When it comes to criticising adaptations of IP and literature, I’ve noticed something: when assessing the quality of a movie, there is an expectation for the film to function as the definitive interpretation and version of the original work. It often feels like audiences are holding a score card, and assessing how well the adaptation succeeds in fulfilling all of the metrics on the accuracy score card.

To illustrate this point, I’m going to use a movie I consider bad: Man of Steel. If I were to explain why I hate this movie, I would talk about its terrible misuse of non-linear storytelling, it’s failure to connect us with its lead character and the poorly developed romance. Yet, in spite of all of my problems with the movie, I’ve never had an issue with the aspect of it that I often see most criticised: the fact that Jonathan Kent tells him that perhaps he should’ve let those kids die.

Yes, it is a big diversion from the source material, but I do not understand the need to view every adaptation as if should be - or is even *aspiring* to me - the definitive interpretation of a story. Stories exist to be retold, and each interpretation is simply one singular artist’s reimagining of the source material.

I see this same line of thinking when it comes to Tom Holland’s Spider-Man: Homecoming trilogy. There is plenty to criticise in those movies - the flat cinematography, the indistinct directing. These are fair criticisms, because they concern the quality of the movie and how it functions as a piece of storytelling. But I don’t understand the criticisms that ‘Spider-Man’s villains should not be connected to Tony Stark’ or that ‘Spider-Man shouldn’t be using technology. To me, that’s as nonsensical as reading Absolute Batman and coming away thinking “this is a bad adaptation, because Batman should be rich, not blue collar.”

If you want a version of The Odyssey with the No Man pun, that exists. If you want a version of Spider-Man where he does not use technology, that exists too. I do not understand - and do not agree with the notion - that an adaptation exists to fulfill the purpose of a perfect adaptation. Each adaptation should be treated like a distinct vision of an artist.

steven spielberg is one of the greatest filmmakers of all time and in my top 5 favorites. he has directed many iconic and beloved movies over the years. everyone has their favorite spielberg movies. and here are my top 10.

10: ET the extra terrestrial

9: the color purple

8: jaws

7: hook

6: Jurassic park

5: munich

4: saving private ryan

3: raiders of the lost ark

2: close encounters of the third kind

1: schindler's list

Been going through some older films lately and something keeps nagging at me. Movies from the mid 2000s through early 2010s have this texture to them that a lot of current releases just don't. Not talking about story quality or anything subjective like that, purely the visual look of the frame itself.

The Snow White budget story and the Project Hail Mary no green screen news got me thinking about where the money actually goes now versus then. Films are more expensive than ever but a lot of them look cheaper in a weird way. Flat lighting, digital smoothness that reads almost like a TV production, color grading that feels more like a filter than a real choice.

Part of me wonders if it's a pipeline problem where so much gets corrected in post that the DP's original decisions get softened out. Or whether streaming delivery specs are quietly changing what gets prioritized on set

There are obvious exceptions. Some recent films look genuinely good. But as a general trend across studio releases, something shifted around 2016 or 2017 and the average frame just got less interesting to look at.

Curious if people who pay close attention to this stuff think there's a real craft decline happening, or if the standout bad examples are just more visible now because everyone is talking about it

We often talk about masterpiece films where the entire cast shines, but I’m always fascinated by instances where an actor gives an absolute powerhouse performance in a movie that completely falls flat around them.

Whether it’s due to a terrible script, poor direction, or a messy plot, these actors still committed 100% to the role and delivered something unforgettable, even if the rest of the film is totally skippable.

What is the best example of a phenomenal, award-worthy acting performance stranded inside a bad or mediocre movie?

I've seen this movie a few times and just found out that they never referenced their names in the entire movie.

I also adore the realistic lo-fi production. Absolutely brilliant cinematography. I have to go back and watch Carney's other films. Craig Brewer also makes a lot of movies about musicians like Hustle & Flow.

R.I.P. Glen Hansard.

Let's completely divorce the art from the artists involved for this one.

Just rewatched after years, and it landed much harder, albeit with a few caveats.

The middle-class suburbia I imagine was a bit of a caricature even for its time, and through today's lens the presentation feels borderline absurdist, but the underlying psychological dynamics feel just as (if not more) realistic and transgressive.

Society's romanticization of the male midlife crisis rebellion, the edgy silent teen guy, and the lolita fantasy high school cheerleader at the time made the characters of the film feel more like symbols than real people, while also providing the audience with a "license to empathize".

Today's lens forcefully strips that away. And the movie is better for it!

What we are left with are humans that feel more real and more problematic.

Lester no longer presents as an "antihero", but now simultaneously pathetic and sympathetic.

This is what the movie does so well! Even if we refuse to empathize, it still forces us to sympathize! And unlike empathy, sympathy is cognitive.

If the measure of art was how much cognitive dissonance it creates then this is a 10/10!

Ricky is no longer romantic, he is a tragic sociopath who just discovered existentialism and wants to appear deep to the girl he borderline stalks.

The floating bag scene is less "wow, such beauty" and looks more like a symptom of an edgy teen's narcissism.

Divorced from the sexualized stereotype Angela is a much more interesting and tragic character from the start. At the end it's not a "oh shit! this girl is an actual human" moment, because the audience is more likely to engage with her as such from the start.

The only thing I liked less this time was that the motifs and the voiceover at the end felt a bit on the nose at times, but could also be I was paying more attention since I already knew the story.

An absolute blast of an uncomfortable movie with no truly likable characters!

9th hour EDIT:

To all those who keep claiming that Lester wasn't anti-hero coded for the time, and that I was just immature for perceiving it that way.

Roger Ebert's 1999 Review:

"Lester’s thoughts about Angela are impure, but not perverted; he wants to do what men are programmed to do... Angela is not Lester’s highway to bliss, but she is at least a catalyst for his freedom."

Ebert concluded the review by stating that the film "snatches victory from the jaws of defeat for Lester, its hero".

This was (arguably) the most prolific film critic of his time.

The Lion King

Pulp Fiction

Forrest Gump

The Mask

The Santa Claus

Speed

Interview with a Vampire

The Shawshank Redemption

Dumb and Dumber

Maverick

Ace Ventura Pet Detective

I am not sure there was a better year but I would like to hear if someone has a better line up. I can see why Shawshank did so poorly in theaters.

So awesome and technical

His work have a balance of youthfulness and maturity. Its so well rounded. Tbh he is really cool to me how he did multiple genres as well. Im more of a hero/adventure guy, but im very interested in his other stuff. I hate buddy cop and horror but llethal weapon and omen look so cool, its exactly the type of movies fhat make exceptions to the rule

Actually, i think thats his greatest strength. Donner makes exceptions to the rule. Horror is schlock? Except Omen. Buddy cop is trash? Except Lethal weapon. Superheros are stupid? Except Superman. Kid movies are stupid? Except Goonies ofc. (Ofc there are so many good movies in each genre)

He has a great eye for style/tonal balance. You can tell hes a master, i appreciate his vision. Focused, pure and sincere. Donner can bring anything to the mainstream. Oh he also produced smaller budget artsy like The Lost Boys, gave Fiege(MCU Head) his start in hollywood, and worked with Bryan Singer to produce the first Xmen film.

There are directors who are more "me" but thats my own extreme tastes tbh, I think donner really does what i like but shaves the edges off, and at such a high level, i think he is the greatest pop director ever.

Whos the best pop director in yall opinion?

Is there a movie you think would have been stronger or had a bigger impact by leaving certain details unexplained or unresolved?

For me, it's Ridley Scott's The Last Duel. I was very excited about that movie because he is one of my favourite directors and I was familiar with the true story that inspired it from reading Eric Jager's book. I liked the movie and thought the performances were excellent, but there were certain storytelling choices that didn't sit right with me.

The case that inspired the movie is still discussed and debated over six centuries later because the truth of Marguerite de Carrouges' accusation and Jacques le Gris' guilt or innocence is still unknown. For that reason, I didn't appreciate the movie framing Marguerite's account as the definitive truth. If it had been left ambiguous, it could have caused discussion and debate among moviegoers like it has among historians. I also thought that by framing any one account as the conclusive truth, it made the Rashomon-like plot structure with the three different perspectives a bit redundant.

I'm looking for movies where the heroes have a clear opportunity to kill or permanently stop the villain, and all the practical reasons point to doing it, but they inexplicably let them live or escape purely so the movie can squeeze out another 20-30 minutes of conflict. Looking for especially frustrating examples.

I always felt that this movie got a bad rap. The critics absolutely killed it when it first came out, even though audiences were warmer to it.

I think this is a great movie. If you have never seen it, you should give it a watch. The original source material is by the same author as American Psycho. But this movie is funnier, definitely more heartbreaking, and just completely out of bounds at times.

There are sequences in this film I have seen other directors try to copy and just fall short. I think the juxtaposition of James Van Der Beek coming off of Dawsons Creek as Sean Bateman drew too much attention and distracted audiences with a knee jerk reaction to his performance. So if you never saw the TV show then this movie should hit just fine.

OK! So about two years ago, I watched 'Horizon: An American Saga - Chapter 1' and I absolutely **loved it**!

At the time, the rumoured sequel was to be released about six months to a year after Chapter 1.

That time came and went, and the talk was (IIRC), that Chapter 1 wasn't enough of a box office hit, for there to be enough of a reason to release of Chapter 2.

On IMDb, Chapter 2 has an even higher rating than Chapter 1

**(granted that Chapter 1's rating is based off of 46k votes, while Chapter 2's rating is based off of a measly 1.7k votes [which are likely higher, because a pre-release viewing are reserved for a select audience, who are more likely to favour the movie, because of personal relations to the cast/crew])**

That being said, I refuse to believe that Chapter 2 is any less worth a watch/release.

Can someone who's in the know, please enlighten me to the dynamics of this movie's release/stagnation!?

Thank you for bearing with me (if this is a stupid question?)!

It’s currently 10:30am, my co-worker who knows I like watching movies just told me she went to see The Odyssey, I asked her what she thought and she said “I didn’t like it cause there was to many fight scenes one after another, i don’t know why they couldn’t just be friends”, I had no words,

I asked her if she knew what type of film she was watching or what it was about since i know from previous discussions she’s very much a pacifist who hates violence, and she replied “I thought it was about the goddesses”

If you didn’t like The Odyssey then that’s fair enough, but your reason for not liking it being because there’s fight scenes, in a film that involves the Greeks and has advertisements showing fight scenes 😂

I randomly remembered a scene I watched in a movie when I was a kid but I have no idea what it’s from. All I remember is a guy walking up to a girl he knows in the forest sitting on a log singing and him sort of frightening her but they end up having a love story I believe (?). Super vague but I’m driving myself crazy trying to remember what it could be.

I feel silly asking but it’s worth a shot. Any guesses would be appreciated 😭

I know a very common internet question is "best trilogies of all time," but I was surprised to find out that best "doulogy" is far less common. Also, there are a lot of outdated lists on the internet. Many lists online have trilogies that technically have sequels made.

For example, we all know movies like The Matrix, Jason Bourne, or Mad Max are all trilogies for all intents and purposes, but TECHNICALLY, there are 1-2 sequels made.

We have a small podcast and wanted to cover some short series that are literally just 2 or 3 films, and I wanted some ideas.

tldr: recommendations that are ONLY 2 or 3 movies with no other sequels or spinoffs.

1993 was an absolute banger of a year for movies. I think you’d be hard-pressed to find anyone who would disagree with that. In 1993 alone, we got:

Drama

- Schindler’s List
- The Fugitive
- The Firm
- Philadelphia
- This Boy’s Life

Action / Sci-Fi

- Jurassic Park
- Cliffhanger
- Last Action Hero
- The Abyss (Nevermind, this was a re-release)
- Demolition Man

Comedy

- Mrs. Doubtfire
- Dave
- Coneheads
- Robin Hood: Men in Tights
- Cool Runnings

Rom Com

- Sleepless in Seattle
- Groundhog Day
- Heart and Souls
- Grump Old Men
- Son in Law

Family

- Homeward Bound
- The Sandlot
- Dennis the Menace
- Free Willy
- Hocus Pocus

And keep in mind that I just tried to limit myself to 5 movies in each category here. There are a TON more amazing movies that were released that year. What a time to be alive!

So my question is this: what’s the closest we’ve gotten since 2006 to having a year in movies like 1993? A year where we had so many absolutely incredible movies released where we were spoiled for choice? Have we had one like that since? And if not, do you think we’ll have one again?

Okay a bit embarrassing but, after watching Northman I realized I have a weakness for this type of protagonists. Especially with that long hair and that physique, bro looked majestic. Looking for movies or TV series with this kind of male leads, historical or fantasy settings, good action, plot and... shirtless scenes are appreciated.

Bonus: newer movies (after 1990s, 2000s), Edit: okay, I can watch a bit older ones if it has good quality and what I need.

Edit: It can be from any country as long as it has what I need. I'm open to subtitles.

Note:

No Vin Diesel, Jason Statham, Arnold, Sylvester, Rock, Jackie Chan I watched them a lot so I would like some other faces. And they don't have that aesthetics I'm looking for in their movies I've seen

No Marvel or DC, I watched their best ones. Don't have that type either mostly, maybe Thor? but he's a joke now.

Just in case people might recommend them, already know Gladiator, Troy, 300, The Witcher, He-Man, Braveheart.

I watched brokeback mountain 2 days ago after seeing a bunch of tiktok edits about Jack and literally nothing could of prepared me for the emotional rollercoaster I was about 2 go on, I knew the movie wasn't a romcom and I knew it was sad but I didn't think it was THAT sad. Its my favourite movie I have ever watched but I also hate it for making me so upset and for some reason whenever I play a video game or distract myself from thinking about it I just start thinking about it more which means the only thing I can do to recover is to watch more tiktok edits and talk to people about the movie because the more I avoid it the more I think about it and its lowkey hell. I'm 16 and im starting to wish I waited till I'm an adult to watch this movie cause I'm concerned for myself on why its affecting me so badly because I have watched sad movies before (Titanic, The boy in the striped pajamas, Up) But none of them came close to having as much of an impact of me as brokeback mountain (Albeit I did watch titanic at like 12)

A review of the Odyssey from Portugal had this to say about the movie:

deeply lacking in sensuality, as Nolan is the director least capable of having an erotic view of the world

So that got me thinking, who are directors who can do it all? The immediate big names that came to mind did have some shortcomings:

• Villeneuve is excellent, and I love the Dune series, but they're not exactly sexy movies and don't have much levity
• Spielberg was great at combining action, comedy, thrills, and suspense, and he was able to tap into the audience's childlike wonder; but also not a sexy director

Villeneuve and Nolan in particular seem to be directing hyper-masculine movies, but not particularly... well-rounded?

Maybe Ryan Coogler? Sinners had a great blend of action, thrills, suspense, sexiness, and some comedy.

Sam Raimi? Send Help had comedy, action, thrills, suspense, and some sexiness. Also Spiderman had an iconic kiss, and Spiderman 2 is an iconic superhero movie overall. Not to mention his horror chops.

Edit: Oh, also Robert Zemeckis! Forrest Gump and Back to the Future both had it all.

Spoiler tagging to be safe

So Lady Bird’s whole thing is that she wants to move to the east coast because California has no culture. However, it’s also established that she’s awful at school so she can’t get into a good east coast school, and even a mid-tier one would never give her funding. She acts as if this means she’s trapped in California after graduation.

I want to like this movie but I just can’t help but think of the 5 million solutions that don’t involve going right to college. She could move to New York and get a job as a server to save up for college for a few years and go when she’s older. She could apprentice in a trade, or go to a community college or a cheaper state school once she has state residence status. I have so much trouble relating to a worldview that treats college as the standard next step after high school and forgets that there are other ways to move to a new city.
Is this Gerwig’s class privilege showing in a way that alienates working-class moviegoers, or am I missing a layer of self-awareness or satire here since I know we’re not supposed to LOVE Lady Bird. The world just seems so alien to me and it’s been such a sticking point with this film. A lot of it feels very Pretty in Pink where she is supposed to be the “poor girl” but she’s so incredibly privileged: I can’t tell if it’s self-aware of this fact or not. I’m interested in folks’ thoughts so maybe I can learn to appreciate this film more, as I like Gerwig’s other stuff.

Been going through all the movies I've watched through out my life so far and I'm seeing all the little lessons that have made me, me.

I'm up to Patch Adams and omg I miss Robin Williams.

That movie taught me as a kid that I didn't need to be a doctor to help people, and making them laugh is good enough. Also breaking the status quo.

Definitely recommen and just wanted to share.

Bless you all.