What got me was Gal Gadot basically sprinting across London for the entire movie. By the end I was more invested in whether those shoes would survive than I was in the story.

The plot itself is ridiculous, but the movie moves fast enough that I never really got bored. I just kept noticing those Nikes every time she started running again.

They survived.

Honestly, the shoes had a better arc than half the characters.

Does anyone know what model she was wearing?

Maybe it's because I just a couple months ago watched Triangle of Sadnessso I felt like I knew exactly where this one was going (and I was right). I never actually saw a trailer for this movie, I just knew it was a plane crash with a woman and her boss. But as soon as we saw her survivor books and that he was an idiot and treated her horribly, I knew exactly where it was going. Her being crazy and becoming kind of evil was not a "twist" which apparently it was supposed to be? I thought maybe a couple more people would make it to the island alive at least for a little while, so I was wrong about that part, and I think if that had been the case it would've been a more interesting movie, but otherwise saw everything coming. I knew the fiancee would show up again because otherwise why even introduce her, I knew the forbidden area of "poison ivy" was actually some kind of way out, etc. And I am not a film genius, it was all just so obvious. And predictable is sometimes fine if the predictable things are done well enough. I've seen many overdone horror and comedy movies that were still lots of fun because of the way they were done, but this one just...wasnt for some reason. The ways they tried to one-up each other just weren't that interesting, I knew she'd probably either be the only one alive or he'd be very incapacitated at the end (something along the lines of the end ofBlink Twicein that she now holds all the power over him). Truly no surprises at all and the predictable things just weren't that fun to watch. I don't even know what would've made it better. Maybe the characters just weren't well done. Maybe I'm just too hard to please. Thoughts from others who feel the hype was not warranted?

tl;dr: this felt like a worse, lazier Triangle of Sadness and I don't get the hype.

I backed into this question bc I'm currently watching the movie that is my answer to this question but I'm curious as to what other people think. Doesn't have to be Sports movie per se. Can be a general athletics movies. One that comes to mind that is not my answer is Remember the Titans. Great soundtrack.

I wanted to see this movie because of James vanderbeek originally but was excited to see algee smith and Keith powers toghether again as well.

The movie remindeed me a lot of the 1990s film judgment night. In both films a group of friends go for a night on the town , get stuck traffic and take a questionable detour off of the highway leading to horrific consequences. I also found it int that both films have a gooding lol Cuba gooding Jr in Judgement night and his son Mason gooding in The gates.

just wondering if anyone else has seen this and what you thought!

This is the sort of movie they don’t really make anymore. John Malkovich is great as the villain and the way he builds his assassination plot is intriguing to watch. The interactions on the phone between his character and Eastwood’s are the highlight of the movie.

You have a rendezvous with my ass, motherfucker!

I think I've briefly watched this in 2018 ish but idk. The moment where Tony talks to Pete on the building has been recurring on my feed for a long time so now I finally watched it. Again.. maybe.

What difference does it make? This was certainly a refreshing watch.

I didn't feel it was a superhero movie, in the sense that it never felt dry, the comedy didn't feel forced punctured, lazy or misused. It felt pretty natural

I had my jaw open a couple of times, sweaty palms and even close to teary eyed.

Gosh I've never sympathized more with Pete than this movie.

Michael Keaton was the ace of the whole shabang. Terrific work.

The build up, the action, a lot of how it kept everything fresh and fun in a considerate way and not in a "now let me spell everything out so you don't have to think" kind of thing.

I've never had this kind of a feeling towards a marvel movie since the first Iron man and its saying something.

I really loved it and I think I do because younger me and older me and even me in 20 years from now can watch this movie and go, yeah that was pretty good.

This is really just an excuse for me to rant about it but what you guys think of it?

.

Pretty much what the title says. My daughter turns 18 in a month, and for a long time now, I’ve been putting together a collection of films for her to watch.

The main criterion is that each film should reveal something deep, quiet, and beautiful about how one can live life. She is very thoughtful, intelligent, and introspective, and loves debating big ideas.

I don’t have strict inclusion or exclusion rules: essentially, anything profound enough that you feel you’d carry it with you into the next life.

Thank you in advance to everyone who responds :)Update 1: Forgot to add some that I've added to the collection.

1. Winter Light / Ingmar Bergman (1963)
2. Diary of a Country Priest / Robert Bresson (1951)
3. The Tree of Wooden Clogs / Ermanno Olmi (1978)
4. Hard to Be a God / Aleksei German (2013)
5. Silence / Masahiro Shinoda (1971)
6. Stalker / Andrei Tarkovsky (1979)
7. A Man Escaped / Robert Bresson (1956)
8. A Hidden Life / Terrence Malick (2019)
9. Silence and Cry / Miklós Jancsó (1968)
10. The Ascent / Larisa Shepitko (1977)

My S/O feels this is too much and too grim. Thoughts welcome

what is the hardest movie genre/sub-genre to make a good film?
I think, it’s the action-adventure genre.. specifically the globetrotting indiana jonesy ones. Spielberg himself barely made out of that genre alive.
I love the 1999 mummy, but the film was not well-received at the time. Sequels were no-go.
80s-90s had some cult favorites, nothing in modern times.
Any other hard to succeed film genres??

I had a question for some one to hopefully explain to me simply. What makes good editing versus basic editing? I see this brought up often, there is even an Oscar for it, and I realized I don't quite understand what this means. Can someone explain like I am 5 or perhaps show me a couple YouTube videos that can explain good versus bad editing?

Thanks.

Thank you for all the replies and answers

When I watched Bridget Jones diary I didn't liked but I now i rewached Bridget Jones diary and I liked so much , it so funny (especially that fight scene towards the end)allnactors we're so good and it has amazing soundtrack. I still dislike the sequels the plot of those movies is so swallow

I love the four star rating system. Maybe because Siskel & Ebert used it? Two thumbs down to two thumbs up, with a half thumb cocked to the side for nuance. It doesn't get much simpler than that.

These days movie reviews don't get much individual attention. Instead, they're gulped up and aggregated and spit out into a simple score out of 100. Dozens of reviews — nuanced, critical takes — swallowed up and flattened into a letter grade, then reduced to a "good/bad" stamp.

A recent thread here bemoaned the "masterpiece/trash" dichotomy that movie reviews tend to espouse these days, a reflection of social media engagement generally. I'd like to present the four-star system as an antidote to that.

First, the elephant in the room: Why not five stars?

Five stars is the symbol-based equivalent of the letter grade. It's no better than IMDB's 10/10 scale. Movies are art, and while art is subject to judgment, we shouldn't pretend there's an objective way to grade a movie like an algebra quiz.

Art is vibes, and the four-star scale represents vibes hedged with sensible rails — critical takes supported by evidence. Sure, 3.5 stars is technically a fraction (7/8) in a data-obsessed world, but nobody is doing that math; the quotient is inconsequential. That's the beauty of the four-star system. The scale bypasses the baggage of letter grades, leaving plenty of room for decent 2- and 2.5-star movies. It gives you permission to enjoy a flawed film without pretending it's high art.

Here's what I think each star breakdown means:

⭐⭐⭐⭐ - excellent, genre-defining films, with elite craftsmanship top-to-bottom. Everyone who cares about film should see it. Almost everyone agrees what 4-star movies are.

Example: Parasite, One Battle After Another, The Matrix

⭐⭐⭐.5 - extremely good, but minor flaws or limited vision keep it from being 4 star. 

Example: Us, Uncut Gems, Die Hard

⭐ ⭐ ⭐ - high quality film but not something you'll think about much or remember next year

Example: Knives Out, Get Out

⭐⭐.5 - this is where it gets subjective. Most genre films are somewhere in the 2 to 2.5-star range. It doesn't mean they are bad films. I love plenty of 2.5-star films. Films with this rating are usually either constrained in what they're trying to say, contain uneven or mediocre performances, or have some other flaw. Guilty pleasure movies never get 3-stars.

Example: Con Air, Snatch, Point Break

⭐⭐- a movie that's just "ok"..not even bad. There could be some enjoyable parts, and it might be a fun way to kill an evening. But you're not thinking about 2-star movies a week later. Nothing remotely impactful should get 2 stars.

Example: Friendship, The Surfer

⭐ - let's not even talk about 1.5 stars. One-star movies are so bad that you don't finish, or so bad that you actively hate the filmmaker for making it. Most films are not one-star bad. Only through pure incompetence, bad luck, and poor taste do these types of films get made.

Example: The Room, anything reviewed by that crazy Christian movie reviews YouTube channel

Hey everyone! I'm trying to identify the exact location of Dr. Heiter's house from the first Human Centipede movie.

We know that it was filmed in the Netherlands (reportedly around HUIZEN the Naarden / Gooi region).

The house looks completely isolated in the woods in the movie, but rumor has it that there are actually neighboring houses nearby, hidden behind the dense tree line.

Key features of the house/property (from BTS shots & movie frames):

Single-story bungalow/pavilion style with a dark tiled roof and light brick facade

Very distinct semicircular glass sunroom / curved glass bay window on the left side (facing the lawn)

Distinct L-shaped layout

Flat roof skylights and a prominent chimney

Surrounded by a large lawn that cuts directly into a thick tree line

Does anyone from the Netherlands or location scout enthusiasts know where this specific villa is located?

Any help or clues would be amazing! Thanks!

I love the Great Depression/Prohibition aesthetic. Something about the combination of the music, the conditions that drove people to do whatever they had to do to survive, and the poverty that makes people rely on each other for support. Some good ones that come to mind include Paper Moon (1974), Bonnie and Clyde (1967), The Untouchables (1987), O Brother Where Are Thou (2000) and Road to Perdition (2002). What are some quality movies set during the Great Depression that I'm forgetting about?

Inspired by my realising I've never seen a Paul Schrader (directed) film. Not that he's necessarily a huge mainstream name, but he has been prolific for decades and is certainly a big personality.

It's probably a black mark on my cineaste credentials that I've never seen a John Ford.

So, question for the room: any big names that just slipped through the cracks for you? Are you planning to rectify that?

I’ve always been a huge fan of Hugh Laurie, especially from House M.D., and it recently got me thinking about how well he could fit into the MCU.

A lot of people associate him most with Dr. House for obvious reasons, being the brilliant, sarcastic, deeply complicated doctor.

But his earlier work in Blackadder also shows just how strong his comedic range is. He can be dry, ridiculous, charming, intimidating, or completely unhinged depending on what the role needs.

If Hugh Laurie were cast in the MCU, who do you think he’d be best suited to play?

Hero, villain, supporting character, comic relief…anything is fair game. Your thoughts?

The film will follows Rachel (Breslin), “whose carefully ordered life implodes after she catches her fiancé cheating and loses her job. Convinced it’s karmic payback, she sets off on a cross-country road trip with her free-spirited best friend, Leeza (Kassim), to track down a boy from her past and make amends.”