Telegram RegisterThe public register of Telegram

Channel

Perversions of Cinema

@perversion_of_cinema

On this record: Growth · Engagement · Reactions · Posts · Polls · Citations · Cite this entry

162subscribers

-1 since we began measuring on 6 August 2026

Risers and fallers across the register · movement among entries of Under 1,000.

Register entry

Telegram ID-1001280156851
TypeChannel
Username@perversion_of_cinema
CreatedBetween 1 April 2018 and 31 July 2021— estimated from Telegram’s id allocation, not measured. How this range is calculated.
First recorded8 August 2026
Last confirmed live14 August 2026
Measurements held3
Confirmed unchanged1 time, most recently 14 August 2026
On Telegramt.me/perversion_of_cinema

Growth

162163162.56 August 2026 — 163 subscribers8 August 2026 — 163 subscribers14 August 2026 — 162 subscribers6 August 202614 August 2026
3 measurements spanning 8 days, net -1. Dots are measurements; the straight line between them is drawn to join them, not to claim we know the path taken in between — snapshots are recorded only when a count changes, so gaps mean “no change observed”, never “interpolated”. The vertical axis spans 162–163 and does not start at zero.
Measurement log — every subscribers count we have recorded
Measured (UTC)SubscribersChange
14 Aug 2026, 21:06162-1
8 Aug 2026, 16:31163no change
6 Aug 2026, 14:18163first reading

Engagement

15 posts held, back to 25 March 2025the reader has not yet reached the start of this channel’s public history, so older posts may sit further back, unread. Read across 1 pageof Telegram’s post history, 20 posts per page.

Nothing published in the last 30 days. ERR and ER are rolling 30-day measures, so there is nothing to compute — we hold 15 posts for this entry, the most recent from 8 November 2025. An engagement rate over an empty window would be a number about nothing.

Reaction mix

66 reactions across 12 posts, in 10 distinct kinds. The most used accounts for 47.0% of them.

Every reaction kind recorded on the sample, most used first
ReactionCountShareShare, drawn
3147.0%
🔥1319.7%
🤔57.58%
👍46.06%
🤨46.06%
🌚34.55%
🗿23.03%
😁23.03%
🤝11.52%
🤷‍♂11.52%

No sentiment is inferred, and none should be read in. This table is ordered by count and by nothing else. Emoji do not carry stable meaning across languages or communities — 🙏 is thanks in one channel and mourning in another — so we publish which ones were pressed and how often, and pass no judgement on what an audience meant by them.

Precision. Telegram publishes reaction counts per emoji and short-forms each one — 4.34K, 1.2M — so any single kind at or above 1,000 reaches us at three significant figures, and only counts below 1,000 are exact. The shares above are ratios of those figures and carry the same error. This is also why the total here can differ slightly from a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page: both are sums of the same rounded parts, taken over samples with different edges.

Coverage. Reactions were read on 14 of the 15 sampled posts in this sample. Summed by Telegram’s own count on each post — not by adding up the per-emoji breakdown above — those same posts carry 66reactions in total: the kind of figure the paragraph above means by “a reaction total printed elsewhere on the page”.

Measured over the 15 most recent posts we hold, published 25 March 2025 to 8 November 2025, using the newest reading held for each. Telegram Stars are excluded: they are a payment, not a reaction, and they have their own section.

Recent posts

8 Nov 2025, 02:40 UTC≈5,260 views14 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Photo

Я посмотрел фильм "Новая полицейская история". И он как будто бы окончательно разрушил моё детство. ) Не, ну не так всё сурово, конечно, но осознал внезапно многое. Я набросал текст на лету. Хотел прилизать, сделать чуть более идеологически выверенным. Но в последнее время понял, что если я начинаю прилизывать текст, он никуда не дойдёт по итогу, а лучше бы писать хоть что-то, хоть и не очень умное. ) Так что, ну, на

12🗿2

30 Oct 2025, 23:01 UTC≈2,630 views0 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Poll

Как вы относитесь к идее франшиз?

  1. Буду смотреть, если оригинал хорош. До некоего победного35%
  2. Буду смотреть, но если начнёт сдуваться, то брошу26%
  3. Ориганал ничто не переплюнет. Сиквелы/ремейки - плевок в душу7%
  4. Похер33%

Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

30 Oct 2025, 22:56 UTC≈2,270 views0 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Poll

Как вы относитесь к режиссёру Майклу Бэю

  1. Хороший режиссёр24%
  2. Плохой режиссёр21%
  3. Побоку55%

Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

30 Oct 2025, 22:55 UTC≈1,970 views2 reactionsread 8 August 2026

Когда я в последний раз заходил в свой паблик, тут было человек 40 ) А уже 150 внезапно. При том, что я ничего не пишу. Я б хотел провести пару опросов чисто ради интереса. Это к продолжению дискуссии об иерархии вкусов.

2

30 Oct 2025, 16:55 UTC≈2,060 views7 reactionsread 8 August 2026
File

Послушал интервью https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Exjn9YPzLk. Подобные дискуссии казались мне чем-то из нулевых. Те времена, когда спорили, что ценнее — «Сталкер» или "Зардоз". Но сейчас спор уже не о самих фильмах, а о том, как о них пишут. Новый виток той же игры: выстраивание вкусовой иерархии, но на уровне риторики. Краткий отзыв? Недостаточно «аналитично». Слишком эмоционально? «Антиинтеллектуально». Слишком су

6🔥1

18 Apr 2025, 23:34 UTC≈6,230 views14 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Photo

Убийца / Da ci ke (Чан Че / Cheh Chang, 1967) / На режиссёра Чан Че, если мне не изменяет память, я в первый раз наткнулся в биографии Энди Миллигана (The Ghastly One). Но я не уверен. Объединяет их нетрадиционная ориентация и агрессия на внешний мир, которая выражалась через кино (вот с Фассбиндером Миллигана точно часто сравнивали). Что снимает Чан Че - гипермаскулинные фильмы с расчленёнкой. Это не совсем "Однору

🔥73🌚3👍1

7 Apr 2025, 05:08 UTC≈3,790 views8 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Photo

Попутчик. Начало

🔥5🤔2🤷‍♂1

31 Mar 2025, 00:27 UTC≈3,540 views5 reactionsread 8 August 2026

У меня были когда-то мысли, что Terrifier - это убийца так называемого post/elevated и ещё как-нибудь- хоррор, которому удалось вернуть простой фан в фильмы ужасов, причём так, что это заметил рядовой зритель. Но в итоге убийца дракона сам стал драконом (правда, пока чисто постмодернистским), что обидно, конечно... )

🤔31🤨1

31 Mar 2025, 00:11 UTC≈3,020 views5 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Photo

Ужасающий 3 / Terrifier 3 (2024) (Дэмиен Леоне / Damien Leone) К сожалению, третий Ужасающий оказался откровенной постмодернистской комедией, что, возможно, и не делает конкретно этот фильм плохим (смотреть весело всё же), но хоронит будущее франшизы на неопределённое время. Понятно, что очень сложно превзойти планку оригинала Во втором пытались выехать за счёт добавления эпичности (да и тот уже был на грани, но тог

🤨31👍1

26 Mar 2025, 02:32 UTC≈2,150 views3 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Photo

Много способов быть первым / Jat go zi tau di daan sang (1997, Вай Ка-Фай/Ka-Fai Wai) Всё, что я видел у Вай Ка-Фая до того, это совместные работы с Джонни То (Профессия Киллер, Безумный следователь и др.) Джонни То заявлен только продюсером, хотя подозреваю, что руку он в любом случае приложил. Однако основная фича фильма - это даже не то, кто снял, а как. Оператор Вон Вин-Хун до того работал с Джоном Ву (Наёмный

2👍1

25 Mar 2025, 21:22 UTC≈2,550 views1 reactionsread 8 August 2026
Photo

Zoo-Horror Double Feature Дикие звери / Wild beasts - Belve feroci (1984) Очень прямолинейная копия "Птиц" Хичкока. но вместо птиц иные животные и масштаб чуть поменьше, а в качестве режиссёра сам Франко Проспери (тот самый из дуэта Проспери-Якопетти). Мондо им удавались лучше, конечно. Линк / Link (1986) Ричард Франклин снял один из самых известных фильмов того, что Тарантино позже обозвал ozploitation - это был

👍1

Showing the 12 most recent of 15 posts we hold for @perversion_of_cinema. View and reaction counts are the latest single reading for each post, not a live figure, and a recent post is still accumulating both. A view count marked was rounded by Telegram before we ever saw it — t.me prints views in full below 1,000 and to three significant figures above, so ≈1,200,000 means somewhere between 1,150,000 and 1,249,999. Unmarked counts are exact. Text is reproduced from the public post preview and truncated for length.

Polls

The 2 polls we hold for this entry, as Telegram rendered them when we read the post. A poll’s figures keep moving after that, so each one is dated.

30 Oct 2025, 23:01 UTCAnonymous Poll43 voters

Как вы относитесь к идее франшиз?

  1. Буду смотреть, если оригинал хорош. До некоего победного35%
  2. Буду смотреть, но если начнёт сдуваться, то брошу26%
  3. Ориганал ничто не переплюнет. Сиквелы/ремейки - плевок в душу7%
  4. Похер33%

Shares as published, totalling 101%. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

30 Oct 2025, 22:56 UTCAnonymous Poll38 voters

Как вы относитесь к режиссёру Майклу Бэю

  1. Хороший режиссёр24%
  2. Плохой режиссёр21%
  3. Побоку55%

Shares as published. No per-option vote count is published by Telegram, so none is shown.

Percentages only — there are no per-option vote counts here, because Telegram publishes none.The public post preview gives each option’s share and a single voter total, and nothing else. Multiplying one by the other would produce a per-option tally that looks measured and is not: the shares are rounded to whole numbers before we ever see them. We print what was published and leave the column that does not exist empty.

The shares need not add up to 100.Rounding alone puts many polls at 99 or 101. A poll that allows more than one answer per voter runs well past 100 by design, and several here do. The bars are drawn against a fixed 100% track at each option’s own percentage rather than normalised to the total, so a poll that exceeds it shows that it does instead of being quietly rescaled.

Read from the 15 most recent posts we hold, published 25 March 2025 to 8 November 2025. Telegram labels each poll by kind — an anonymous poll, a quiz, a closed set of final results — and that label is reproduced rather than paraphrased.

Citation-graph rank

Citation-graph rank — 1,153,182 of 1,350,102entries in the measured graph. A weighted position computed from the forward and mention edges below — republished posts weigh more than named mentions — and recomputed periodically, over the whole graph. Published only as this ordinal position, never as a score: a position is a fact, and a score printed beside one channel’s name would read as a verdict this register does not make. The two counts beneath stay separate for the same reason mentions are never summed with forwards anywhere else on this page — a named-by count costs nothing to manufacture. The top 100 by this measure, or how it is computed.

Mentions

Named by 2 registered channels — every channel on the register whose own posts have named this one, by its current username or any other username it currently holds, merged from two separately captured readings of the same fact so a namer caught by only one of them is not missed and a namer both caught is not counted twice. A username this channel has since dropped is not matched — that handle may belong to someone else now, and crediting today’s namer to yesterday’s owner would misattribute it.

A mention is a weaker signal than a forward and is counted separately for that reason — naming a channel is not republishing it, and a handle in a post body is easy to place deliberately. The post counts beside each row below are distinct posts in which the handle appeared, from posts we have read on both sides — the “Named by N registered channels” figure above is a different count, of distinct NAMING CHANNELS rather than posts, and is not the sum of the rows under it.

Cite this entry

A live page changes as we take new readings, so a citation should name the measurement it is based on, not just the URL. The line below cites the subscriber count as measured 14 August 2026 — this entry's latest reading, not the date you are reading this.

“Perversions of Cinema” (@perversion_of_cinema), 162 subscribers as measured 14 August 2026. Telegram Register, tgregister.com/channel/perversion_of_cinema.

Full measurement history, CC BY 4.0. Every reading this register holds for this entry, not just the latest one, as a dated, downloadable record: CSV · JSON. Free to use with attribution to tgregister.com. Each file carries its own generation timestamp, which is the figure to cite for exactly when the data was retrieved.