PLEASE USE SPOILER TAGS

What movie roles have obviously been performed while an actor is obviously under the influence?

There are so many, and I was curious what your favorite is, or if there are any stories behind those performances?

Hi r/flicks !

Have you ever played The Movie Game or Six Degrees of Kevin Bacon? My husband and I recently created a free online version of this called Cinema Circuit, and I wanted to share it here in case you'd would like to try it out. Please feel free to remove this post if this type of thing isn't allowed.

You’ll start with two actors, and you’re trying to string together a path from one to the other. You’ll see the full list of movies that the first actor has been in, and when you select one you’ll be given the cast of that movie. Pick an actor from that list and see their film credits, etc. etc. until you find the actor you’re trying to get to.

If you’d like to try it out you can play it at https://www.wfhgames.com/cinema-circuit - I’d love any and all feedback! Thanks so much for reading this far!

I’ve recently started going down the rabbit hole of canceled or never finished films and I became curious after reading that many incredible films with groundbreaking effects nearly didn’t happen because they were considered “impossible to make” or “too expensive”. What are some movies that didn’t get past that barrier and were never made because they would’ve been to expensive or technologically difficult to make? there isn’t much on google or IMDb that I can find on a quick search so Reddit do your thing.

This is just something that I was interested in learning about lately as I was observing the history of Sony's animated films they made under their animation division as long ago, they were highly infamous because they had released the Emoji Movie.

But what I don't understand is how that same studio who was responsible for greenlighting such an infamous movie had pulled off a huge victory with the Spider Verse saga as I am curious on how Sony had again managed to redeem themselves during that era of animated cinema as even today, I still cannot figure how they changed so much as a studio between those two films.

I’ll avoid the obvious one: John Williams. While I adore practically his entire portfolio, too easy.

My top 3 besides him:

1. Jerry Goldsmith. Thumpy brass is my jam. Total Recall is one of my favorite scores, specifically when he meets Kuato and remembers the secret. Also, Planet of the Apes, Star Trek, Poltergeist and countless others.

2. Michael Giacchino. The first time I heard him was The Incredibles, and that describes the score. Also enjoy Rogue One, Up, The Batman.

3. Danny Elfman. I’ve seen Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands so many times, and I’d say he’s the most identifiable composer by his tone of music.

I would say the movie blink was a eye opener.

Hello everyone, I am a fanatic here trying to find some good heist movies. However (apart that google doesn't give me a correct answer) I've realized that most heist movies either end up bad, or just goofy.

My issue: I am not into older period movies about heist. I also do not like Triple frontier (starts amazing, but I think they lose the money) and the likes of (Ocean 12, Den of Thieves, Hell or High Water) these are great movies, but not the feel I am looking for. Army of the Dead started ok, but I think as Zack Snyder always does. there was a messed up somewhere.

But the idea was there, kinda like Peninsula 2020, dark, gritty... not about some thugs or rappers or mafia, but a group of ex-militaries going in an area dangerous to retrieve money. AND THEY MAKE IT OUT. Sincerely what I am looking for is for them to make it out with the money, because most of these movies like I mentioned before has one thing in common and it's that they are trying to teach you some lame lesson about human or whatnot looking at you Triple Frontier, such a lost.

Thank you.

Remember boring does not necessarily mean bad. For me personally though it would be My Own Private Idaho.Not a bad movie at all I just did not find it interesting at all

It still doesn't make sense to me. He had all power he needed

Edit: I'm glad this post has so many comments. The information is next level

Question, What if Sergio Leone never died and managed to make Leningrad: The 900 Days?

On what I am saying, While finishing work on Once Upon a Time in America in 1982, Leone was impressed with Harrison Salisbury's non-fiction book The 900 Days: The Siege of Leningrad, and he planned on adapting the book as a war epic. Although no formal script had been completed or leaked, Leone came up with the opening scene and basic plot. According to the documentary Once Upon a Time, Sergio Leone, the film opened in medias res as the camera goes from focusing on a Russian hiding from the Nazis' artillery fire to panning hundreds of feet away to show the German Panzer divisions approaching the walls of the city. The plot was to focus on an American photographer on assignment (whom Leone wanted to be played by Robert De Niro) becoming trapped in Russia as the German Luftwaffe begin to bombard the city. Throughout the course of the film, he becomes romantically involved with a Russian woman, whom he later impregnates, as they attempt to survive the prolonged siege and the secret police, because relationships with foreigners are forbidden. According to Leone, "In the end, the cameraman dies on the day of the liberation of the city, when he is currently filming the surrender of the Germans. And the girl is aware of his death by chance seeing a movie news: the camera sees it explode under a shell .... "

By 1989, Leone had been able to acquire $100 million in financing from independent backers, and the film was to be a joint production with a Soviet film company. He had convinced Ennio Morricone to compose the film score, and Tonino Delli Colli was tapped to be the cinematographer. Shooting was scheduled to begin sometime in 1990. The project was canceled when Leone died two days before he was to officially sign on for the film.

Now, Since Sergio Leone never had a script, it's hard to know whether the film would go, but I think, given Leone's track record, I really think this film would've a been another masterpiece. I am just sadden that Sergio died just only 2 days before he was to sign on to this film, and one thing that amazes me is that Leone managed to acquired 100 Million just for this project, probably making it one of the most expensive film projects is it actually got made?

All in All, What do you think? What if Sergio Leone never died and managed to make Leningrad: The 900 Days?

How do you think the film would of been received?

I keep seeing the trailers for the new Sonic movie and I’m starting to get a little intrigued. Not least of which, is the fact, it’s got Jim Carrey and Keanu Reeves and I kind of trust both of their artistic choices.

I haven’t seen any of the movies, I originally didn’t watch them because I thought they looked bad, and I’m old enough to have cut my video game teeth on Sonic the Hedgehog 2, so I didn’t want the movies to be bad and fuck up my nostalgia trip.

So here’s my question. Are they worth watching, is this new one going to be worth watching?

For me I always skip the first part of home alone 1 & 2 ( I can't stand watching them treat Kevin like crap) I start where the family has to get up to go to the airport

Yes I get that must be obvious, but I was looking at the history of the films recently as something in particular that surprises me the most is how apparently George Lucas and JJ Abrams didn’t know how to handle the franchise after the original series ended.

Like I don’t get how that is possible as the prequels had all kinds of issues, even though Lucas directed the saga, yet what I don’t understand is how the recent sequel trilogy suffered too as while I only see the first two movies so far, I keep hearing how the entire trilogy was criticized for how JJ Abrams handled it.

My point is that when I look back at Star Wars, I wonder if the movie side of the franchise will ever have a proper comeback as for some reason, I find it hard to believe the movie side basically peaked with the original trilogy as that alone surprises me.

Totally cliche, but the Titanic “Nearer My God To Thee” scene always manages to elicit a tear from me. The scene from Up (no, not the first ten minutes) where Carl gives Russell the Ellie badge gets me big time. The one that gets me the most is the very end of Schindler’s List (not that the whole film isn’t a bawlfest)

Going personal for a moment. The biggest life changing event for me would no doubt be the death of my girlfriend when I was 19. She had brain cancer, went into remission, we fell in love and it came back with a vengeance. It Ended up taking her life way too short and also screwing me up for a long time. But the few months we had were some of the best of my life, and one thing we loved to do was watch movies together. I just got to thinking of some of the films that played a variable in our relationship. Here’s some examples: Talladega Nights, Little Miss Sunshine, Alpha Dog, The Pursuit of Happiness, It’s a Wonderful Life. Whenever I hear about or see these movies, I get transported away to that time.

What movies do that for you?

The Fabelmans was a great movie but Seth Rogen singlehandedly brought it from a 10/10 movie to a 9/10 in my eyes. He wasn't horrendous or anything but the problem is that literally everyone else in the cast (including the child actors) acted circles around him and it made him look way worse in comparison.

I also think Oz: The Great and Powerful would have been more well-received if you had simply recast Mila Kunis. I thought the story was clever, the visual effects were really good, and all the other actors were well cast but she was just a terrible choice to play the wicked witch of the west.

I thought it was a solid, effective legal thriller with a fantastic screenplay. While the script was the strongest aspect of the movie, the directing was far and away the weakest. It feels like Eastwood put no thought into how he could elevate the material whatsoever, with the cinematography being incredibly bland for one. Here is my review of the movie: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ClKUQ53t0e8. What are your thoughts on Juror No. 2?

Batman and Batman Returns don’t get touched. Keaton is the best Dark Knight and I will die on that hill.

Not exactly sure why, but Tim didn’t direct the third entry, and thusly we lost Keaton and got Val Kilmer and Joel Schumacher. Obviously, the tone shifted dramatically from dark to cartoonish. I personally like Forever, mainly due to the villainous takes of Jim Carrey and TLJ. Carrey especially carries the movie when he is on screen. It’s by far not the best, but not the worst Batman movie.

Anyone with a pop culture acumen knows the 97 entry is abominable, and I like it only because it’s part of the saga. Batman is a comic, but after the gritty on screen portrayal, the darker tone is preferable. Cue the Bat-butts and ice puns. I heard Patrick Stewart was possibly gonna play Freeze, and I would have loved to see that angle. Arnold is the man, but seriously, yikes. And George Clooney, double yikes. Although that Flash cameo had me rolling. Uma is fine af.

After the Nolan trilogy, these movies kinda get left at the wayside. Just curious on your opinions

I have read the King short story, but totally did Not see Morgan Freeman being cast in that role - a role that could be his most famous and, most especially, a role that was perfectly cast.

What made Frank Darabont choose Morgan Freeman as Red ?

I asked a friend of mine and he said because his roles in Driving Miss Daisy, Glory and Robin Hood, were all of characters who were supremely loyal. I haven't seen these films but intend to do so.

Is this idea true?

The only films I had seen of Morgan's made before Shawshank were Lean on Me and Street Smart - two incredibly different performances to his performance in Shawshank. In the former, he's a boisterous loudmouth disciplinarian and in latter, he's a violent pimp. These go to show the mark of the man's incredible range.

Finally, I did find it unbelievable that Red's African American skin color was never actually considered in the film, given the racism of 1940s New England. However that idea soon vanished instantly as I became totally enthralled by Morgan's performance as Red.

What if Marlon Brando was in the 1974 adaptation of The Great Gatsby?

This is an interesting story, Robert Evans, who was involved with this production, sought Marlon Brando for the role. Although Marlon Brando was too old for the part, at 49, Evans wanted him in large part due to The Godfather & Last Tango In Paris reestablishing him as a box office star.

Incensed at his loss of income when he surrendered his profit participation points for $100,000 to Paramount before the release of The Godfather, Brando personally negotiated his deal, demanding an unprecedented salary reportedly as high as $4 million salary (I think for both Great Gatsby & Godfather II), frankly revealing that the high salary would recoup his losses from the sale of his points.

However, Gulf + Western CEO Charles Bludhorn, whose conglomerate owned Paramount, vetoed any such deal on the grounds that the two movies were separate entities. As a result, Brando turned down The Great Gatsby and also refused to appear in Godfather II, feeling he was being disrespected.

I think Brando would of been interesting, though too old, but I find interesting not doing this film actually resulted in him not doing his cameo in Godfather II. Ultimately, I think the film would of been the same as From what I read, the director, Jack Clayton, pretty much ignore the nuances of the script that was written. (Coppola wrote the script and everyone who read it thought it was brilliant, but Coppola said, "Not that the director paid any attention to it. The script that I wrote did not get made."

All in All, Do you wish Brando was in The 1974 adaptation of The Great Gatsby.

I would really want to see a well-made movie showcasing the events of the March 16, 1968 My Lai massacre and the actions of Hugh Thompson Jr., Lawrence Colburn, and Glenn Andreotta (the helicopter crew that stopped it).

Nautical ships have been named after states, Presidents, famous people, battles, cities, Native American tribes, rivers, animals, birds, gulfs, moutains, historical ships and stars.

Would not be surprised if they name a submarine after a great American film.

Now - let's get one thing straight. The US Navy would never name something that could be controversial.

Thus I believe "Pulp Fiction" and "The Godfather" with their themes in crime genres would be deemed inappropriate. "Taxi Driver" and "Silence of the Lambs" would certainly be deemed too dark.

Would USS "Forrest Gump" sound goofy?

(Don't forget, "Lawrence of Arabia" is a British film, which was about a British man. It's obvious foreign films should be discounted.)

Why, oh why, with all the remaking, re-hashing sequels to sequels and sequels are we not getting a remake of this masterpiece!!!???
Set in 2022 - a timely and vivid reminder to: never trust blindly imho.
(Yes, I know it's loosely based on the 1966 novel Make Room, Make Room by Harry Harrison)

Since it’s winter season now, I wanted to see what action movies were set in a cold or frigid environment as one kind of movie that I have been trying to picture is Die Hard, but in a very cold place.

However, if such a movie has already been made, please let me know, but for today’s topic, I just wanted to discuss movies where the main characters must survive in an extremely cold environment while dealing with not only the weather, but also the villains as it could make for a fun movie.

What movies have made you paranoid?

Been steadily building my own DVD/blu-ray collection as of late and now I’m come to adding Die Hard to the list, but I’m a bit torn on what to get. I have a choice of getting the 4K ultra HD version of Die Hard 1 for $21 or the blu-ray box set of all 5 Die Hard movies for $28 on Amazon.

I’ve only seen die hard 2 and 4 of all the sequels, but that was ages ago and I’ve kinda forgotten what they were like since, so I guess I wanna ask if it’s worth the extra $7 for 4 sequels that were nowhere as good as the first, but not truly awful either (aside from 5), or just stick with the first excellent movie. Sure it’s just $7, but I honestly can’t see myself wanting to watch the sequel more than once or twice either whereas I watch Die Hard 1 every year (especially around Christmas).

I guess it seems like an obvious answer based on what I’ve said, but I thought I’d ask anyway. Thanks for any input.

Watching Pedro Pascal in Gladiator II and The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent this week, I was struck by how he always understands the assignment: He gets the tone of the film, knows what the director is going for, how his character fits into it all and he is able to put together a performance that fits into all of that.

What other actors have this same talent, in your opinion? Another that came to mind for me was Nick Hoult.

I live in New England (half way between Boston and NYC). I am a middle aged cinefile with no spouse, no kids and no interest in films that are geared towards children. I know I'm obviously not the target demo of most films today, but I grew up going to the movie theater on a weekly basis. When I was a child, my parents took me to the movie theater to see movies they wanted to see, as a result I was exposed to movies that probably were not age-appropriate, but I don't feel that I was negatively influenced or traumatized by this. Quite the contrary, I think seeing films that were geared towards adults actually broadened my interest in the medium. And though I've moved around a lot in my life, films, filmmakers and the theater experience has been a constant presence.

Something terrible has happened in the past 15 years that I can't quite put my finger on, but I believe is culminating in this very moment. It's likely a number of factors, but mostly, I think streaming has made the theater a rarified experience which is contrary to my experience as a kid when the movies were working class/blue collar entertainment (I think this is why my parents so often took us to the movies - it was cheap entertainment to get us out of the house).

Despite the broad accessibility of film, it was also an "apex" cultural product. Television was seen as secondary to movies and advertising (commercials) was the lowest rung of all. I think this is best illustrated by an episode of Entourage where the main character goes to Japan to shoot a commercial because it wouldn't be seen by American audiences and thus remove the stigma of a movie actor being in a commercial. 

As the importance of film has diminished, the importance of the movie actor has diminished as well and now no one thinks twice about Sam Jackson appearing in a credit card commercial. Further, it seems like actors such as Ryan Reynolds aren't really "actors" at all anymore, but are instead "cultural figures" that appear in commercials AS the character in the high grossing films they act in. No one notices or cares, but I think this development has done something to erode the importance or quality of film acting and movies in general.

Much has been written and said about how MCU has taken over, or "colonized" the film experience for people such as myself. People have talked about how the MCU is the death of cinema but people have also talked about how the MCU has given new life to cinema, as well as expanded filmmaking to more people and created more jobs. But I do think there's something to franchise filmmaking that has sucked out a lot of the originality (or the drive for originality both in the people who are funding films as well as movie goers). It's been going on so long that there's now an entire generation of moviegoers who feel that the MCU and an "episodic" or "serial" format of movies (in which the plot is everything, hence, "no spoilers! no spoilers!") is simply what film is. But, like a soap opera on television, you can't just enter into it at any point. But at the end, what are you left with? Would you equate the entirety of the MCU with, say, the trilogy of The Godfather? Also, what does it say about the artistry of filmmakers that the franchise is very much greater than any individual and the directors are simply hired guns that are plugged in per project. Would the Godfather be the same if Coppola directed the first one, but someone else directed Godfather II and then a third director did three?

The MCU’s core narrative ended years ago, and we’ve been stuck in the franchise era long past its peak, and the fatigue is palpable, yet theaters still churn out sequels and reboots that feel devoid of fresh ideas and now, with the writers’ strike only recently resolved, the vacuum of originality is unavoidable.

Personally, this Thanksgiving underscored the problem (and is the reason for this post). I simply wanted to get out of the house after a turkey dinner and watch a movie like 2019's Knives Out - a smart, stylized mystery that isn't geared for 10 year olds, but the only films playing at the three theaters within 30 miles of me were sequels (Moana 2, Gladiator 2, Venom: The Last Dance), adaptations (Wicked), or franchise spin-offs (Red One). The only remotely interesting film, Heretic with Hugh Grant, had inconvenient showtimes and even Sean Baker’s *Anora (*which I was eager to see) came and went in just two weeks in the New England suburbs where I live.

This uniformity of offerings—sequels, adaptations, and redundant IP—is unprecedented in my experience. As a result, the theater has never felt so creatively barren, and it’s clear we’ve hit a bottom of sorts. The easy answers are gone, and if theaters are to survive, something fundamental needs to change. But what? 

I've been thinking a lot about what theaters could be, and what role they should serve in our society and it seems clear that theaters can no longer rely on blockbuster franchises to sustain their relevance. To survive, they must evolve into true cultural hubs, embracing a diversity of films, and multi-dimensional experiences that are specific to the communities they serve.

These are solutions that I've come up with:

1. While MoviePass introduced the idea of membership/subscription models, it doesn’t make much sense when the major theater chains are all showing the same 4-5 movies. To bring back the accessibility and relevance of the past, theaters must lower prices and expand what they offer. It’s as simple as that.
2. To justify a subscription model, major chain movie theaters should revive a “repertory” model which would offer curated screenings of classic, independent, and international films alongside new releases. Imagine a schedule where The Godfather plays one night, followed by a local filmmaker’s debut, and then a Studio Ghibli retrospective. Further, why couldn't the AMC theaters host discussions, Q&A sessions with filmmakers, live performances, or even lectures on film history that could transform theaters into vibrant centers of culture and learning?
3. Lastly, major chain theaters have done very little to offer “immersive” experiences beyond 3D films (which just feels like more or less the same experience since the 80s). A lot more can be done that could blend cinema with art and technology. For instance, pairing screenings with VR/AR exhibits or incorporating live elements into select films could reignite excitement for the big screen and motivate people to subscribe, as well as leave their homes.

In conclusion, movie theaters have the potential to be so much more than what they are now - further, I think they MUST be more than they are now if public viewing is to survive. But rather than simply "surviving", perhaps theaters should think about their roles in society as temples of art, culture, and connection rather than a place to see a movie before it goes to streaming.

Wicked-Ariana Grande

Before this the only things I'd seen Grande in was Don't Look Up and clips here and there of her Nickelodeon shows, mainly from reviews I saw of I'm Glad My Mom is Dead on YouTube (was a bit old for Nickeloden by the time her shows came out so never sat down for an entirety of Victorious or Sam and Cat)

She didn't really stand out to me in Don't Look Up and, from the clips I've seen of her Nickelodeon shows, her acting looks annoying but she also seems to have been saddled with an irritating character so not sure it's entirely on her (apologies to anyone here young enough to have grown up with her on Nickelodeon)

And her music isn't really my thing

But yeah she killed both the acting and singing in Wicked! I was impressed for a celebrity I...honestly just have not really thought much about before besides "Huh I'm Glad My Mom is Dead kind've paints her as being self absorbed" (Which might be why she was so good at playing Glinda)