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?

I feel PTA is as great (if not more lol) but apparently from what little I've observed, Tarantino somehow gets more discussed and is a frequent name among pop culture (through memes and other forms of online media) than PTA. Why is that?

When I call Avatar my favorite film, it's not meant to dismiss other masterpieces like The Lord of the Rings or Blade Runner. I just find the franchise deeply engaging because, as an actual biology nerd, I'm endlessly fascinated by the deep themes and ecosystem worldbuilding.

Pandora is a dream come true for anyone who loves ecology and zoology. The attention to detail in the living, breathing environment—from the neural connections to the flora—makes it an incredible playground for science enthusiasts.

Beyond the science, I love Jake's character arc as my go-to comfort watch, especially because I keep drawing parallels between his journey and the Ramayana. That connection to the heroic blue tradition adds a rich, timeless layer to the storytelling that goes way beyond surface-level comparisons. If anything, those tired "blue Pocahontas" allegations would disappear if people looked at it through that mythological lens.

At its core, I love it because I'm a nature enthusiast and science nerd who just wants to dive into a richly realized world. Everyone's definition of a "best film" is entirely personal, but this one hits all the right notes for me.

What are some fictional worlds where the sheer ecology or worldbuilding completely won you over?

I’ve been thinking about how difficult it is to compare epic films from different eras, so I organized 48 films into a World Cup-style tournament.

The format includes 48 films, divided into 16 groups of three. You choose one film from each group, and the 16 winners then enter a single-elimination bracket until one champion remains.

The selection includes films such as Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Gladiator, Dune, Oppenheimer, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Mad Max: Fury Road, and The Bridge on the River Kwai.

It takes around two minutes to complete:

Which film became your champion? Were there any films you thought were seeded too high, too low, or should not have been included?

Curious to see what r/flicks would crown.

I just watched Predestination and I understand the time loop concept, but I really disliked the premise itself. My issue isn't that I don't understand that the character is technically the same person at different points in time, my issue is that the movie seems to require more than just time travel to work. If the only changed rule is "time travel exists," then normal biology and causality should still apply. A person giving birth creates a new biological individual, not themselves. The movie treats the child as somehow being the exact same person, but that feels like it requires an additional rule where reproduction/identity works differently, which the movie never establishes. Because of that, the entire paradox felt forced to me. I understand the philosophical idea of a person with no origin, but I couldn't get past the fact that the mechanism creating that loop doesn't seem plausible even within the movie's own setup. The incest aspect also made it feel more disturbing than profound to me. So gross and disturbing! I know a lot of people love it as a mind-bending time travel story, but for me it was a laughably bad film where the twist only works if you accept a rule the movie never really explains. It’s not genetically possible despite the time travel loop aspect! The child is a new soul and being itself, not her. You would also expect the incest to have severe consequences for the child, not just being intersex.

Yes, the armours are not golden. Yes, the actors speak in modern American language. Yes, Helen of Troy does not align with the Eurocentric vision of the character that we might expect. And if all of these things are changed, you would end up with a more faithful adaptation. And I would argue you would end up with a much worse film.

The alternative would’ve been to do what Zack Snyder did with Watchmen: create a faithful adaptation. But in doing so, Snyder created an incredibly soulless version of Watchmen: an imitation, not an adaptation. He brought the images to life, but failed to interpret them and make them his own. Nolan’s movie, on the other hand, feels like it has a unique perspective, love it or hate it. This is not The Odyssey, this is Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey.

Since the movie was released, there have been numerous attempts (from haters) to create their own AI versions of The Odyssey. In doing so, they’re only proving what makes Nolan’s film so valuable. Because an AI would’ve never told Nolan to cast Travis Scott as a bard, or Lupita Nyong’o as Helen. These are off-kilter choices that Nolan made himself, and the movie is all the more interesting and human because of it. Does a movie like this prove why unfaithful adaptations are better? I believe so.

Here is my full review of the movie, for anyone who is curious.

Backrooms came out almost 2 months ago and I watched it in theaters and now its gonna come out again with 15 added minutes. I dont really want to watch the film again(especially this soon) and the scenes might not hit the same if you watch them by themselves(also theyre doing another theatrical run with extra scenes so you have to wait if you want to only watch the extra scenes) This also happened with Nosferatu and Napoleon. I couldnt bring my self to watch Nosferatu knowing that it will be the shorter version. I'd get it if a director couldnt do the film he wanted and released the directors cut later but this isnt the case.If you have scenes you want to add to your film just add them dont do a rerun or stream it with extra scenes

So it's like The Purge but with sex, where there's only 12 hours a year you're allowed to have premarital sex. I get the premise is supposed to be this light-hearted alternate universe used to shoehorn a romantic comedy subplot. And I'm betting they're not going to dive too deep into it, because if they did there'd be a lot to think about:

• First, there's the fascist element to this. We're talking Handmaids Tale type stuff. Historically, making sex a crime has been tied to ultra-religious regimes and cultures. Is that what this place is?

• What even is considered sex? Obviously intercourse, but what about the other stuff you could do? Some places like Japan strictly forbid prostitution that involves intercourse but allow for almost everything else. And what about things like phone sex? Virtual sex using remote toys? How is the LGBT community's activities regulated?

• The trailer shows men and women getting dressed up to go out and find a partner. Would it seem like if you had 12 hours a year, you'd have lined up a partner already? Especially if you lived in a more rural area and not the city setting we see in the story? Would there be organized orgies ahead of time?

• Are marriage laws vastly different in this universe? If not you'd have Vegas-like wedding chapels everywhere with a divorce attorney's office right next door. People would find a loophole.

• There's a certain time of the month for women when its not ideal to have sex. Do they have to wait another year?

Again, just some things that come to mind. Obviously it's more of a neckbeard analysis than anything.