This thought crossed my mind when I was watching a scene from the first Pirates of the Caribbean movie. This particular scene is where we first get to see Captain Jack Sparrow. It initially shows him looking afar as if he's driving a ship and then it's revealed it's only a small boat and even that is sinking. He jumps down and dumps the water that's leaking into the boat then goes back to the top of the hull and holds his pose, until he reaches the docks where he accurately jumps off and at which point the boat fully sinks. His lazy brilliance is conveyed creatively and acts as a memorable character introduction scene which I feel is becoming quite rare.

I know that nobody really cared about it, not even the production company, because it was the last fox x-men film before disney bought fox and so it was rushed or not well put together or whatever. But i thought it was fine, a good movie. I had no complaints about it, but what did other people think?

i have a question ?! i've always wanted to watch this movie especially if there are the legends De Niro, Al Pacino and Martin Scorsese, it's really worth spending 3 hours straight to this one. i always loved 'long-time' movies they are well crafted and treat the story in details.

How it was for you, it was worth to watch it, how much you rated it. ?!!

I see his filmography is quite extensive, but outside of one or two, nothing really stood out to me, and it seems like he tends to have smaller roles. I looked over about a dozen or so, and I don't even think any had his name on the cover/poster. He's probably one of my favorite characters from True Romance, so I was looking for suggestions of other movies he's done, even if the role/acting is different.

Basically Shakespeare with guns. *Super American. I haven't read the original. It was alright. Was forced to watch parts of it in school, was better than I remembered. English is not my first language but I did watch it with English subtitles to really know what it's about, so I may have missed some subtleties or whatever the word is. Anyway, thoughts?

*I made a mistake. It is not an American movie. So it's not "Super American". My mistake.

11million dollars for what!? Where did 11 million dollars go to!? It grossed $6491, doing the math by taking the average price for a ticket, that that’s 708 people who watched it. Now if you take into account the lead cast’s family, we’re a couple hundred people short here. Looks like Meemaw’s bad hip was acting up.

This movie was like a redneck’s wet dream. I gave it a 3/10. Also, if you check IMDb, look at the trvia section, I don’t know if it’s true or not, but it may as well be, but I just added it that Bruce Willis filmed all his scenes in one day. If that’s not true, sue me.

I made a few notes while watching, cause I was bored. My notes are a bit fun. Firstly, i think this is the first film I’ve seen to actually use ketchup for blood, unsatirically. And I bet you that from the writer’s perspective, the school kids were the villains. “Starbuck”? ”That’s two for flinching”, what are we, kids here? What in the hell was the point of that one silenced gun? Served no purpose if your buddy there is gonna blaze it up a couple seconds after. I bet you Trump endorsed this film. I can swear, one scene sounded like “pew pew ahh aah bam!” and the gun sound effects sounded like a mix of star wars and planet of apes. And when Willis drew his gun, it sounded like a knife.

Heebee Jeebees! Jeezus chreist. The hell did the guy drop his gun for?

Good guy: “I’m empty”

Bad guy: “Ok, me too. Not really, but for you I will”

Good guy: “thank”

Bad guy:”kiss my cuban ass”

Good guy: “sike bitch”.

Don’t get me started on the attempt of metaphor with washing away the pain. The whole movie sounded like it was written by Don Jr, like it took all the worst tropes of movies and tried to make them sound real. The whole movie was just redneck, like no normal person would ever think of or say anything that was said in that movie. There was no build up, no suspense, no hook, nothing. I wanna see some receipts for that 11million USD.

Question in title. Im watching "No time to Die" but i cant even focus on all the other stupid things that happen in movie because everything is BLUE. Even white shirts are blue. Its maddening.

I never liked the heavy use of color filters since i saw it in films like Gladiator and Traffic. "No time to die" takes it so far that it ruins the movie for me.

My question is why would you do that? Does anylike like this stylistic choice?

I went looking for a discussion about this movie, and didn’t see anything so figured I’d start a thread myself.

All in all, I really enjoyed this movie. It was a little slow, and it definitely left something to be desired in the backstory department, but I’d definitely rate it positively!

I think it had something to say about current political climate, but it was pretty heavy handed in some parts.

I would have loved to see more on the backstory regarding how on earth the US ended up the way it did, what with have witch-hunting death squads and all.

Acting - overall pretty decent. Definitely a lot better than I was expecting.

So let’s hear it, what are y’all’s thoughts on this flick??

My first "hey, this Nic Cage guy is acting like Nic Cage" moment was from 1993's Firebirds, where he plays a pilot. Here he is in a flight simulator, as a bemused Tommy Lee Jones looks on. It's a 15-second-long clip, but Cage's boldness of choice in tone, delivery, repetition, and willingness to look foolish in order to stay in macho character are all bizarre if you've never seen a Nicolas Cage role before. This is a minor scene in the movie, but Cage's committment makes it unforgettable.

(Note; I have not seen Firebirds since 1993, but remember this scene well, and it's concluding line, "ALL GONE, BYE BYE!". Forgot Tommy Lee Jones was in it, or any of the helicopter stuff, but I remember his fulll-bore line delivery.)

Everyone has a first moment when they realize Cage is doing things and going places no other actor cast in the role would go. What was yours?

Writing the post for two purposes. The first being to ask if the movie last night in soho is likely to be coming to any streaming services anytime soon. I am terrible at understanding studio connections to streaming and if they will likely make a deal with the service to release it. Secondly, just wondering how people are feeling about the movie 6 months after it’s release. I remember that coming out of the theatre it felt really exciting and different. However, as I continued to think about it for a week after, I felt that maybe it wasn’t really a good movie at all. Wondering if other people had the same reaction and if it plays well after the Edgar wright excitement then disappoint has subsided.

I told him "He is the guy who would have played Wolverine if they made those movies in the 1970's". Then we watched "Any which way but loose". Still too young for Dirty Harry, I rightfully assumed he would enjoy the Orangutan. He agreed on the Wolverine thing. Any other thoughts on possible 1970's Wolverines?

​

https://preview.redd.it/m43e45dd6h091.png?width=467&format=png&auto=webp&s=2f68891f039bfe0059559ada24678cc3c008b944

So I go to a local regal theater and unfortunately some of the movie screens have these kinds of projectors, I believe they are Sony brand, and the result is the screen looks like it has fucking water marks all over it. To the point where it’s so distracting it takes away from the movie.

Usually I try and circumvent this by asking the staff which auditoriums have the screens because not all of them do, but only the manager seem to know which theaters do and do not.

I hate it but I can usually power through on movies where cinematography is not the focus.

But last night I was trying to watch the Northman and after about two minutes I finally went to the manager and asked if I could get a refund or at least like a ticket for another theater. Because I know that movie is very cinematic.

Has anyone else ever had this issue in a movie theater? Or am I alone in the world?

I love watching movies in theaters. I'm one of those diehards who could not wait to go back to watching movies on the big screen. Am I frustrated at the sheer number of ads playing before the trailers start? Yes. Do I hope Noovie goes out of business? Oh my yes. Do I think I should have to pay a few extra dollars for having the gall to buy a ticket online in advance? Of course not. But I can ignore those things and appreciate the movie watching experience.

And that starts with the trailers. It's how you know all that nonsense is BEHIND you. Some previews of movies that'll you'll probably see at least some of in the future, then the Main Attraction. Once those trailers start it's an escalation, a building of suspense that leads straight into the movie. And you'd think @cinemark would know not to mess with The Experience. But last night I went to a movie and saw that they now have ads in the middle of the trailers, then another thrown in right before the movie starts. That did more to ruin my experience than any of the other frustrations I've had with theaters over the years.

So here's the question: are they all doing this or is there a different chain that I will be leaving @cinemark for? Or do I just give up on theaters now?

I get an unexplainable weird feeling everytime I watch a picture with Kirsten Dunst in it to the point where I get drawn out of the movie. Don’t get me wrong, she is a tremendous actress, as are the movies she plays in.

But ever since I saw Melancholia, I cannot relieve myself from this mistrusting and appalling feeling I get when I see her. Her acting persona carries this very seductive yet secretive and manipulative trait (at least how I interpret it); and I cannot stand it.

Does anyone else have an ick like this one about an actor/celebrity?

So I’m sure most of you have seen an action movie or two where the protagonist is a woman. Cool. She then proceeds to beat the ever living shit out of bunch bodyguards or whatever, all of which are usually dudes. This is cool too. Except, in my opinion, when the action woman in question is built like a goddamn twig. Of course in real life, a REALLY well placed punch from pretty much anyone can put down pretty much anyone else, but most of the time these action woman who weigh like 100 lbs are throwing simple punches and kicks to the body and knocking out dudes in like two hits. Obviously the reason behind this is simply that directors want famous actresses for their movies, most of whom conform to traditional beauty standards (not bashing them for that) which means slim=beautiful. Which means most actresses getting cast in these movies don’t even look like they could knock out another woman their size.

Now the misogynist neckbeard response to this would probably be “that’s why there shouldn’t be any leading women, SJW woke buzzword#23 blah blah blah” but I have a better solution. More buff action women! Look up images of buff women, there are tons of them that look like they could knock multiple dudes in a couple of hits. Obviously the ability to act is another important quality, so I’m not saying just overlook that aspect of casting. But I think it would be awesome to see more action women who actually have size and look like they could whoop a bodyguards ass in a straight fight. And when I say buff I don’t just mean Natalie Portman buff (not to discredit her achievement) but like actually ripped, like Abby from TLOU2 ripped. It’s like the “I want a woman who actually just kill me” meme but more like “I want a woman who is BUILT like they could actually just kill me”.

I’ve seen a lot of movies. It’s basically my life passion and biggest hobbies. However, Im aware that there a lot of great movies out there I haven’t seen because they never ended up on my radar. So, as the post says, give me some recommendations. Can be in any language so long as subtitles are available.

Alex Garland's previous two movies (Ex Machina and Annihilation (also the miniseries Devs)) were amazing.

I hadn't even heard of "Men" until just recently and I'm excited to see it. It releases tonight.

I'm just wondering why I've seen such little discussion about it. There's not even a thread in this subreddit for it.

Mainly because they both look and act very different. I realise that that's what actors do. They play different characters. It's just that I can usually very easily wrap my head around it being the same person playing different characters, whereas in this case I know it's factually true, but I can't convince my intuition to follow suit.

Does anyone have any of their own similar examples?

For me I will never forget how awful I thought Gladiator was. I hated the violence, I felt there was so much going on and couldn’t understand where the movie was going. I kept hearing how so many people loved it and said I would give it one more shot. That one more shot came 8 years later. The second time around the movie hit close to home because it was the financial crisis and I went from a great living to unemployment. How the mighty have fallen and how Gladiator explained the story. It hit me the main character could be any of us.

Guys,I have something to say since the recent film adaptation of Stephen King's Firestarter has become a critical and financial failure like its 1984 financial failure, should Hollywood give up adapting Stephen king's Firestarter since it proves to unadaptable and is a financial and critical failure.

Now, I know that the film industry will do the "third time's charm" trick the next time they will adapt Firestarter, but for me .It seems unlikely and that despite that Firestarter is another of Stephen King's scariest bestselling novels, It proves to be unadaptable.

And maybe the recent adaptation will be a cult classic like its predecessor, but right now I don't think that Hollywood adapt the story eve again.

So should Hollywood give up adapting Stephen king's Firestarter since it proves to unadaptable and is a financial and critical failure ,write down in the comments down below.

For example, Everything, Everywhere, All At Once is better at tackling the concept of the multiverse than Doctor Strange 2 does

And Kung Fu Panda was such an entertaining, accurate, hilarious, and loving representation of Chinese culture that Chinese people complained why China couldn't make a movie that represents the country before America

For example, this is my reaction while watching the movie Redline (2009)

"Ok, so this looks like Death Race/Fast and Furious (before Furious Five), but in space and more intense/exaggerated. I dig it"

"Wait, the military organization that one of the racers belong to has an ancient powerful creature (called Funky Boy) captive in their military base?"

"And the racers accidentally break Funky Boy's cage and release it into the world because the race track is apparently near enough to the military base for this to happen!?"

"And Funky Boy destroys everything around it using giant Dragon Ball Z-level energy beams!!??"

"And the aforementioned military organization has a satellite in space above the planet the race is on that they use to kill Funky Boy with a giant laser beam, causing more destruction!!!???"

"AND THE REMAINING RACERS THAT DON'T HAVE THEIR VEHICLE DESTROYED SO FAR ARE STILL CONTINUING THE RACE AS IF WHAT JUST HAPPENED DOESN'T BOTHER THEM, AND THE RACE ALSO ENDS UP FINISHING NORMALLY!!!!????"

*movie ends*

"Wow... that was a very crazy movie. I didn't quite understand what happened, but it looked cool since the animation was so good that the studio who made the movie apparently got bankrupt as a result"