The Lord of the rings trilogy are the only movies I can watch countless times. I got completely enchanted by everything these movies have to offer.

My wife have recently watched it after 30 years of her life and called it "The longest meaningless sh*t movie of her entire life".

After that something broke in me. Did I chose wrong?

Should I throw her in the mountain?

I recently rewatched Murder Mystery 2 (with Adam Sandler & Jennifer Anniston) with my girlfriend and we noticed something we found odd. I’ll try to explain it with as few direct spoilers as possible since it’s not really a question about the plot or characters, but there is one reveal that has to be mentioned.

For context, we’re not American & also kinda ditzy sometimes when it come’s to this sort of thing.

When the tension rises Audrey & Nick go back to their villa to regroup and decide they need to take some advil. (to my understanding, advil is just the brand name for ibuprofen in the US). Well, they end up taking around 5 each in one go and getting extremely groggy and passing out soon after. As soon as we saw them down 5 ibuprofen pills at once, our jaws dropped and so when they passed out we though “well yeah, you just took over two times the recommended dosage”.

But when they wake up, the next morning, they’re confused as to why they passed out and Audrey immediately believes they were drugged by someone, Nick doesn’t refute that they were drugged, but rather that it wasn’t worth paying attention to. we couldn’t believe that they didn’t know why they’d passed out seeing as we just watched them pop 5 painkillers like it was nothing.

we assumed they just didn’t realise how many they took but it was later revealed that they passed out because >!Audrey had accidentally given them 5 of Nick’s ‘ambien’ (whatever the fuck that is, i think sleeping pills?)!<. So NOT because they took what we thought to be an obscene amount of ibuprofen.

our question is: how many advil pills do americans usually take? was the five they took a normal amount? what are we missing here?

People often talk about how impressive it is whenever an actor known primarily for comedy performs well in dramas, and on the flip side, whenever a dramatic actor turns out to have a knack for comedy.

So, as a reverse of the thread from last year, are there any primarily dramatic actors who turned out be pretty bad at comedy?

Like many I refused to watch any movie beyond Tokyo Drift, or better said; acknowledge any other as a legitimate Fast and Furious film because the rest just didn't have that spark that the first three had. For many it's even just the first two.

Well, yesterday I was at my cousins house and he was jokingly asking me if I would watch Fast X with him, and since I've read that Momoa has been praised for his performance, and I love him as Dunkan Idaho, I said yeah let's watch it!

We went into it expecting it to be self aware. That it'll be over the top and that we'd enjoy it because of that. And that's exactly what it was. Oh my, it was like watching the Avengers drive cars and save people from all harm with freaking cars, and the ridiculousness just went higher and higher each minute that passed. We laughed our asses off and LOVED IT!!

The best thing about this film, however, is Jason Momoas character Dante. I've yet to see another such villain, honestly. His playfullness combined with seriousness and utter psychopathy and his delivery of it all is unmatched.

We loved his character so much that we went on to watch the film later again.

Best dumb, self aware movie we've seen in a while.

10/10 highly remommended!

Especially action films, I kinda like mysterious characters who are secret badasses, an example is the movie Sisu which if I remember correctly doesn’t say much at all and I have just finished watching The Beekeeper and Jason Stathams character doesn’t have many lines to say, just quietly going about his business, any other movies like this?

Maybe John Wick comes under this category as I feel Keanu Reeves has very few lines in those movies, although he is not a “secret badass” and pretty much everyone knows who he is and what he is capable of.

Paul is kind, empathetic, doesn't like to lead, a pacifist. Having seen fragments of his future, the Holy War, Paul resented that because it goes against his nature, welfare of Fremen. Consuming Shai-Huld's Water of Life, visions of past and future came full circle, he became cold, calculative, authoritarian as Lisan-Al-Gaib, stage leader of Holy War. I'm aware his ambition and vision is at high stakes, requires ruthlessness, and his role to become Kwisatz Haderac, the person he's now.

Paul embraced his role he once resented. He gave up his morals and values, became unrecognizable. I'm confused to root for Paul, his transformation feels betrayed and bittersweet. His character, loosing my expectation, expanding story his own way, bringing forth unpredictability and shock value. What is this character archetype?

This feels similar to Eren Yeager from Attack on Titan, seeing future, and becoming unrecognizable. It is implied in Dune 1, Paul will share same fate of Eren, from Chani, like Eren from Mikasa.

​

I have seen a few lifetime movies have this but they are rare.

An example being "The Girl Who Escaped: The Kara Robinson Story".

Does anybody know anymore?

I prefer horror/thriller type movies with a short runtime but I am open to all suggestions.

If you want to recomment any short thriller/horror movies in general that is fine too but ones that are really under the rader that most people probably have not seen hence why I am asking about TV movies because I have seen just about every Horror or Thriller there is lol

Recently, I find myself enjoong movies where the main character sort of narrates the events in the movie. These are some of my favorites:

Forest Gump Where the Crawdads Sing The Devil All The Time 1922 The Curious Case of Benjamim Button Brimstone

Not sure what genre or category these fall under, but could you recommend me similar mobies to watch? Looking forward to yur suggestions, tyia!

'Dancer in the Dark' (2000) by Lars von Trier is largely composed by the Icelandic singer Björk who also holds the lead role (also Sjón, Mark Bell and Lars von Trier have contributed to the songwriting). Lars von Trier has had a long career with several awards from well-established film festivals (including Cannes for this particular film), and can therefore be claimed to be one of the absolute greatest experimental European filmmakers still alive. Even Björk has reached the wider mass with her unconventional musical style relative to the rest of the pop sphere, on the other hand 'Dancer in the Dark' is her only contribution as an actor. Despite her lack of previous experience, she won Best Actress at the Cannes Film Festival for her role as Selma. However, the film has been a split subject among film critics and according to The Guardian (26/9 2000) the distribution company for the film promised that those who left the cinema disappointed would get their money back, as a reaction to harsh criticism.

The film belongs to the genres musical-film/melodrama and the musical numbers in the film differ from typical ones because they use machine and environmental sounds as the main percussive elements of the music, which bears some similarities to the genre 'musique concrete'. Björk's music has long taken inspiration from this genre and unconventional samples can be heard in a large part of her work (compare 'Vespertine' (2001) from the same period). The film's music is also released under the title 'Selmasongs' (2000) with extended versions of the songs and the album fits in well with Björk's other albums (apart from the duets contributed by, among others, Thom Yorke).

Although the film, in many respects, breaks the rules set by Lars von Trier and Thomas Vinterberg in their 'Dogme 95' manifesto (Vinterberg & Trier, 1995), it was intended as part of Lars von Trier's 'Dogme trilogy' (where 'Dancer in the Dark' is the last of the three in the series). The Dogme Manifesto proposes ten rules for filmmakers in what is called the 'pledge of chastity' and among the restrictions mentioned is, for example, a ban on the use of non-diegetic music and soundtracks in the post-production stage. 'Dancer in the Dark', on the other hand, does not follow this so-called vow of chastity to the full. Something that is worthy of note, however, is that no music in the film is actually non-diegetic (in contrast, meta-diegetic and diegetic). The reason why the use of non-diegetic music was banned is addressed by Vinterberg in an FAQ on the 'dogme 95' movement's website:

“... No props, no additional sound and so forth. The essence of Dogme95 is to challenge the conventional film language – in order to make authentic films, in search of the truth. This implicates cutting out the usual aesthetic means of adding sound” … “These unusual production circumstances, gives both restriction and freedom to the director, who is forced to be creative. You eliminate the possibility to “save” a horrible, not functioning scene with underlying music or voice-over. You have to come up with creative solutions to get, for example, music into your film.” Vinterberg, excerpt from www.dogme95.dk/faq/

'Dancer in the Dark' challenges traditional musical conventions and has been called post or anti-musical and its diegetic musical number's unromantic presentation can be seen as a comment against the transcendental use of musical numbers in Hollywood according to Heldt (2013, p. 162-170). Lars von Trier mentions in a behind-the-scenes interview that, instead of giving the musical numbers a transcendental function, they are used to bring out the beauty in "the small things in life" and that the meta-diegetic musical numbers is the main character's own art, like a movie within a movie. Such inversions of conventions and the expectations of the spectator could be considered more typical of European film tradition, as the film has an almost parodic (or even paradoxical) relationship to Hollywood musical conventions. As a by-product of this, it appears at first glance to be more "Hollywood", which is also obviously intentional, but upon closer analysis, postmodern aesthetic and dramaturgical choices that are more typical of European cinema are revealed.

‘Dogme 95’-manifest, http://www.dogme95.dk/

As Björk's impact on the film extends far beyond that of the composer alone, it is difficult to address this aspect of her relationship with the director in isolation. Therefore, their relationship with all her roles in the production is explained instead. This relationship has been the subject of extensive media scrutiny, not least in recent years when Björk accused Lars von Trier of sexual harassment. The accusations came to light in connection with the '#MeToo' movement, which received a lot of attention around 2017, and with this, Björk has shared her experiences with the Danish director in connection with the production of the film.

Even before 2017, the relationship between the two was known to be strained. In the book 'Lars von Trier - Life, film and phobias' (2013), Lars states that he spent 800,000 Danish kroner from the relatively tight production budget on canceling a filming day at the last minute as revenge against Björk after she called in sick herself for three days of the recording on the grounds that she did not feel like acting. They both threatened on numerous occasions to drop out of the production as a consequence of their relationship and their inability to let the other take the lead role in the production. In an interview (Polydor, 2000), Björk mentions that Lars was not accustomed to music demos and that he therefore stayed away from large parts of the songwriting, something Lars confirms in another interview (CloserTV, 2018) and adds that he had to "learn” to love the music he initially hated. Lars also states that he saw Björk as a "feeler" rather than an actor, and that she was therefore seriously psychologically affected by the emotionally heavy scenes in the film, as if she was the one who took the hit for Selma's feelings to appear on the screen. Lars, on the other hand, admits that he was very satisfied with Björk's performance for the role despite his great dissatisfaction with her as a colleague, which in turn was affected by their emotionally charged way of working.

The film's intro consists of images of impressionist paintings with abstract flower-like shapes to powerful music played by a brass and percussion section. Both the piece (which, for example, is the only one in the film that is not a musical number) and the moving images (which are abstract in comparison to the grimly social realist mood of the film's other scenes, apart from the musical numbers) stand out from the rest of the film. Its grand crescendos are reminiscent of music by John Williams. For example, the first interval, apart from the droning first note in the intro to this song by Björk called 'Overture', is the same two notes as in the theme track to Jurassic Park (1993). They both start with brass instruments, the 'Jurassic Park' theme uses a French horn while the 'Overture' seems to involve a trombone. The darker timbre of the instrumentation in 'Overture' adds to the anxious yet hopeful feeling which builds a strong foundation for the upcoming narrative.

The first acted scene in the film is one of the few scenes where pre-existing music is used, this time in the form of a repetition of 'The sound of music' (1965). Shortly thereafter, already existing music is used again, from a TV in Selma's neighbors' house. The way in which previously existing music is used in the film can, according to Heldt (2013, pp. 162-170), be seen as a comment against Hollywood's traditional use of the musical number as a transcendental tool. The references to already existing music are instead used as a comment on the distance between Selma's reality and the utopian vision that her favorite musicals offer, a world far beyond Selma's reality, something that she can only see on film. This contrasts with the meta-diegetic original music which clearly integrates with Selma's reality through the use of sounds from her actual world.

Selma admits to her colleague that she hears music from the machinery and the colleague therefore becomes worried about her health and performance at work. When Selma sits in a truck with another colleague (whose romantic proposal she rejects) after the work shift, the colleague questions the use of music in musicals. Selma does not object to this rejection of what gives her great joy as a struggling musical artist. These interactions paint Selma as an optimistic person who is not swayed by circumstances beyond her control, something that is also implied by her tenacious attitude towards her bleak reality, a reality that is literally music to her ears. Her relationship to music and sound is thus used as a metaphor for how she is as a person. Even though her sight is getting worse, she continues to go to the cinema to see musical films, which her colleague has to describe to her because she can't see. She continues with musical rehearsals even though she can barely see where her feet land (something she eventually gives up on as her vision affects her performance to the point where she worries about making the musical a fiasco). However, the resilience she maintains against her mishaps breaks when the weight is so heavy on her shoulders that she loses her anchoring in reality, which is expressed in the meta-diegetic musical numbers. Selma's deteriorating eyesight can be considered an allegory for her increasing obsession with sound and music. Her fantasy world, triggered by what she hears, is contrasted with reality, what she sees.

The first time pre-recorded music is used in the film is during the musical number that takes place in Selma's imagination as she daydreams away during a night shift at the factory. Only Selma hears the music in the machinery, which also constitutes the rhythmic elements that the song initially consists of. In the daydream, she dances with her colleagues and the intense fantasizing results in her failing in her responsibilities at work. She is fired when her boss comes to the conclusion that her eyesight is too great an obstacle, something Selma opposes and instead suggests that her failure was a consequence of her daydreaming. In the lyrics, there are onomatopoetic references to the sounds she hears, which can be interpreted as Selma finding security in her "sixth sense" rather than scorning it.

The next musical number begins on the train track where she is walking home from her last day at work after throwing her glasses in the stream and the line "What is there to see?" used here as a transition to the musical number entitled (and the answer to her question) 'I've Seen It All', a duet with colleague Jeff (Peter Stormare, sung by Thom Yorke) who tries to win Selma's heart. The line represents a turning point for Selma whose reality (what she sees) is rejected in favor of her imagination (what she hears). Machine sounds are also used here, although in this case from the train, also as the number's most rhythmic element. Björk has mentioned in an interview (Polydor, 2000) that the number is the central point of the film and that she wrote it as a love song, which it also sounds like, at least relative to other numbers from the film, even if it is an ambivalent and tragic one. Björk's soaring vocals add to the emotional feel and the instrumentation is romantically emphasized with string section and wind instruments. The male chorus at the end is notable as the only time non-existent characters appear in the musical numbers. When the scene comes to an end, it cuts to Selma who suddenly has her glasses back on, which suggests that this number also took place in her fantasy world.

In a fateful scene where Selma shoots her neighbor who stole the money she saved for her son's eye surgery, the next musical number titled 'Scatterheart' begins. Here, the connection between her subconscious and the role of music for her is drawn to its peak, as her co-stars (the neighbors and the son) participate in the number despite their actual physical absence (and in the neighbor's case even despite his death). The number is divided into two parts, the second part is triggered by the sound of a flagpole whose wires strike it, creating the sound similar to the ringing of bells, which can be considered a cultural reference to church bells (god, authority) and the coming judgment. As an extension of the reference and a connection to the visual, she looks up at the American flag that stretches far above her, something that can be considered a kind of comment on the country, the legal system and her destiny as an immigrant (the concept of 'the american dream' , her reason for coming to the other side of the Atlantic). According to Nils Thorsen (2013), Björk's moving performance on stage resulted in a "genuine panic disorder episode" in the singer.

The next scene with music occurs when Selma is at a rehearsal of the musical in which she is to participate and the conductor has received the news of Selma's crime. He takes advantage of her love of music to get her to stay until the police arrive. This completes the circle in her destructive relationship with music, which here finally becomes a direct cause of her arrest. The conductor offers an alternative to reality for Selma when he gives her a show "without end" (which Selma expressed that she herself prefers), which can be seen as an allegory for her ultimate fantasy, a utopia where she does not have to come face to face with her terrible fate. The scene culminates in yet another meta-diegetic musical number and thus Selma falls helplessly into the fantasy world when she herself participates in the musical number (as if she has regained her sight), which is also referenced in the lyrics:

“Why do I love it so much? What kind of magic is this? How come I can't help adore it? It's just another musical […] And you’re always there to catch me When I fall” Björk - ‘In the Musicals’ (2000)

In the track '107 steps', Selma is heard counting up once per bar, which is remarkable as the song runs at 60 (or 120) BPM, and a whispering voice counts once per second throughout the song. This can be seen as an allegory to her counting down her last minutes in freedom. It is also interesting that Björk chimes in with her singed vocals, which also repeat certain numbers sporadically, and that she sticks to 69 even though the underlying whisper has already passed the number. Whether this is a humorous reference or a comment on something concerning Selma's life (or just a mistake or an aesthetic choice) remains highly speculative.

In 'New World' some of the elements from the film's intro music are reused, here layered together with a percussive pulse with a dull sound and Björk's soaring vocals. The brass and string sections reach a huge climax and then end abruptly. Selma is later heard singing the song without background music at the end of the film. This reconnection can be seen as a way of giving the film a sense of coherence and suggests that Selma's fate has already been determined since the beginning of the film.

In summary, music's enormous importance for Selma's life permeates the film, and is not only used as a driving force for the action, her life, destiny, feelings and ambitions, music is also a mouthpiece for her subconscious. The refuge from reality she seeks through music makes it resemble an addiction, which ultimately leads to her downfall.

Some parallels can be drawn to Godard's 'Vivre sa vie' (1962), whose main character called Nana, like Selma, has an escapist relationship with the entertainment industry. What separates the two characters in this aspect is that Selma, instead of actually running away from her reality like Nana, turns inward and fights on as a humble factory worker for the sake of her son. She rejects her factory colleague's romantic advances, but in contrast to Nana's rejection of her working-class boyfriend, Selma's rejection comes because of the fact that she has no time to focus on anything but her responsibilities. The music, and the very implementation of it, comments on the class affiliation and escapism of the characters. Selma's music comes from her interior and is strongly influenced by her surroundings (meta-diegetic), which she transforms into a romanticization of her circumstances. In 'Vivre sa vie', the music of Jean Ferrat in episode 6 is used as a commentary on her life from the outside (non-diegetic) and de-romanticizes her life choices. According to Brown (1994, pp. 188-219), the music in 'Vivre sa vie' (1962) never really ends, a quality it shares with the swan song Selma sings in the film's final scene, brutally cut short by her hanging. This could potentially be a commentary on death and the inescapable silence that death entails, underscoring the tragedy of the innocent, tender and ultimately colorful Selma's death. Whether the song is meant to be meta-diegetic is unclear, as it contains no sounds other than Selma's voice (in clear contrast to the other meta-diegetic numbers), and as her surroundings show no clear signs of hearing her singing. Furthermore, the lyrics are reused from '107 steps', which distinguishes it from the diegetic music in the film, as it does not use music from an old musical. This can be seen as Selma in the last minutes of her life finally sharing her inner self, her art, as a substitute for her "last words".

I mean not the psychopaths like Hannibal Lecter. I mean characters whom we might find hard to identify their narcissistic behaviour. Characters who have more chance of blending into real people with ease. Characters like Louis Bloom from Nightcrawler or Amy from Gone Girl. But they necessary don't have to kill people or hurt them physically. It can be more of a mental burden to people around them without them not even realising it. To get a more clear idea, I'll put a link here.

https://www.mindtools.com/axtfdfb/dealing-with-manipulative-people

So that's it folks, if it reminds you of any characters, please comment down below. We can discuss.

Also, I'll suggest you a movie. It's a Malayalam movie called 'Dear friend' by Vineeth Kumar. Watch it if you time. It's on Netflix.

So two weeks ago, I had no idea this movie existed. But videos of people rocking and singing to weird replica babies started popping up all over my feed, so I decided to investigate further. Long story short, I bit the bullet and watched it yesterday.

I have no words to describe what I experienced last night. I want to say I liked it? Because I adore weird movies. But that's neither here nor there. My real question is why is this movie, made in the 70s from the looks of it, suddenly all over social media? Has anyone else noticed this?

Watched this movie once again that I kinda liked as a kid. The ending actually works for me. It's a kind of "you can't get all you want" ending that balances out the movie for me.

What bothered me throughout is just that anyone suspected of orchestrating those things from inside the prison would have been put on a continuous watch with the strictest orders.

I watched a film a few years ago that was very compelling and cannot find it again, I’m hoping someone here may know of it or where I can look.

It features a female voice narrating about their advanced race in the distant future who are descendants of humans, paired with almost monochrome stills of what I remember as old monuments of stone, or parts of large structures of concrete. The shot changes every few minutes maybe at the conclusion of a narrative passage.

It feels like something at would feature in an art gallery.

I’d love if someone knew it and could share the name.

Thanks.

I know the reviews are mixed for Regal (etc.) 4DX but my husband and I just got home from Ghostbusters: Frozen Empire and I gotta say… regardless, I haven’t laughed that hard in SO long. I was crying from laughing so hard. Yes, the simulations were a tad… violent haha, but the movie was chaotic af so we got a very full 4DX experience. Honestly, I highly recommend it for a movie like that where you’re not taking the plot too seriously. We got tickets last minute so we were fairly close to the front (3rd row @ Regal City North), but it was still a reasonable distance from the screen and I got a hilarious view the few times I peeked behind me to witness the majority of the theater thrashing around in their seats! It was absolutely ridiculous, but we had a great time. Hold on to your drinks! :)

After tonight I had a streak of passion to share this absurd experience with family and friends but noticed there’s no list of 4DX theaters so I went ahead and made one. Here’s what I found so far…

Enjoy! Please comment any missing locations.

Alabama

Alaska

1. Regal Tikahtnu (Anchorage)

Arizona

Arkansas

California

1. L.A. Live
2. Regal North Hollywood
3. Regal Fresno Riverpark (Fresno)
4. Regal Hacienda Crossings (Dublin)
5. Regal Edward’s Ontario Palace (Ontario)
6. Regal Stonestown Galleria (SF)
7. Regal Edwards Mira Mesa (SD)
8. Cinépolis Cinemas Vista Village (Vista)
9. Regal Irvine Spectrum (Irvine)
10. CGV Cinemas Buena Park (Buena Park)
11. Cinépolis Cinemas (Pico Rivera)
12. Regal Natomas Marketplace (Sacramento)
13. Regal Edwards Temecula

Colorado

1. Regal UA Denver Pavilions (Denver)

Connecticut

Delaware

Florida

1. Regal Pointe Orlando
2. Regal Waterford Lakes (Orange County)
3. Regal Naples (North Naples)
4. Regal Avenues (Jacksonville)
5. Regal Cinemas Dania Pointe (Dania Bach)
6. Regal Kendall Village (Kendale Lakes)

Georgia

1. Regal Atlantic Station (Atlanta)

Hawaii

1. Regal Dole Cannery (Honolulu)

Idaho

1. Regal Edwards Boise (Boise)

Illinois

1. Regal City North (Chicago)
2. Marcus Gurnee Mills Cinema (Gurnee)

Indiana

Iowa

Kansas

Kentucky

Louisiana

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Mississippi

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

Nevada:

1. Regal Red Rock (Las Vegas)

New Hampshire

New Jersey

New Mexico

New York

1. Regal Union Square (NYC)
2. Regal E-Walk (NYC)
3. Regal New Roc (New Rochelle)

North Carolina

1. Regal Beaver Creek (Apex)
2. Regal Stonecrest at Piper Glen (Charlotte)

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

1. Regal Warren Moore (Moore)

Oregon

Pennsylvania

1. Regal Warrington Crossing (Warrington)
2. Regal King of Prussia

Rhode Island

South Carolina

South Dakota

Tennessee

1. Regal Old Opry (Nashville)
2. Regal Hollywood (Nashville)
3. Regal Pinnacle (Knoxville)

Texas

1. Regal Gateway (Austin)

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

1. Regal Fox (Ashburn)
2. Regal Gallery Place (Washington, D.C.)

Washington

1. Regal Meridian (Seattle)

West Virginia

Wisconsin

Wyoming

I'm looking for movies which are all about camaraderie between friends.

There's something about so deeply special and indescribable about those kinds of friendships. Where you know how much you mean to each other but none of you ever say that out loud. You just know it.

I was wondering if you guys had recs about films like that.

Just guys at a time in their life where that one group just makes everything much more colorful.

Needn't be during the summer necessarily, but it helps.

Thanks

I've been a fan of his for awhile and have enjoyed every movie of his I've seen.

But I wonder if there are Denzel movies who people genuinely dislike?

Maybe its because I just have so much respect for Denzel that I refuse to critique any of his movies. But I would love to know if there's a Tier List or any kind of list which ranks Denzel Washington movies.

In yawls opinion, what do you think is the funniest line Jason Statham has ever said in any of his movies mine is when he was talking to Melissa McCarthy about Barack Obama in spy. I remember seeing that scene in the movie theater and laughing for like 20 minutes. I actually think Special Agent Ford is one of his more hilarious roles

Off the top of my head the Lord of the Rings and Dune series are examples. Two movie series based on detailed book franchises that have some much detail in them. Every time you watch them you pick up on more subtle detail that the director expertly crafted in. Another film that comes to mind is cloud atlas.

Any other movies people can think of?

When Jasmin goes to San Francisco to stay with her sister Ginger, we see that Ginger is living in a small run down apartment with 2 young children.

If Jasmin had been more generous by giving her sister money over the years, Ginger would have a much nicer house where Jasmin could stay.

If I had family and I was married to a millionaire, I would buy them a big house and car.

And by domesticated animals, I mean pets, mostly dogs and cats. Though I would think horses and many other farm animals would be up there too. But considering how much people love their pets, especially the ones I listed, do you think any act of violence towards these animals would turn of most audiences from ever watching them? Or continuing to watch them if it was sudden? I would think exploitative, sudden acts of violence, especially if they were played for comedy, would keep a lot of movie viewers away, possibly ensuring a film becoming a flop. Critics, depending on their tastes, might be another question entirely. But, if it was handled tastefully, and probably not in a graphic, gorey way, then I think most audiences would reconsider it. Like a villain killing a beloved pet, bringing the hero to tears as their cradle their beloved cat or dog after picking them up from a pool of blood, this serving as motivation for the hero. Just an example. EDIT: Fictional portrayals of violence. Not real animal cruelty.

I have a group of comfort movies that I watch over and over. They are so eclectic and diverse I feel slightly odd sharing these. But here goes.

Cedar Rapids | To Gillian on Her 37th Birthday | Captain America 2011 | Groundhog Day | Hawk The Slayer | Galaxy Quest | The Lord of the Rings 1978 Animated | Tron | Soldier | So I Married an Axe Murderer | If Lucy Fell | Kiki’s Delivery Service | Firefly Tv Series and Movie |

I know every word of these movies and continue to watch them. They have certain memories attached to them. I am stage IV cancer and am grateful to have such wonderful artists that have contributed to these movies.

What are some of your go to comfort movies? How many times have you watched them? Why are they special to you? :)

Man I can’t believe I forgot Bladerunner.

I'm trying to think of a movie that has a scene in an office between a bunch of men, they were either lawyers or executives, or ad people or something like that.

It's a long continuous take that follows them onto the elevator, stays with them while they're talking, the elevator doors open again, and they leave and turn in the opposite direction they entered the elevator from.

While they had been talking on the elevator, the set crew swapped decorations to make it look like a different floor when they got off.

I don't think it's at the beginning of the movie and I can't place any of the people in it. I originally thought it was The Firm, but I don't think that's it.

This is driving me nuts like an earworm.

1. End of Evangelion

2. Bladerunner

3. Prince of Egypt

4. Clockwork Orange

5. Atlantis the Lost Empire

6. Whiplash

7. Fight Club

8. Lion King

9. Dead Poet’s Society

10. Star Wars Episode 4 : A New Hope

​

Honorable Mentions:

1. Pulp Fiction
2. Drive
3. Aladdin 3 and the King of Thieves
4. Brother Bear

Also, do you have any recommendations for someone with this sort of list?

Oh my goodness where do I start?

So, this movie was recently added to Netflix. I decided to do a rewatch. Now as a 40 year old I see how toxic some of the characters are. I will list some examples that I did not pick up on many years ago.

1. Jane's Boss "George" - Years ago, he just faded into the background for me, but now that I'm older I see what a POS toxic boss this asshole was. First, other than taking advatage of Jane at work even to fetch his drycleaning, he pursues her sister without EVER asking Jane initially if she was comfortable with it. (boundary crossed). There was also a scene where George was making out with Tess on JANES's couch. Can you imagine your BOSS making out with a sibling in your apartment and no apologies are offered at any point? So many boundaries crossed personally and professionally.
2. Kevin - OMG. I can't stand this creep. The part that really makes me mad is when he gets his hands on her day planner. In 2008, I didn't realize how invasive this was. He wrote his name and number throughout the book and even removed a week's worth of plans before giving it back to her and harasses her relentlessly. This is not cute, and extremely disrespectful. So what she has a planner? It doesn't give him the right to mess with it. Personal space and privacy is a thing.
3. Tess - well this character was designed to be toxic. She uses Jane like everyone else in the movie to get what she wants. She's a spoiled brat but at least gets humbled in the end. Sure, George broke up with her but he's a fucking loser who can't tie his own tie or pick up dry cleaning.

Ok that's all I have for now. Thanks friends.

Richard Feynman is one of the most famous and celebrated physicists and educators of our time. He's someone with a large personality but the movie reduced him to a complete nothing character even while giving Teller, Lawrence, Tolman and all those guys distinct personalities and characters. What gives?

What are some good movies where a character proclaims "that's my wife!" with righteous fury or otherwise? I just want to watch a movie like this with my lady and say something cute during a scene like that, or maybe just watch a few movies in a row with scenes like that in it to subtly remind her that I will always put her before myself cause I love her n stuf.

If you can't think of a good movie for the above, feel free to participate by describing a meal you saw a character eat in a movie and see if someone can guess the movie.

Is this enough characters? Idk but I ain't counting. Hopefully the tag fits. If you're still reading this it's because you're incredibly good looking and intelligent, and you probably make people have a better day just by being yourself. Drink some water and moisturize your sexy face. Love ya

Hello! I hope this is the place for this sort of question. I recently watched the first Alien movie for the first time and I enjoyed it. My only other exposure to the Alien universe was Prometheus and I only watched it because a friend wanted me too around the time it came out.

That being said I just rewatched it because it was on Hulu and I had watched Alien last week. I understand its got its problems but I was hoping somebody could explain the origin of the xenomorphs themselves because I'm a bit confused.

I know the black goo on the engineer ship is a weapon but I don't understand how the xenomorphs originate from the goo. From my understanding it can fast forward evolution and mutate DNA. What I don't get is what were the original eel creatures that kill the two stranded crew members? Are those the first "ancestors" of xenomorphs that David worked from to create what we see in the original Alien movie? Were they the worms on the ground that got mutated? Did David use the proto face hugger that killed the engineer to work off of? Or did he just infect Shaw with the goo and worked off the results from that in Covenant? (I watched Covenant as well right after Prometheus)

I hope these aren't stupid questions but I'm new to the Alien lore. Prometheus and Covenant left me with as many questions as answers. As a fresh person to the franchise I cant pin down where the xenomorphs truly started. If one of the running themes is evolution and creations becoming the undoing of the creators Id like to understand exactly what they began from. Thanks in advance!

​

My roommates and I want to have a themed movie night. We missed St. Patrick's Day, so we want to watch something related to spring time and Spring.

Requirements:

1. No sad movies or movies with sad scenes! We could use a laugh, so let's avoid Steel Magnolias and the like.

2. I'd prefer to stick with movies from the 80s or newer.

3. We have access to TubiTV, Hulu, possibly Netflix, YouTube and Philo. We'd rather not have to pay for the movie.

4. No raunchiness, excessive sexual situations, or nudity. To each their own, but we just aren't looking for that kind of humor.

We are considering Groundhog Day. Any other suggestions?

TIA!

Thought this could be a fun way to see where people on this reddit are from lol. Any movie from your country is fine, any genre. Just pick whichever film is your favourite from your country or if you don't like it just mention it anyways lol.

I'll start it off...

An Cáilín Ciúin and Michael Collins ☘

You can copy this format or you can include your country flag as well as the movie of your choice if you like