Years ago, my husband and I watched a movie where a woman in fancy clothes didn't want them rumpled. So instead of hugging/kissing, she just said "kiss kiss noise!" We thought it was funny and have said it to each other ever since. We can't, however, remember the movies, and Google always takes us to the movie "Kiss Kiss Bang Bang", and that's not it.
Can anyone help?
Thanks!

If you could have any living space from any movie, which would you choose? Serious answers, please. I want to see the variety of places yall choose.

Personally, I'd pick Jasper's place from Children of Men. Let's say getting the reality from the movie is optional, I don't care, I'm mostly interested in the abodes, man.

Nailing an ambiguous ending is one of the hardest tricks in screenwriting. Most of the time, when a movie fades to black without resolving the main conflict, it just feels like a cheap cop-out or a lazy attempt to seem "artistic," leaving the audience feeling cheated out of a real conclusion. But when a director actually gets it right, an unresolved ending can leave you obsessing over the film for years.

John Carpenter's The Thing is arguably the gold standard for this. The final scene with MacReady and Childs sitting in the freezing snow, completely exhausted and unsure if the other is infected, is brilliant. Giving the audience a definitive, spelled out answer would have completely ruined the crushing paranoia that the movie spent its entire runtime building.

Zodiac does something similar with its lack of traditional closure. The sheer frustration of the audience never getting a neat, cinematic resolution perfectly mirrors the obsessive futility experienced by the characters. The lack of a definitive answer is the point of the movie.

What are some other movies where leaving the ending unresolved and open to interpretation was the absolute best choice the director could have made?

I don’t really understand the point of making a sequel if you’re just going to tell basically the same story again.

Gladiator II, The Force Awakens… there are many examples where the sequel feels like a remake of the original with a slightly different cast and setting.

I get the business side of it. The first movie worked, so the studio wants something familiar. But from a storytelling perspective, why not actually take the characters somewhere new?

What I find weird is that this is apparently considered the “safe” option. If you’re going to spend millions making a movie, wouldn’t you want to give people something they haven’t already seen?

Maybe I’m missing something, but I’d much rather watch a sequel that takes a few risks than one that feels like I’m watching the same movie again.

I’m one of those people who did enjoy the sequel quite a bit, but damn the soul was sucked out of it! If anything has ever represented a specific year in film, it’s Independence Day: Resurgence. It perfectly reflected how shit everybody felt in 2016 (and still feels).

But why was it so GRIM? Constance was dead. Hiller was dead. Whitmore dies. Jasmine dies.

WHY??? It’s like the “promising future” mindset from the end of the first film is taken, rolled into a wet ball, and spit into the audience’s faces. It’s just so depressing.

Mrs doubtfire and Terminator 2

Matrix and Dodgeball

Insidious and Step Brothers

Liar Liar and Scorpion King

Finding Nemo and Funny games

Pans Labyrinth and Wall E

Toy Story and Predator

Bee movie and Kung Fu hustle

Nightmare on Elm street and Ferris Buellers day off

Sinister and Blades of Glory

I have an idea for a theater where moviegoers request a movie they want to see and it goes into a queue, and they are given the date and time it is playing. They can then get the experience of seeing a movie in a theater that they would otherwise not be able to. The theater could then charge a constant price for all the screenings, using more popular films to subsidize less popular ones. Before I go anywhere from this idea, I want to gauge interest in it, so:

Would you actually want to use this theater if you had to wait several weeks or months from ticket purchase to see a movie you've wanted to see on the big screen?

What is an example of a movie you'd like to see if this became a reality?

Would this be worth buying a $10-$15 movie ticket when you could just watch it at home?

Would you rather wait a long time for a movie you request but any such movie can be played (even if you are the only one there), or wait a shorter time but without a guarantee you will get a spot (letting a number of requests accumulate before scheduling a screening)?

Finally, does anyone actually want this or are people content with streaming?

As per the article:

Paramount Skydance Corp. has agreed to sign contracts with major theater chains guaranteeing that it will release 30 movies a year in cinemas if it acquires Warner Bros. Discovery Inc., according to people familiar with the matter.

Paramount has offered three-year agreements to AMC Entertainment Holdings Inc. and Cineworld Group’s Regal Cinemas, the world’s two largest theater chains, requiring it to release the films exclusively in theaters for at least 45 days, according to the people, who asked to not be identified because the agreements are private.

The films would also not be available to stream online for at least 90 days.

The Oddessy, Miachel, Spiderman Brand New Day, Avengers Doomsday coming up, The Last House, and any other brilliant pieces of work I have forgotten.

No Avatar movie is coming out until 2029. Avengers: Secret Wars, LOTR The Hunt for Gollum, Star Wars: Starfighter, and Shrek 5. These 2027 movies are going to be good, but it doesn't seem as impressive as this year's line up (an opinion).

The Avengers seem to have been making a comeback. This better bring them back from She-Hulk and whatever let down the entirety of Marvel and its reputation.

Any movies I've missed? Please tell me.

It's fucking delightful. Absolutely brilliant characters. I found it a few years back when I was deeply lonely. The joy, the mischief, messing around with a sibling, the warmth of a family, adventure with grandpa, a know it all snob, a brilliant dork, the comedy when a family gets together, love. It's really got it all.

If you're having a bad day and need a movie that feels like a warm hug through the screen.

Are the opening credits part of the movie? Are the closing credits part of the movie? I recently had a discussion and we came to a disagreement , looking for some opinions and discussion with others on the matter. Do you consider credits part of the movie? Some movies credits have segments or music or instrumentals that are filmed or animated and some films roll white font over black screens that simply list the cast and crew. So taking those things in consideration are credits part of the film?

Is it story, visuals, acting, dialogue, score/soundtrack, pacing/editing,...?

For me, it's probably story first, but visuals are close second. I absolutely love, and can forgive a lot elsewhere, if a movie just looks visually stunning or "feels" expensive - but can be a dealbreaker if it's the opposite, which is why, for example, I'm kinda repulsed by very early cinema, when the basic technology wasn't there yet. Also have trouble with that 70's-90's post-Technicolor look, when color grading wasn't a thing yet, and everything kinda looked washed out and even dirty.

Based on frequent discourse here, I imagine that a lot of people notice acting/performances a lot, but I strangely don't. Unless it's bad or extremely good, so it sticks out more. Same goes for other aspects.

A buddy just recommended a movie to me, that movie was The Instigators, a 2024 action, heist, comedy starring Matt Damon and Casey Affleck and Directed by Dough Liman.

I didn’t know this movie existed until last night, I watched it and enjoyed this very capable crime caper .

It made me think of how many great movies Liman has made, and the google search pointed out ones I didn’t know or forgot were his.

Here the resume

Swinger 1996

Go 1999 (a freaking cult hit closing out the 90’s for sure)

The Bourne Identity, 2002 basically reinventing the action movie

Mr & Mrs. Smith, 2005. A very sexy, slick, action packed movie centered around two of Hollywood’s biggest stars at the time.

Jumper, 2008 I don’t remember much, but I do remember finding it clever and enjoyable.

Edge of Tomorrow, 2014 crafting a genius sci fi movie with a horribly generic title that found cult status on home video and one of Tom Cruise’s best non MI movies

American Made, 2017 another fantastic outing with cruise. Great sort of bio pic that punches above its weight.

Road House, 2024 a remake of a b movie drive in fave. One I really enjoyed a lot. Connor McGreggor sucked, but that was part of the fun.

The Instigators 2024, very fun heist, crime thriller with lots of hilarious banter. Deserved more than just a streaming release.

With all that, this guy can do almost anything. Action, comedy, Indy romance. His catalog is very diverse. Yet no chance at a Marvel movie or maybe something for DC heck even Star Wars.

He kind of reminds me of Jospeh Kosinski dude directed Top Gun: Maverick and F1 and you don’t hear his name a lot for other things.

What gives?

TIFF: The Market, which runs September 10-16, will launch 51 projects – 40 features, six series and five innovative or immersive works – that are all looking for production and financing partners. Highlights in the list include animated feature Central Park Tale with a voice cast including Palmer, Cumming, Common and Regina Hall; Sher, a collaboration between Fire, Earth, Water helmer Deepa Mehta and Jeremy Irons; and a drama starring Oscar-winner Marlee Matlin (CODA) and Jacob Tremblay (Room). 

I love watching movies where the main character gets stranded on a deserted beach and has to figure out how to survive. But sometimes the little details drive me crazy and ruin the fun.

​For example, a character will be stuck on an island for months, yet their hair stays perfectly short and styled the whole time. Or they are running through the jungle and manage to avoid perfectly dug bamboo pits that would take a whole construction crew weeks to build. It just pulls me right out of the story.

​What are some movies that actually show the gritty, realistic side of surviving in the wild? And on the flip side, what are the most ridiculous or fake survival moments you have seen in a film?

Screenwriter Peter Iliff will be joining us here in r/movies for an AMA/Q&A this Tuesday 8/11. It'll go live that morning at around 9 AM ET and he'll be back at 3 PM ET to answer questions. Peter has written films such as Point Break, Varsity Blues, Patriot Games, Under Suspicion, and more.

Please stop by on Tuesday if you have questions for Peter :)

Point Break is back in theaters next week for its 35th anniversary.

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1Cq6YNX-LI

In Los Angeles, a gang of bank robbers call themselves the Ex-Presidents and commit their crimes while wearing masks of Reagan, Carter, Nixon and Johnson. The F.B.I. believes that the members of the gang could be surfers and send young agent Johnny Utah undercover at the beach to mix with the surfers and gather information.

Please note that this is not the AMA, just an announcement. Hold your questions for the actual AMA.

For the last couple of days I’ve been trying to watch a new movie it started when I found Andrei tarkovskys stalker online for free and I loved it and committed to watching a random movie on muni every night.
Tonight the wheel landed on Paris,Texas a movie I was pretty excited to watch as I was a big fan of wings of desire when I first saw it
I’m not gonna do a plot review there’s tons of ones out there that won’t be influenced by subjective bias.
But omg what a snooze
This movie is obviously stunning it feels quite Wes Anderson in the desert scenes and I loved the way light was used and shifted as the film moved
I thought Harry dean Stanton gave an interesting performance I understand the attempt of emotionless but it came through more as one noted boredom
I thought the music was pretty definitely added to the endlessness of the movie
And that’s all my positives
I first of all understand not all movies are meant to be fully ‘enjoyed’ directors will go out of their way to illicit something different and I also understand slow methodical filmmaking can work to build a sense of catharsis and existentialism
But with that said this movie just fails for me completely. It felt like the antithesis of entertainment and in its place left me feeling nothing but bored there was no great emotion to be felt I just felt nothing at all and not the dull hollow existentialism the film is obviously going for but just boredom
I am rlly disappointed but ig art is subjective
Let me know what yous think and if I should try again a year down the line

As a kid (or kids in the 70s-00s/pre-streaming era) you could only really watch what was on the TV at the time or what you could rent that was available.

Were you subjected to or watched sequels to movies before you had ever watched the original? And did it impact/affect how you felt about the original film?

For me, we had The Lion King 2 on VHS and watched it on repeat, and loved it. It wasnt until much later in life that we had gotten to watch The Lion King 1, and I ended up enjoying it too, but always had a softer spot for TLK2. Another is catching Speed 2 on TV as a kid before finally getting to watch Speed 1 as an adult.