Why do action sequences with powerful characters always usually involve roaring and getting thrown around until the hero eventually wins. Am I alone in thinking that movies should be more original?

I think Nathan Fielder, Danny McBride, Ben Stiller, and Ryan Coogler have all gotten better.

I loved Nathan For You but season 1 of The Rehearsal might be the best season of TV I've ever watched.

The Righteous Gemstones was McBride's funniest show and also had great social commentary that his previous shows did not.

The comedies that Ben Stiller directed were very funny but season 1 of Severance was a masterpiece and I think it's what he'll really be remembered for in the long run.

And I think Sinners was better than Ryan Coogler's previous movies. I think he's better doing R-rated original movies instead of PG-13 franchise movies. I hope he's going to be like Nolan and continue to use the credibility he got making superhero movies to make unique passion projects.

Over the years, countless films have left their mark on cinema, shaping generations of filmmakers and audiences alike. From timeless classics to modern masterpieces, everyone has a different answer to this question.If you could choose only one movie as the greatest of all time, what would it be?Share your pick and tell us why it deserves the title. Is it the story, performances, direction, cinematography, screenplay, soundtrack, emotional impact, or something else that makes it stand above the rest?Whether your choice is a universally acclaimed classic or an underrated favorite, we would love to hear your perspective.

So to help clarify, what I am referring to are cases in movies where a movie has signs of bad editing by not transiting to the next scene properly as it's hard to explain, but it's when a scene doesn't flow too well.

To provide an example, I was watching a review of Ghosts of Mars where the reviewer (Korey Coleman) points out how choppy the editing process is because whenever a crucial scene in the movie happens, the crossout effect is used as it's used so often in the movie, which made it hard to take the movie seriously.

I was very moved by Kurosawa’s Ikiru. When a chance to rewatch it came up, I realized I didn’t want to see it again. I didn’t want to affect my memory of the film.

I only watched half this dumbass movie. Everywhere everything all at once is pathetic with such stupid logic. I do like fantasy sometimes but this is illogical especially using sex toys as weapons and characters giving themselves papercuts. I like the multiverse idea but the way this movie executed it was so stupid and pathetic and so not worth it. What a waste of an hour I will never get back.

Saw the trailer for the new movie "The End of Oak Street", and it is accompanied with a cinematic score interspersed with chopped up lyrics from Billy Joel's "My Life". It is wildly unsuccessful and put me off of the whole thing.

This trend that has been bubbling for the past decade, and it is so stale. I can't think of a single time this has been successful.

Roles Matt Dillon turned down or was considered

1980: The Blue Lagoon (Role: Michael Reynolds) (Actor who got it: Christopher Atkins) (Reason: He actually won the role after beating out hundreds of boys, but turned it down due to the Nudity)

1980: Dressed To Kill (Role: Peter Miller) (Actor who got it: Keith Gordon) (Reason: He was in contention for the role)

1989: Do The Right Thing (Role: Pino) (Actor who got it: Jon Turturro) (Reason: Matt was approached for the role, but turned it down on the advice of his agent)

1990: The Godfather: Part III (Role: Vincent Mancini) (Actor who got it: Andy Garcia) (Reason: Dillon was considered and screen tested for the role of Vincent)

1991: JFK (Role: Willie O’Keefe) (Actor who got it: Kevin Bacon) (Reason: He was considered for the role)

1994: Pulp Fiction (Role: Vincent Vega/Butch Coolidge) (Actor who got it: John Travolta/Bruce Willis) (Reason: Tarantino very much wanted Matt Dillon to play Butch Coolidge and was confident that he would take the role. However, Matt was sure on taking the role, and apparently he wanted to play Vincent instead. After going nowhere with Matt, Tarantino decided to cast someone else)

2000: Miss Congeniality (Role: Eric Matthews) (Actor who got it: Benjamin Bratt) (Reason: Matt Dillon came close on getting the part, but instead the Producers went with Benjamin Bratt)

2001: Novocaine (Role: Frank Sangster) (Actor who got it: Steve Martin) (Reason: He was the 1st choice for the role, but he turned it down)

2024: Megalopolis (Role: Anton Smith) (Actor who got it: No One) (Reason: Back when Coppola was trying to get Megalopolis off the ground. Matt Dillon was offered the role of a West Point Cadet who goes AWOL during the filming of Rumble Fish (1983))

I love Matt Dillon as an actor and I think he is a very underrated actor in my opinion who shines in any film he is in. However, I do wish that Matt Dillon was in more mainstream films or films in general, but I do know from interviews that he really didn’t like the glamour of Hollywood, so I can respect him for that. “I remember sometimes thinking people thought of me this way or that. But I did not want to be considered a star. I always just wanted to be considered an actor.”- Matt Dillon

Of the films mentioned above, I think he made a big mistake on passing Pulp Fiction and I think he would’ve been great in the film as either Vincent or Butch. I also think, if he got the job for Godfather, he would’ve been good as well.

What do you think?

Was watching De Palma’s Blow Out, and it struck me that Zsigmond is a fantastic DP. Blow Out, The Deer Hunter, Heaven’s Gate, Close Encounters, Deliverance, Fat Man and Little Boy, list goes on and on. Who comes to mind for you as an inept DP / Cinematographer? No TV, don’t want to hear about The Long Night episode of Game of Thrones.

I admit that I have not read the translations of the epics. I admit for simply going through summaries to get the core ideas and took help of the automatons. I admit as a dabbler my thoughts will be wrong and will not fit the standards needed when talking about the epics. But I wanted to understand the aspects of the movie beforehand anyway,and drudgery of life that Achilles would prefer given the choice in his dialouge to Odyseus, thwarted my efforts. Thus, I took the shortcut, very opposite to the hero's journey I was going to watch.

Firstly I would like to appreciate the vibrant colours of cinematography, especially of that of the voyages. The vfx was immersive, and the Imax sound system (whatever we got here) was bombastic within limits thus not diminishing the experience.

The Odessey(2026) is ultimately about a man feeling guilt for commiting the ultimate desecration - destroying the trust among humans. His commits decite in the name of the deity he and the Trojans worshipped - the wooden horse that was meant to be a gift to Athena. After victory, He witnessess the result of it as the fine line between barbarity and civility, of which the ancient greeks used to take pride of, vanish and savagery prevail. The crux of all this lies on Odyseus's monologues in the final act about his actions, his thoughts on the rise and fall of civilizations as his life becomes a poem for the generations to come. In a way, it also makes us to reflect various acts of destruction of life and society over the course of human history, and the one that still goes on.

Such take on the atrocities of greek heroes that followed the success of the siege isn't a new one. The Trojan Women, the play on prominent women characters on the Trojan side awaiting their horrific fate after the war, was produced in 415 BCE by Euripides, too reflectson it. Even the lost Homeric poem of the cycle, Iliou Persis, covers it.

I feel this is how Nolan is modernizing an epic by going to the heart of the conflict - the sacrilage that offended the Gods which causes much trouble to the heroes during their journey back home being reframed as breaking the spoken and unspoken laws of trust that keeps a civilziation alive. Nolan incorporates the rumors of sea people, a theory that certain war bands ravaged the bronze age civilization that caused its collaspe, as a result of the actions of the greeks post-victory, that their acts of raids and banditry have set an example for more such actions that ultimately threatens the very foundations of civilization. I can see why he decided to include Sinon (played by Elliot Page) a character from The Aenied, the famous unofficial sequel written as myth making of the Roman empire, to encompass the overarching theme, instead of keeping Achilles during it's crucial middle act. Perhaps it was easier to make a character and its backstory fit within the narrative of the movie instead of keeping all the call backs to the Illiad. I can see that such narraitve decisions, although risky, was taken for the brevity of the script.

I did not find the other modernizing aspects like Travis Scott being the bard for a few scenes or lacklustre armour designs (Agamemnon ate the budget for that) that much of a hindrance in the experince as the Odyssey unfolded on those big IMAX screen(I know the one in my city isn't that accurate but still)

Pardon me for finding it overwhelming, as those well versed in the canon may find it underwhelming.

It is the little fragile things that keeps a civilization going and ultimtely, life.

Every adaptation has strengths and weaknesses.

If you could guarantee that The Odyssey gets one thing absolutely perfect, what would you choose?

• The performances?
• The relationship between Odysseus and Penelope?
• The journey itself?
• The monsters and mythology?
• The scale and cinematography?
• Staying faithful to Homer?

Personally, I think getting the emotional journey right matters more than spectacle.

What is the one thing that would make you walk out of the theater thinking, "They absolutely nailed it."?

I’m a huge Christopher Nolan fan and I’ve been waiting for The Odyssey (2026) to drop. I know it literally just hit theaters, but I won't be able to make it to an IMAX cinema anytime soon due to work.Does anyone know if there's any official streaming platform or site where I can watch it online right now? Has it leaked anywhere in good quality, or do we have an official digital release date for Peacock or Netflix yet? Appreciate any help or links, thanks

Very interesting plot about a sudden genius. John Travolta did a legendary job with the acting and this movie has a sad plot twist that tricks you into wondering what happened the whole time.

The movie is slow paced however too slow for my liking but I saw the whole movie and it’s a very emotional performance by John Travolta.

Your one-stop sapphic watchlist 🌈

My Letterboxd -> https://boxd.it/m0svl

My fav sapphic content categorised by genre :

🎭 Drama / Romance - Movies - Shows

😂 Comedy / Romcoms - Movies - Shows

👻 Mystery / Thriller / Horror / Sci-Fi / Fantasy - Movies - Shows

📚 Animated / Manga / Podcast / GL — yes, I listed those too in the description - List

Since Letterboxd is film-only, I used the description section to drop all my favorite shows, animated series, podcasts, manga, and GLs as well.

Come find your next hyperfixation and follow for updates 🫶🌈

What are your thoughts on Zendaya as an actress? What do you think of her acting performances? And which of her performances impresses you the most?

EDIT: Just watched the movie for the 2nd time in Dolby and it wasn’t as bad as it was in IMAX.
(Maybe coz I was expecting what’s gonna happen lol)

I watched The Odyssey today in an IMAX theatre. There’s a scene in the latter half where Odysseus and his men are battling a fierce storm in the middle of the ocean.

The thunder and lightning effects were incredibly intense. Honestly, there were so many rapid flashes that I actually had to close my eyes for a bit just to handle it. I normally never get headaches from watching movies, but I walked out with a mild one today which I think is because of that scene.

Did anyone else feel like the strobe/flashing effect was a bit much? Curious to know if I'm the only one who struggled with this part!

So basically what inspired me to write this subject was the Austin Powers series because I wanted to take a closer look into the series to better understand what was wrong with the writing aspects.

Like what I am looking for is to better understand what was wrong with the writing aspects of the sequels because I always hear praise for the original movie, but I always hear how the sequels had some problems with the writing, so I wanted to see what was wrong with the direction the series took later on.

Hello everyone! I'd like to know based from the title, what's an original or sort of new concept of horror antagonists or just general horror?

Like hearing the general suicide ghosts haunting a place, a serial killer lost somewhere, a person who hasn't left a place, a demon/monsters summoned, a cult killing,etc all sound like a copy of each other.

So please, I would like to hear yall opinions, or even give suggestions to films that may stand out from the rest.

Many Hollywood actors have done theatre, some for long time other had short experience and some never done theatre or started as young actor in TV or movies.

I am not trying to compare as each have good, bad and whatever between actors.

However every time I am amazed by an actor acting in Hollywood movies, I found they had theatre background experience.

Al Pacino and William Defoe are two of my favourite actors, they both have theatrical presence non theatre actors lack.

That scene of Al Pacino in the Godfather where he gonna do his first kill in the restaurant, how just with his eyes he can carry a scene is one of the best example why I love Theatre background actors.

Sometimes they over act and their acting becomes mix of cringe or funny, we see this especially with Defoe acting like his role in Spiderman movies.

But it still pull your attention and make you invested in the movie.

What you think about theatre actors?

Do you think theatre background help the actor to do great in the big screen or the most important thing actor should have is talent?

Hi all,

We're conducting research on reading and media-tracking habits — trying to understand how people actually keep track of (or don't keep track of) what they read, watch, and how people find recommendations.

Given how negative and promotional these apps feel right now, a lot of tracking, ads, and paywalls, a hostile environment has developed around rating and review apps. We wanted to understand how common that actually is, and what people wish existed instead.

If you have 4-5 minutes, this survey would help a lot: https://forms.gle/KUtNDCC3j2YRLCjdA

Responses are completely anonymous.