dismissed studio casualty into a legitimate catalog highlight.

Buy from Vinegar Syndrome

Lethal Weapon

An outstanding restoration that preserves the film’s gritty look while delivering clean detail and balanced audio. Warner Bros. avoids overprocessing, allowing the film grain and texture to remain intact while dramatically improving clarity and stability. The audio presentation is punchy where it needs to be, yet clear and well-balanced for dialogue, making this one of the most impressive catalog upgrades the studio released in 2025.

Buy from Amazon or GRUV

Master and Commander: The Far Side of the World

A true home theater showcase that fully justifies the leap to 4K. The film’s massive scale, fine environmental detail, and natural color grading benefit enormously from HDR, while the sound design remains immersive and powerful. This is the kind of disc that exists to show off what a high-end setup can do, and it finally delivers the definitive home presentation the film has long deserved.

Hard to find - check eBay or local sellers and watch for a restock.

A Nightmare on Elm Street (4K Collection)

A long-awaited franchise upgrade that delivers strong transfers across the series. Seeing these films consistently presented in 4K brings a new level of cohesion to the collection, especially for entries that had never looked particularly strong on home video. Whether viewed individually or as a full set, this release finally gives one of horror’s cornerstone franchises a modern, uniform presentation.

Buy Standard Edition from Amazon or GRUV (Steelbooks will be harder to find)

Night of the Juggler

A revelatory 4K debut from Kino Lorber that exemplifies the value of boutique labels. This gritty New York crime thriller benefits immensely from a fresh scan and Dolby Vision, with improved contrast and detail that enhance the film’s raw, street-level aesthetic. More importantly, the release resurrects a film that had largely disappeared from circulation, turning it into one of the year’s most exciting rediscoveries.

Buy from Amazon

Sorcerer

Criterion’s 4K restoration is visually striking and sonically immersive, offering a presentation that feels both authoritative and respectful. Supervised by William Friedkin, the transfer preserves the film’s oppressive atmosphere while significantly enhancing clarity and depth. The newly restored audio adds weight and tension without overwhelming the mix, elevating an already intense film into a reference-level experience.

Buy from Amazon

The Descent

A perfect example of how HDR can fundamentally transform a movie. Previously murky and difficult to read on Blu-ray, the film’s dark cave environments finally benefit from improved contrast and shadow detail. The result is a presentation that maintains the intended claustrophobia while allowing viewers to clearly follow the action, making this arguably the best the film has ever looked at home.

Buy from Lionsgate Limited

The X Trilogy

A beautifully presented box set featuring X, Pearl, and MaXXXine, with strong transfers and consistent presentation across all three films. The 4K upgrades enhance the distinct visual identities of each entry, from stylized color palettes to film grain management. Combined with thoughtful packaging and supplementary material, this set feels like a definitive physical release for one of modern horror’s most important trilogies.

Buy from A24 Shop or Amazon

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Trilogy

Arrow Video delivers a comprehensive restoration that finally brings the entire live-action trilogy into the 4K era. The films benefit from improved color, stronger contrast, and HDR that enhances both the darker sequences and the more vibrant costuming. Combined with extensive extras and careful attention to original audio options, this release stands as a model for how nostalgia-driven titles should be treated on physical media.

Buy from Amazon

Tron: Legacy

A reference-quality 4K upgrade that fully embraces the film’s digital aesthetic. HDR dramatically enhances the neon-heavy visuals, giving the image depth and intensity that earlier formats could not replicate. Paired with powerful, immersive audio, this release turns Tron: Legacy into a showcase disc that looks and sounds exactly like a modern 4K format was built for.

Hard to find - check eBay or local sellers and watch for a restock.

Honorable Mentions

• F1: The Movie

• Sinners

• In The Mouth of Madness

• Dirty Harry

• The Mask