I am talking about those specific moments where the camera work, the lighting, the blocking, and the score all line up perfectly to tell the story without a single word of dialogue.For me, it’s the opening sequence of Inglourious Basterds the way Tarantino builds tension out of a glass of milk and polite conversation is pure mastery.What scene does this for you? Please drop the movie title and break down exactly why that specific sequence works so well mechanically or emotionally. I’m looking to deep-dive into some great cinema today.

I don’t mean obvious plot twists. I mean things like a specific camera angle, a lighting shift, or sound design that tells a story entirely on its own. For example, how the color palette shifts in a movie to reflect a character's mental state. What is a subtle touch by a director that made you go wow once you finally noticed it?

For me it’s American Beauty. It's the type of film I'd write and direct. The message, subtext etc never ceases to amaze me. I relate to it so much. Every time I watch it I have a different experience, a nuanced experience. It's not one of those films that blow your mind, the deeper meaning may also go over your head but here's the kicker. In 1999, Hollywood released three unique films. All different in genre and story but metaphysically it's the exact same concept. The Matrix, Fight Club and American Beauty. All three films feature a protagonist who is fighting against the system, fighting for freedom which leads to some form of enlightenment or transcendence by unlocking the full power of their subconscious mind.

The cocoa scene is such a weird mix of funny and horrible. Truman is trying to get a real answer out of his wife, and suddenly he's talking to a commercial. Even the argument isn't just theirs.

But Meryl also seems like someone whose scene partner has gone completely off script. The ad feels like a little life raft: here's something she knows how to say, maybe this will make everything normal again. Terrible marriage advice, excellent sponsor commitment.

Do you read that switch as her trying to sell the drink, or panicking and reaching for the only script she's got? Laura Linney makes both seem possible.

So let me see, how do I put it? Lately there was a subject I found interesting where a creator becomes known for doing successful movies as sometimes what happens is that they just end up vanishing in that they basically stop making feature films.

To help provide an example of the subject, I would like to mention the movie Team America World Police as it was basically the final feature film made by Trey Parker and Matt Stone since I remember how back then, they had been a bit prolific in films such as Orgazmo and Basketball that I just found it interesting how again the Team America movie was the last feature film the team ever did together.

What's the point of releasing a film on ott?If it can be taken down afterwards, the satluj controversy raises a question.I have been thinking about how much freedom do filmmakers really help while releasing their work on odt platform

As the title says, does anybody know if/when La Bola Negra is going to release in cinemas in the UK? I don't know a lot about film cinema run norms (I've only really gotten into film seriously over the past year or so), and I know it is going to release in cinemas throughout America next month, but I can't find any information about UK cinemas excluding Festivals/Select Cinemas in and around London. Will it come to UK cinemas after US ones, or is it just not coming to UK cinemas at all?

Sorry if this question sounds silly or stupid, but I genuinely don't know and really want to watch La Bola Negra because I am really interested in Spanish history and... other aspects of the film, and can't really afford to travel to London for it. :(

We all love a film that functions as pure eye candy, where every frame looks like an oil painting and the cinematography does absolute wonders. But there is a specific kind of frustration when you realize the dazzling visuals are just a massive smokescreen hiding a fundamentally broken script.I am talking about movies where the world building collapses under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny, characters make completely unearned decisions just to advance the plot, or the thematic depth is entirely surface level. It feels like the director spent 95% of the budget on the camera package and forgot to pay the writers.

A prime example for me is Tron: Legacy. The neon aesthetics, the architecture, and the Daft Punk score create an unmatched vibe, but the actual plot dynamics and character motivations are incredibly flimsy if you dissect them for two minutes.What movie fits this description perfectly for you? Let's skip the easy answers like Avatar give me something that genuinely fooled people with its visual style.

Not sure how many Horror fans are here or those familiar with this series. Always been one of my very favorite Horror series if not my outright favorite, mainly purely based off of the first two although I also think the third and fourth ones were pretty good as well (and also quite impressive despite their small budgets). The first two always see regular rotation from me every October as part of my Halloween playlist and the season never feels complete without them. The Tall Man is definitely among the more unique of the Horror icons and he was played to perfection by the late, great Angus Scrimm throughout all five. The series is such a great blend of surrealism and mind-bending Horror with some fun Action elements sprinkled throughout. And who doesn't love the iconic flying death spheres.

May as well rank them while I'm at it. For other fans, how would you rank them? Mine goes:

• Phantasm II
• Phantasm
• Phantasm IV: Oblivion
• Phantasm III: Lord Of The Dead
• Phantasm V: Ravager

2 has always very easily been my favorite of the series. It's literally not only my favorite Horror film, but one of my favorite movies in general. With the bigger budget you can tell so much more was able to be accomplished. It's like a vintage Survival Horror video game from the 90s as a movie. I have a lot of love and respect for the original as well, but it's always hard not to look at 2 as being the definitive entry.

The first two are classics, 3 and 4 are very good, but the fifth was sadly clearly held back by the very low budget. You can tell they tried their best but the budget and means just weren't there to do it justice. Still, I'm glad we finally got a fifth and final movie, and in light of Reggie Bannister's recent passing, it definitely hits much harder. Still so sad by his passing :(

I finally caught up with Bugonia (2025), and I am still trying to process it. Directed by Yorgos Lanthimos, the premise itself is completely unhinged: two conspiracy-obsessed guys kidnap a high-powered CEO because they are absolutely convinced she is an alien intent on destroying Earth.

The performances are world-class. Jesse Plemons is phenomenal as a sad, hopeless guy plagued by past trauma, and Emma Stone is incredible as always. Beyond the weirdness, the movie is overflowing with rich ideas, tackling heavy themes like capitalism, conspiracies, religion, and modern life.

It's sitting at a solid 7.4/10 on IMDb and 88% on Rotten Tomatoes, which makes sense because it is an incredibly polarizing movie. It’s the kind of film that deliberately undercuts itself in ways that will frustrate some and completely delight others. But whether you loved it or hated it, Lanthimos succeeds in making you think about it long after you leave your seat.

For those who have seen it: what did you think of the ending? Did the twist win you over, or did it leave you incredibly frustrated?

Question, Which film is better, Fail Safe or Dr. Strangelove?

I re-watched Dr. Strangelove recently, and I have re-watched this film so many times. It truly is a great film, in large part because of the performances. Peter Sellers gives a master performance, George C. Scott gives a legendary performance, Slim Pickens, Sterling Hayden all great. What also made the film great is just how absurd the whole film is, and how Kubrick realized just how absurd the whole Nuclear Conflict is and how ludicrous it was for 2 mega-powers wo wipe us out for the pettiest and stupid reasons. Dr. Strangelove, to me, is a perfect, and probably one of Kubrick's Best.

On Fail Safe, I must admit, I only heard of this film because of Dr. Strangelove and how Kubrick & Peter George sued the production because they felt it infringed on Red Alert, the source material Dr. Strangelove was based on and managed to get the film released after Dr. Strangelove, this Fail Safe being overshadowed.

I heard people talk positively over the film, but I must admit, I haven't the film until just now, and I gotta say, It's a great film. While Dr. Strangelove is absurd, Fail Safe takes the whole premise seriously. Sidney Lumet masterfully directs the film, The performances are top notch, and I think the best performance was Henry Fonda.

I will say, You can tell the film was shot very cheaply. Granted, Dr. Strangelove was also shot cheap, but Fail Safe really looks like it wasn't made in the best conditions, and that Lumet had to shoot in own backyard. But I think it adds to the grittiness of the film.

Which is the better film, It's tough, but I'll give the edge to Dr. Strangelove. The Performances in Dr. Strangelove are just very memorable but I will admit, I was surprised with Fail Safe.

What do you think, Which film is better, Fail Safe or Dr. Strangelove?

A few weeks ago I asked on here and on some TV subs to get a sense of what methods people use, if any, to find things to watch with the people in their household, or with friends etc.

Was really nice to read that so many had family routines, or they shared spreadsheets with each other to find something that worked.

But it was also clear that many were in my situation, i.e. a movie fan that wanted to watch more with the people around them. The main hurdle in my eyes is the whole scrolling through menus in front of each other, where decision paralysis kicks in and one of you (or all of you) eventually gives up and agrees to something you have no interest in.

Long story short, there's an app I built for my wife and family to make this whole process a lot easier. Essentially, the aim of the app is to get you to a place where, when you sit down to watch something, you've already got the list of what you and they want to watch.

It's completely free. No subscriptions. No ads. Just something I made for myself that I thought might be useful to others. It's also a pretty good multiple watchlist manager and if you're stuck for inspiration, it has over 200+ prebuilt thematic watchlists.

https://reelones.co.uk/

https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/reelones-movie-night-match/id6760552930

MODS: I hope this is in keeping with the self-promotion rules given the nature of the offering and the previous post discussions. Apologies if not and delete if needed. Thank you.

So that new Carrie came out and people like it, including yours truly. Even though I never watched The Doctor Sleep his other king adaptation so far I thought it was great.

What I don't like is that people acting like this will replace the original just because of the differences and of course I'm one of those people who will say the original is There you can read it and you can teach and share it with your kids someday.

But then I realised, "Why do I say that?" and then came another realisation.

Why are people so excited when something goes in the public domain, while stuff like 2026 Carrie gets a boot kick for the change for just the slightest thing?

And this is the real question because after Mickey, or at least the Steamboat Willie Mickey made to the public domain, people have been excited to a point people are keeping track of this shit now.

So I want to ask the people what is different is it because once something is in the public domain, it is controlled by the people, whereas whenever a new reboot, reimagining, remake, or adaptation comes out, it is controlled by the studio at the thing.

Or is there something deeper?

So I want to know what y'all think

1. The Matrix
2. The Odyssey
3. Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol
4. Inception
5. Jumanji: Welcome to The Jungle
6. Now You See Me
7. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
8. Harry Potter: The Goblet of Fire
9. Mission: Impossible-Fallout
10. Spiderman: Brand New Day

TO WATCH (not in this order btw)

1. The Shining
2. The Patriot
3. Avatar
4. Gladiator II
5. Dune I, II, III
6. Kraven the Hunter
7. Deadpool 
8. Saving Private Ryan
9. Schindler’s List
10. Top Gun: Maverick
11. The Bourne movies
12. Now You See Me 2&3
13. Interstellar 
14. Dunkirk

my husband and I have been trying to tackle AFI’s top 100 movies (the 10th edition) and one challenge we keep running into was where to watch these movies/how to batch them per streaming service (well, second challenge, as the first challenge is always picking a movie we both want to watch in that moment😅)

we have been using an app to track our progress that also lets us see where the movie is available (which streaming service) and whether we subscribe.. but like is there an easy way to optimize so we are watching like all of the movies through X service and then all available through Y, etc?

I’ve heard suggestions of going through our local library (which I love love love) but I do not own a dvd player or anything of the sort

TL;DR advice from those who tackled the AFI list - where to watch/how to watch most efficiently (or cost efficiently) when they’re all over the place

Question, Who do you think was the better star for Cannon, Charles Bronson or Chuck Norris?

I've been thinking on this question for awhile. In the 80s, basically Charles Bronson and Chuck Norris were basically Cannon's biggest box office action stars, so I was wondering who had the better films from that studio.

Acting wise, Charles Bronson beats Chuck Norris by a landslide (large part because Chuck was a Martial Artist who stumble his way while Charles actually acted in Theater and Studied Acting). However, I'm only talking their stints for Cannon.

For Chuck Norris (Missing In Action Series, Invasion U.S.A, The Delta Force, Firewalker, Hero and the Terror, The Hitman, and Hellbound)

For Charles Bronson (Death Wish 2-4, 10 To Midnight, Murphy's Law, Assassination, Messenger of Death, & Kinjite: Forbidden Subjects)

In my opinion, It's hard to choose, I like both Charles Bronson & Chuck Norris. Charles was probably the better star, but Chuck had to more memorable films, probably because they're so fun and memeable.

What do you think? Who do you think was the better star for Cannon?

It used to be available on Netflix and I can’t find it anywhere, even on pirate sites. Does anyone know where I can watch the Netflix series Perfume? I know some other countries may have in in their Netflix but no longer in us and I don’t use VPN’s.

The Untouchables (1987)
Rating: 9.5/10
Watched: October 6, 2026

One of the coolest things about being born in the 70s is being able to catch someone either early on in their careers or at the very beginning of it. In the case of Kevin Costner, the first movie I saw him in was Silverado in 85, and he's one of those actors that I actually got to grow up with.

Which is just great. Why do I bring this up? Because it's phenomenal to see an actor like Kevin Costner's career undergo a truly impressive transformation, pretty much hot on the heels of Silverado. From about '85 to the mid-2000s, our 'working man actor' regularly produced superb movies and The Untouchables is one of the crown jewels.

Another historical retelling similar in vein to The Right Stuff in that they took liberties here and there with the storytelling to make it more lurid or more exciting or dramatic, it was awesome to watch this one again after having not seen it for at least 25 years.

If you've seen The Untouchables, I'm sure I'd be preaching to the choir if I talked about Connery's cantankerous Jim Malone or Costner's somewhat milquetoast-esque Eliot Ness or De Niro's Al Capone or even a fresh-faced Andy Garcia as George Stone.

All those conversations are worth having because each man plays their role (as far as I feel) the way they should be played. I've already confessed to not being a historian in any real sense, but I reckon that The Untouchables wouldn't have been the enormous hit it was back then if it'd been too inaccurate or over-the-top.

The interesting thing about rewatching movies I haven't seen in a very long time, especially during these challenges and being 54 is that sometimes I gravitate away from where the camera wants me to look. I appreciated Connery as always. Same with Costner and De Niro.

But after a lifetime of watching movies, it's nice to catch sight of 'that guy' Billy Drago as Nitti. You need a great actor to play someone you can just look at and go 'that guy's evil and nasty', Billy Drago was your 80s and 90s go-to for villainy. Like most actors who play murderers and fiends, by all accounts, Billy was one helluva nice guy and I'm not surprised by it. The best dramatic actors are comedians, so it makes sense that the best bad guys are total sweethearts.

This time, though, my attention was on nebbish Charles Martin Smith as Oscar Wallace. Another 'hey it's that guy' actors, Oscar's the guy who comes with the idea to nab Capone on tax evasion, and almost from the very damn beginning of the movie. It absolutely surprised me that they rolled it out that quickly. For some reason I always thought that was a mid-movie reveal.

The reason I focused on Oscar Wallace is because he's an accountant. That was his thing. But the moment Malone put a shotgun in his hands and said 'we're going on a raid', Oscar Wallace (at least in the movie) didn't hesitate. He grabbed that shotgun and did his damnedest. Later in the film, he becomes, for a very brief moment, an actual goddamn action hero on that bridge connecting The US to Canada.

And that was cool as hell. Yelling, firing his shotgun, not stopping unless it's to take a quick sip of illegal hooch? That's some damn fine acting and some for-real-deal heroism from where I sit.

If you somehow haven't seen the movie, I won't say any more about Oscar Wallace except that he was a real damn hero, the kind of guy a guy like me could imagine being. Not the power fantasy Jack Reacher kind of guy who bitch slaps enemies left, right and center. The kind of guy who gets handed a shotgun and is basically asked to do his best, and then goes on and does his best.

If you have seen the movie, I'm pretty sure you know what I'm talking about. The Untouchables is full of massive star power displaying huge degrees of talent and skill, but here's Charles Martin Smith, quietly doing the real work that brought down the Chicago mob boss Al Capone. I like to imagine that the real Oscar Wallace felt invigorated by the new challenges he faced working with Ness and the others.

The Untouchables were real people who fought a real gangster organization, and this movie does a great job of showing us that. Under normal circumstances, I'd regret having waited a quarter-century to revisit this exceptional classic, but like I always say:

Younger Me would've still appreciated a masterclass movie, but Older Me loves the nuance.

Basically what I mean is the kind of movies that come out for trying to experiment with all kinds of ideas such as trying to bring back an old IP to modernize it, but the results feel a bit out of place because the idea was interesting on paper, but didn't quite work out.

What inspired me to write the subject was that I was having a look back at the Summer 2016 era of USA cinema as I like to call it the era of failed experiments for movies like Ghostbusters 2016 and the first Suicide Squad as I found those two movies interesting for how they tried to be captivating in their premises, but fell flat.

Like when I look back at the Suicide Squad movie, it's hard to believe it's been over 10 years since it came out as I often like to examine the movie to see where it went wrong as personally I feel like the idea of a superhero movie focusing on convicted criminals who want to redeem themselves was a good idea, but I feel like the movie had basically turned into a comedy with its awkward writing and villain designs.

Then with the aforementioned Ghostbusters 2016 movie, I feel like the idea of bringing back the franchise inro a more modern era was kind of cool as I say it like that since well the movie wanted to hip and funny, but much like the Suicide Squad movie I mentioned earlier, the attempts at having genuine writing just felt awkward, at least that's my take on the movie.

This is a fairly slight coming-of-age story in which Larson plays an art school washout, Kit, who has been obsessed with unicorns and their related aesthetic (rainbows, glitter) all her life. While navigating the corporate world in all its misery she is unexpectedly invited to a mysterious brick-and-mortar store that promises to furnish her with the actual titular creature.

Kit just needs to prove herself worthy by setting up a safe home environment, which is challenging because of the ongoing tension with her parents (Joan Cusack and Bradley Whitford), whom Kit has moved back in with. On the bright side, this brings her into contact with Virgil (Mamoudou Athie), a hardware store employee who agrees to the task without knowing the exact nature of what he's gotten into. They share a nice chemistry, although I'm not exactly sure what about Kit is appealing to him other than that she looks like Brie Larson.

As construction proceeds in Kit's parents' backyard, it helps dovetail the unicorn-store storyline with that of Kit and her family. I would have preferred spending the rest of the movie with this group of characters and never going back to the office, where I don't think the screenplay tells us anything we haven't already learned from other movies about corporate America (ie, it kills the artistic spirit; it's got creepy male managers who take advantage of female subordinates). These scenes are shot in a bloodless, depressing tone that I'm sure was on purpose, but this also made the first half of the film drag.

Similarly, I wasn't a fan of one very fundamental aspect of the casting, but I understand the why's behind it--namely, Larson in the lead. Although Kit's age is never specifically mentioned, I had trouble buying her as someone who, presumably, would be in her early 20s and a relative newbie to the wider world. Admittedly, Kit does have a certain psychological complexity that Larson effectively conveys, and she's a big movie star, which makes me wonder if the film would have even gotten made had she opted to play one of the supporting characters instead. Not to take anything away from Samuel L. Jackson as the Willy Wonka-ish unicorn store owner, but I think Larson would have been just as interesting in that role.

To her credit, as a director, Larson is consistent in her tone throughout: This is a tale full of whimsy, but everyone plays it with dead seriousness, and as a result there are moments towards the end with genuine poignancy that we least expect. I don't recommend this film wholeheartedly, but it's nice enough as a 90-minute diversion, and Larson shows enough potential behind the camera that if she makes another movie at some point, I'd check it out.

È la prima volta che uso reddit e ho scoperto che ha una buona comunità per fare discussione. Hanno appena ridato al cinema Nostalghia di Tarkovskij a Lipsia in Germania dove vivo da 3 anni ormai. La sala era gremita di persone il più eterogenee possibili a livello di età, sesso ecc. Sono entrato in sala entusiasta per l'evento in quanto era quasi un sogno vedere al cinema un film di Tarkovskij ma dopo solo 20 Min dall'inizio ho iniziato ad innervosirmi e non poco. Le persone continuavano a ridere per le scene del matto Domenico e per quello che diceva e così per buona parte del tempo.Ho sentito come un'invasione della mia intimità e rottura costante della profondità simbolica e spirituale della pellicola. È durato così tutto il film e mi ha lasciato un fastidio a dir poco scomodo, tanto piu che sto scrivendo qui per la prima volta per sapere se sono io che sono pesante e noioso a provare certe emozioni o se c'è qualcosa che non va nella comprensione emotiva artistica contemporanea.

PS: anche la mia compagna usciti dal cinema ha notato il mio stato d'animo e mi ha detto che sono io che non ho capito che la pellicola era di tipo drammatico ironico, nonostante non fosse per me la prima visione ma la terza e sono abbastanza certo che l'intento non fosse di tipo ironico . Ci tengo anche a dire che ritengo il popolo tedesco molto percettivo, sensibile e ultrarispettoso su tantissimi temi contemporanei e non mi aspettavo per niente una reazione così ad un caposaldo del cinema russo. La settimana prima mi è successa la stessa cosa per suspiria di argento ma è un po' piu comprensibile. Spero che qualcuno mi aiuti davvero a capire se sono io che sono troppo un palo nel culo o se c'è qualcosa che non va, grazie.

Saw this movie a week ago and still haven't really snapped out of this heavy melancholy it gave me once the credits stopped.

Dwelling on it for a week I've come to realize that the most lasting impact the film had on me was after the meta "Level 4" announcement during the credits where the music was replaced with nature sounds: birds, bugs, bullfrogs.

I've read somewhere that part of those nature sounds were bird calls of endangered UK bird species which of course adds to the poignancy.

But when hearing it I realized: I don't think there was a live animal or plant anywhere in the movie...

We had the animatronic cat of course, and Digger's sprawling, misty estate was just miniatures made of plastic. Even the ocean water towards the end of the play was a plastic mylar sheet.

It's all plastic and fake, and this movie shows us the bleak "Do Androids Dream-esque" future where animals are replaced with automatons because they're all already extinct.

And it really, really bums me out. Because it's really happening. We are losing the bugs and the birds and natural habitat and someday within our lifespans it really will all turn to wet, semi-submerged, cold concrete where the air is poison and artificial intelligence polices us.

And at that point, the birds and bugs and bullfrogs will sound like music.

See my previous post for my thoughts going in and what others thought about the movie, but here’s mine, and this is all going to be in spoiler for anyone who’s planning to watch it.

>!Going into the movie, I had high hopes, it being a relatively niche movie and the music being made by one of my favorite artists ever (Cosmo Sheldrake), and my only real gripe with the movie was the fact it was a play within a movie, telling a story about the past of the movie world. Other than that, the cinematography and set design was astounding amazing. All the little detail put into every single thing in the movie was great, and Tom Cruise (despite my grudge against him) did amazing in the role of Digger and his out of play counterpart. The story of the play was really good, between the court scene and beginning scene in his house, I was hooked on every word, from the way he treats his cat to throwing its ashes in the ocean, to the way he dismisses the environmental damage, Digger is a real piece of shit, and the movie makes sure to emphasize that. The out of play sections weren’t horrible, especially the end where it is revealed the environmental impacts of what is described in the play. On top of all that, the message and commentary on our society as a whole is amazing and really does a good job of critiquing our elites and their apathy towards the effects of their actions.!< With only one gripe, I give it a solid 9/10. For some reason this post was auto removed from [r/Film](r/Film), so I’m posting this here, if I can get an explanation why, that would be greatly appreciated.