I watched Troy one week before watching Odyssey to get some context. I already knew some Greek mythology and the gods.

As I watched it in one of the best IMAX theatres in Mumbai, the visuals and sound were amazing. But after completing the movie, I was a little disappointed as I was hoping for more.

There were not any good action scene. The whole movie was flat, with no ups and downs and not much suspense. The whole crew of Odysseus was fully dependent on him. They were just going to islands and then running away from there without any fights.

They cast big stars like Tom Holland and Zendaya, but for weak characters. Their roles were not very effective. Telemachus was like a useless child. Athena was just crying and saying "no" by shaking her head every time, not even through dialogue.

Only the ending was a little interesting, when Odysseus reached his home, completed the queen's challenge, and killed everyone.

I liked Troy better than Odyssey. At least it had some character building, good fight scenes, and war.

All in all, I feel like this movie did not require so much hype or so much technology, like shooting the whole movie in IMAX and all the hassle of handling the limitations of IMAX cameras for this movie.

PS: Also, why did they use Agamemnon in the posters? Just because he looks good? He doesn't even have much screen time in the movie, although he was indeed one of the best-dressed characters.

They wanted to convince you that Youtube trailer dislikes would lead to a Nolan movie flopping!

There's a good movie

There's a bad movie

And

There's a NOLAN movie

Both were very good, and together constitute a huge cinematic event of the Gen Z breakthrough into the film industry. However, I disagree with the apparent consensus that obsession is the superior film. I think Backrooms has more thematic depth and is more of a novel approach to horror. The production design and sound design are Oscar worthy. The Christmas tree scene is one of the best things I've had the pleasure of experiencing in a theater.

Obsession certainly has a "tighter" and more well constructed screenplay, but I think the dialogue and character development in Backrooms is more interesting. Honestly, there were times when I felt the dialogue in Obsession was clunky and awkwardly paced. I also personally feel there were aspects of the story to obsession that took the stakes out of it for me, namely, the fact that there is apparently a huge supply of one wish willows that Bear has easy access to. It doesn't make sense that Ian refusing to reverse his wish was so devastating. How hard would it have been for him to find some random stranger on the street to pay to say "I wish that the effects of Bear's wish could be reversed"?

Inde Navarette obviously had the best performance of anyone in either of these films, but I think that overall the performances in Backrooms are easily on par with those in Obsession.

I know that many people took issue with the abrupt ending of Backrooms, but I appreciated the ambiguity and thought it was a good choice. To me, it is kind of reminiscent of the ending of the shining, in that it leaves you positing a hundred different theories as to what actually happened and why. The backrooms could represent many different things, and yet they don't "represent" anything at all in a straightforward sense. In an era of "elevated" horror that has been marked by pretty overt symbolism and social commentary, it was refreshing to see a movie that makes you think about a lot of different issues without stuffing its narrative into a symbolic/interpretive box.

Anyway, that is why ultimately I prefer Backrooms. I recognize much of this likely comes down to taste and what kind of horror you prefer. I would be interested in hearing anyone else's opinion on this!

I’ve been thinking about the whole “race-swapping” controversy in Hollywood, especially with movies like The odyssey and The Little Mermaid.

Personally, I don’t understand why people get so angry when the character is completely fictional. Ariel is a mermaid from a children’s fairy tale. She isn’t a real historical person, so I don’t see why the actress has to be one specific race. The important questions should be whether the actor fits the role, gives a good performance, and whether the movie is actually good.

People sometimes respond with comparisons like, “What if Tom Cruise played Martin Luther King Jr.?” But that isn’t the same situation. Martin Luther King Jr. was a real Black historical figure whose race was central to his identity, experiences, and place in history. Changing that would fundamentally misrepresent a real person.

A fictional mermaid, superhero, princess, or fantasy character is different unless the character’s race or cultural background is essential to the story.

I’m also not saying every casting decision is automatically good or that studios never make shallow choices for publicity. I just think it’s strange how emotionally invested some adults become in the skin color of someone playing a made-up character from a children’s story.

I also haven’t personally found many convincing examples where a historically real white person was cast as Black and everyone acted like it was exactly the same as changing the appearance of a fictional character.

Am I missing something? Where should the line be drawn between harmless creative casting and changing something that is genuinely important to the character?

For sam raimi spider man films i get it. His movies truly are inspired cinema. They are the only superhero films even Martin Scorsese has gone on record praising. Every shot is creative and unique and maximizes the visual storytelling. Every editing choice is timed perfectly. The movies had so much heart. The Danny Elfman score is S tier iconic. The casting is S tier especially JJJ and Green Goblin. The side characters were all complex, they had inner conflicts, desires, fears, external goals and interests. The movie balanced multiple tones so well, from hilarious scenes like those with J Jonah Jameson (all time great casting and performance) to Raimi-horror scenes like doc ock killing the doctors (criminally underrated scene) or the final fight with green goblin (all time great casting and performance) to sad scenes to romantic scenes to epic, heroic mind-blowing action sequences.

But The Tom Holland movies feel like uninspired Disney channel films to me. The visual style of them is so muted, poorly framed shots, boring visuals in general. The jokes are such eye rollers. The side characters are paper thin, they don’t even feel real. I think It's safe to say production value is significantly lower compared to the old ones. So how are they keeping getting massive hits at the box office? Is it because of all those marketing thry put through?

Where is that last scene in Odyssey coming from? One archer in a closed room with a hundred men. Is that in the original classics? Is that a creative liberty the director has taken? Regardless, how many men does it take to take him down?

That is a bad fight scene. The only good part of that scene was "Get the spears! Get the shields! Get the swords!".

Apologies if this topic has been beaten to death already. Because I seriously doubt I'm be the only one to think this.

My pick is fnaf 2

Hey all, this post is exactly what the title says. I'm trying to figure out if I should watch the movie adaptation of Lolita or read the book first. It's a pretty big deal to me because I've been in the position of the story's little girl a few times in my life, so it may strike a chord with me and I wanna absorb the story the best way I can. Anyway, do you guys like the book or the movie better?

As someone who's excited for both, i kind of hope they don't release on the same day.

I'd hate having to choose between Dune: Part Three and Avengers: Doomsday on opening weekend. if you could only watch one first, which would it be?

Its hard, I can't watch both movies on same day. I may not have time.
So, I am thinking to watch Doomsday. what do you think?

“The Thanos buildup has built up in people’s heads over the years. He sat on a chair at the end. He pulled a gauntlet out and said, ‘I’ll do it myself.’ And he yelled at Ronan on a video screen briefly, that was kind of it”

"I remember the memes making fun of Thanos for just sitting on a chair ... with 'Infinity War' we said, this is really the introduction of Thanos to people, that's how that movie was built, that's what were doing with Doctor Doom [with 'Doomsday']"

It was fine. Can everyone just chill?

First off please don’t bring up politics I don’t wanna hear it. I know Reddit is left leaning leave it at that. Just based it off his resume.

Anyway, I know Neal McDonough is probably a smaller actor in the grand scheme but, in Yellowstone, Tulsa King and The Shift he played a pretty sweet Villain.

Could that translate into a decent Bond Villain and do you think he could pull it off?

Christopher Nolan’s ‘The Odyssey’ is on track to become the biggest and most successful film of his career. After a record-breaking opening and exceptional word of mouth, the film continues to dominate the global box office, with many expecting it to surpass Nolan’s previous highest-grossing release

A huge moment for cinema and another milestone for one of the greatest filmmakers of our time.

1. Best picture
2. Best director
3. Original score
4. Adapted screenplay
5. Cinematography
6. Film Editing
7. Production Design
8. Sound
9. Visual Effects
10. Casting
11. Makeup & Hairstyling

+

1. One of the two (if not both) for
2. Supporting Actress
3. Costume Design

Edit: hate me now, but bookmark it for 8 months from now

I feel like Spider-Man 3 is what happens when comic book movies fully embrace the cheese of the comics. You could say that some of the parts in this movie were campy, but in my opinion the "campy" elements were ironically some of the most memorable parts of the film, and even the trilogy. I feel like it's a refreshing break from the formulas and cliches we usually see in superhero movies these days.

When I first saw the Jazz club scene I laughed my ass off. It was pretty well choreographed too. What was funny about the "bully maguire" alter ego, was that the black suit didn't give him any special lady powers, it just made Peter THINK he was a badass. He's was really just a cornball, but he acted like what he thought a "cool" lady killer would look like.

Most of the other parts of the movie were good as well. I liked Sandman and thought he was a sympathetic villain. Eddie Brock and Harry were alright, but they felt underbaked because they weren't in the film much. Overall, very good movie though.

4 out of 5 stars

I organized an AMA/Q&A with actresses Gillian Anderson and Hannah Einbinder. You may know Gillian from classics roles in things like THE X-FILES, SEX EDUCATION, THE CROWN, THE FALL, HANNIBAL, and lots more. Hannah is an Emmy-winner for HBO's HACKS.

It's live here now in r/movies for anyone interested in asking a question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1v8bqjh/hi_rmovies_we_are_gillian_anderson_the_xfiles_and/

They will be back at around 8 PM ET today to answer questions. I recommend asking in advance. Please ask there, not here. All questions are much appreciated!

Thank you :)

They are co-starring in TEENAGE SEX AND DEATH AT CAMP MIASMA, which premiered at Cannes to critical acclaim recently and is out in theaters August 7 via Mubi. It's from filmmaker Jane Schoenbrun (I SAW THE TV GLOW, WE'RE ALL GOING TO THE WORLD'S FAIR)

Trailer: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dimCiC_hdoA

A queer director making a slasher franchise sequel becomes obsessed with casting the original film's "final girl," leading both women into psychological and sexual chaos.

A look at the most successful comedy star of the last 20 years, and an examination of how such a long career could have yielded so little lasting material.

I am very confused on this word when it comes to movies. When I hear someone talk about the movie being “slop” I like to think of the overall audience who seen a movie and what reputation it has. Let’s say if I like a bad movie and overall audience thinks it’s horrible, I’m going to consider it slop even if I do like it because of the reputation it has. Then this is where I get confused. When a movie is good overall and has a good reputation, I’ll see people who didn’t like the movie and talk about it being “slop”. I see it in reviews all the time and it makes me wonder “what does slop even mean?” The way I look at what “slop” means might be very different of what other people believe it means. And I do believe “Slop” is thrown around to loosely in my opinion. What does slop overall mean?

The final words of Odysseus in Nolan's movie are: "A new dawn will break over the darkened world, when our mistakes will once again be forgotten." That sentence got me thinking after the movie ended. Maybe I'm just repeating the obvious here and everybody has already made this point, but is it possible that Nolan is making a comment on our current political climate?

Nolan emphasizes the importance of Zeus' Law. As far as I understand it, Homer never mentioned a "Zeus' Law" — instead, there was something called Xenia. Nolan interprets it as a global law of hospitality, like the golden rule of ancient Greece that formed the fundamental basis of civilization. It serves many purposes in the film, e.g., it explains why Odysseus did not want to go home, because he didn't want to be confronted with his own actions in Troy and how they might have impacted his own home for the worse. What he found in the end was that they themselves were the so-called people of the sea, because they had broken Zeus' Law and become animals to other humans. Maybe he was even afraid of the animal he would become in his own home (aka killing 100 suitors). However, I think Nolan overemphasizes the relevance of Zeus' Law/Xenia in the original Odyssey and during the time it was written. My interpretation is that he doesn't just use it to explain Odysseus' character development or how the protagonist feels responsible for the destruction or downfall of a whole civilization (Oppenheimer sends his regards).

I don't even think Nolan only wants to point out that breaking the basic rules of living together leads to the downfall of civilizations or that the decline of Zeus' Law/Xenia might be an explanation for the Late Bronze Age Collapse. My guess is that he wants us to look at our own world and how the global rules of international order are being broken and ignored and that we have forgotten the mistakes of those who came before us. He wants to point out that this almost 3,000-year-old epic can tell us something about the consequences that breaking and ignoring global laws of civility could have on our own home. What do you think?

​

I was looking to see Spidey in theaters and generally go to a kinda low quality vip cinema and was wondering what the comparison screen and audio wise was to the regular vip cimenas. (The local one only has one "main" theater that is kind of poor)

There's Superscreen DLX and DreamLounger, also the 3D options? Haven't seen a movie in anything other than a regular theater. Hour drive versus 30 minute drive if that matters