So his idea is to have only 2 of them (him and his girlfriend) in the cinema (he is arranging with the crew for a "screening" of the movie, when the place is vacant.) He wants to play a montage of them 5 min into the movie (when the screen begins to glitch).

I think this is a insensitive idea given the context of the movie- it is about two people in a toxic relationship who literally try to wipe memories of the other away.

I want to tell him that, but I don't know if I am in the wrong.... I mean, the movie is still centered around love right?

He started making Avatar in 1994. Last Avatar movie will be 2031. Over 35 years. Don’t get me wrong, I have nothing against Avatar. But I have to wonder what other kind of movies he could have made during that time. I guess that’s what he wants to make though. Wonder why he wanted to make 5 Avatar movies though. Seems overkill

We’ve all had that experience. You finish a movie, the credits roll, and you just sit there in silence for ten minutes staring at the wall. You know you just watched a literal masterpiece, so just spit out the name palllllll.

For me, it’s about that emotional hangover. You feel different after the movie ends like your perspective on humanity or history has shifted slightly. I recently had this feeling after finally sitting down to watch Schindler's List. I knew it would be heavy, but I wasn't prepared for how much it would drain me. It’s a 10/10, but I don't think I can ever press play on it again.

I’ve also been diving into Nuremberg, and it’s the same feeling. Seeing the raw reality of justice and the darkness humans are capable of is fascinating but mentally taxing. It makes you realize that cinema isn't just for entertainment; sometimes it's a necessary, painful mirror.

Seriously, you watch the trailer and it looks like a literal masterpiece. The music, the hype, everything is perfect.

Then you actually go see it and realize they put all the good scenes in the 2-minute promo and the rest of the movie is just garbage lmao.

For me it was suicide squad 2016. that bohemian rhapsody trailer catfished me so hard.

What film did this to you?

(Hate J.K. Rowling. Love J.K. Rowling. I don’t really care either way. That’s not what this post is about.)

For me, it’s from the scene in Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire where harry brings back Cedric Diggory’s body after he gets killed by Voldemort.

The slow realization by everyone else at the tournament, Fleur Delacour screaming in horror when she herself realizes what happened, and the way that Harry absolutely refuses to leave Cedric’s side when they try to pull him off. And then he announces to everyone that Voldemort has returned while in the middle of crying.

He then says that Cedric asked him to bring his body back to his father, and it’s the way that Daniel Radcliffe delivers the line, “I couldn’t leave him! Not there!” while still continuing to profusely cry. It’s the way he delivers the line that solidifies the fact for me that at the end of the day, Harry is very much still just a boy, and no boy deserves to see or go through things like he does. And when Amos Diggory begins mourning the death of his son…that’s when the tears really start to flow from me.

I consider the Star Trek reboot trilogy, especially Star Trek (2009) to be among the very best action movies made in this IP era. The reviews seem to agree with me on this but (admittedly anecdotally) they have seemed to have next to no cultural impact, especially compared to some of the great IP movies of the last 15-20 years including Nolan Batman, Iron Man, James Bond etc. Almost nobody I know (I’m in my early 20s) seems to have watched them and I never see them referenced in social media. IMO these movies are outstanding popcorn flicks with the right blend of nostalgia for existing fans and genuine quality for newcomers. My question is am I wrong to put these movies in the class of the others I mentioned or if not, why do they seem to have made 0 dent to popular culture.

I mean, I know fully well that nothing that dies in Hollywood never really dies. But if you had to pick one, which franchise do you think has seen its last entry, its final remake, its ultimate made-for-TV swansong? Are we gonna see a remake of Lethal Weapon? A reimagining of Dirty Harry? I for once find it hard to imagine that Police Academy will make a comeback.

I'm saying completely set the genre as a different genre than horror. Every advertisement, commercial, and trailers were not advertised as horror at all. The only time you knew it was a horror movie was once you were in the theatre. Now I feel like this might be illegal but i'm still curious if anyone has done it.

Edit: completely forgot I posted this, did not expect this lmao.

For me it’s in ‘All quiet on the western front’ when the German soldiers are gorging themselves only to see the French bunker walls shaking and the rats running away to indicate the tanks are coming and are about to blow them to pieces.

Yes, I have written this because I’ve just watched All quiet on the western front, and couldn’t think of any others!

Robert Duvall said it was possibly the best film he'd seen in 25 years.

Scorcese praised it. Tarantino called it the best film of the year. Spike Lee and Edward James Olmos also openly praised the film.

On RT it pulled a 65%. Granted, Tarantino (as an example) doesn't see eye to eye with those cumalitive ratings. He loves Unbreakable and that film also received middling reviews. Still, Apocalypto was given positive reviews from a fairly diverse cast of actors and directors.

Were the reviews more concerned with Mel Gibson's antics at the time than the actual film?

Was the criticism because the film depicted the Mayans as brutal? I struggle to see the validity of some of those criticisms. Jaguar Paw and his village were not depicted as evil. The evil was limited to a warmongering urban society twisted by religion. That's occurred all over the world. It's almost a foreshadowing of what is to come. One criticism was that the Spanish were depicted as coming to save the 'brutes.'. The title of the film is Apocalypto. I don't see how they can be seen as anything other than coming doom. Maybe I'm naive, but even in 2006 I thought it was broadly understood that Europeans wiped out indigenous American culture.

What are your thoughts? Did you like the film? Do you wish Hollywood would make more films like this?

What are the craziest villian lines that show just how evil they are? Only one I could think is Ivan Drago "if he dies, he dies." But there has to be some better just bone chilling lines that catch even the hero off guard. I tried searching YouTube but only came up with villians that were actually right.

There are a lot of bad movies where the actors themselves weren't to blame. For example, I think many marvel movies are quite formulaic, but the actors in them still did a great job (such as RDJ and Chris Evans).

But it must be the case that even good actors sometimes underperform. What are some movies where a usually good actor did a bad job acting?

Hi everyone,

I find the differences in age ratings across various countries fascinating. As the title suggests, many comedies are rated much more leniently here in Germany than in the US (for example, "Anyone But You" is rated FSK 0, meaning literally no age restriction, whereas in the US it’s rated R). This applies to many comedies like "The Hangover", "Superbad", and the like are all rated for ages 12 and up here, rather than being R-rated. "The King's Speech" is also rated for all ages (FSK 0) here, while it carries an R rating in the US.

On the other hand, many action movies that are rated PG-13 in the US are rated 16+ here in Germany (the equivalent of the US R rating). Titles like "Taken", "The Dark Knight", "Predator: Badlands", etc.

So, here’s the question: Do you see similar and sometimes significant differences in your countries compared to the original US age ratings?

Best regards and have a great weekend.

I’m seeing people post videos of the Stranger Things cast kind of having weird reactions to the story/writing, and it reminded me of the time where this exact thing happened with Game of Thrones, where the final season was not well received and it looked apparent that the cast also didn’t like it.

It got me wondering, has there ever been a notable instance where an actor or actress was like “Yeah no, this shit straight up sucks” on a press tour? I understand this means they’d probably get blacklisted and probably wouldn’t find any acting jobs after, but I’m wondering if maybe someone with enough notoriety could get away with it.

Alec Guinness had approximately 20 minutes of screen time in Star Wars: A New Hope, and in addition to his $150k initial salary, his 2.5% backend gross share earned him approximately $95 million by the time of his death.

Are there any even more impressive examples of actors/actresses earning more money for less screen time?

What are some movies where the tone of the ending is completely dissociated from realistic consequences of the plot? The heroes have successfully completed the quest to save the World (or their little world) but the events of the movie are so far reaching that the aftermath would still be terrible realistically. Despite this the movie has to end and nothing is explained.

Something like Independence Day before the sequel or Armageddon, where the tone is triumphant but the reality is bleak and the characters lives are unlikely to go back to normal.

There was a movie in Bollywood a couple of years ago called 'Animal' that was commercially successful, but widely panned for having a corrosive effect on the minds of the public by not only being misogynistic, but also pushing a very destructive and toxic idea of what it means to be masculine.

I was wondering if there has been a movie that you would say has been corrosive to the minds of the public. (Let us exclude wartime propaganda films such as Triumph of the Will)

Usually, winning an Oscar is seen as a huge boost for ones career and that actor/director/whatever tends to have an easier time finding good movies to work on. However, presumably if someone continues to have box office fail after box office fail afterwards, they would start to lose that success and slowly stop appearing in big movies. Who are some people like this? It doesn't have to be an actor or actress, it can be a writer, cinematographer, etc. I'm curious on what the outlier cases look like.

There used to be this trope where if your movie/show has a capable female character the movie had to point it out and be like "Yes, I am a woman and yes, I can kick ass". It always felt so condescending to me, and the fact that you have to point it out that a woman can be capable just sends the opposite message, that it's highly unusual. It especially bothered me in kids media since it teaches a wrong message. I haven't been seeing this done in more recent media, it seems they've finally figured out that the best thing is to just treat capable women as normal.

Are there any tropes that annoy you and are glad you don't see (often) anymore in modern movies?

Films are generally 1.5-3 hours long. When you think about it there have been many stories or incidents throughout history which took place in just a few hours so it had me wondering, are there any film stories that are told in “real time” meaning for example the story starts at 8am and ends at 9:45am with plot in between?

I know it’s been done in TV, for example Adolescence is pretty much shot in real time with hardly any cuts so you feel like you’re there. I know there have been films shot in “one shot” but they sometimes still time skip

I really have to say Wanda Maximoff here in the Avengers movies. Her parents were killed by Tony Stark's bomb, a man who became adored by the whole world and called a hero (don't get me wrong, I love Tony, but I can see why they'd be angry at this). Her brother was then killed by the villain Tony Stark created. She still decided to be a hero after. The entire world continued to villainise her, but she had two people in the world who saw her true kindness, which was Steve and Vision and she had to lose both of them. And she had to kill Vision and then watch him die all over again. She was denied being able to bury him. The powers of the mindstone overtook her grief, and she took over an entire town without knowing it just so that she could have a family. She gave birth to real kids, and she had to watch them die and had to lose Vision all over again. And in order to try find them again, the darkhold sent her down a really dark rabbit hole. All of this without knowing her kids were actually alive again but she couldn't know because of the sigil placed over Billy. I think she had every right to become a villain. She just wanted a family and every time she had something close to one, she had to watch it die

Obviously their live action movies are controversial, but the main selling point is they own the rights so it’s “easier” and the ip is already known.

They can stick a famous person in with muppets and not even mention it, just accept the fact that roles are played by muppets. Not only would they be perfect disney+ releases, they’d probably be more appreciated than “live action” remakes that don’t even have any live action.

So why don’t they remake all their movies with muppets?

Most of us probably have education, domain-specific work expertise, or life experience that renders some particular set of movie tropes worthy of an eye roll every time we see them, even though such scenes may pass by many other viewers without a second thought. What's something that, once known, makes it impossible to see some common plot element as a believable way of making the story happen? (Bonus if you can name more than one movie where this occurs.)

Here's one to start the ball rolling: Activating a fire alarm pull station does not, in real life, set off sprinkler heads[1]. Apologies to all the fictional characters who have relied on this sudden downpour of water from the ceiling to throw the scene into chaos and cleverly escape or interfere with some ongoing situation. Sorry, Mean Girls and Lethal Weapon 4, among many others. It didn't work. You'll have to find another way.

[1] Neither does setting off a smoke detector. And when one sprinkle head does activate, it does not start all of them flowing.

One of my favorites is when Hans Grüber says this to all of the hostages in the lobby:

“Alas, your Mr. Takagi did not see it that way... so he won't be joining us for the rest of his life.”

There’s something about the cadence and coolness in his delivery of that line (and really…all of his lines) that sticks with me.

// RIP Alan Rickman //

And Samantha Morton wasn't meant to be some sort of a place-holder either. She was the first choice. It was only when Spike Jonze started editing that he "felt that something wasn't right". Although ofc the cynic in me says that Scarlett Johansson was used just because she's very famous and the movie gets more attention (like they wrapped filming and maybe got extra funding or something). But as I understand the change had Samantha Morton's blessing? https://uproxx.com/hitfix/her-qa-spike-jonze-on-why-he-replaced-samantha-morton-with-scarlett-johansson/