Warning: Spoiler Alert.

I think this movie is underrated. First I want to say that in my opinion this movie is the best acting that Steve Carrel and Channing Tatum have ever did. They usually play same dumb characters in not very sophisticated comedy movies, but in this one they went for something completely different and the result is unexpectedly very good.

Steve Currel as a manipulative, powerful and abusive, sociopathic rich man named du Pont, and Tatum as a simple minded, trusting young man named Mark, that gradually becomes his victim, falling for his subtle psychological manipulations and sexual harassment.

In my opinion this movie manages to show how sexual predators operate, in slow, gradual, insidious ways, and the effects that they have on their victims, how their sense of self is gradually eroded, the feeling of helplessness, isolation and humiliation.

First du Pont establish a relationship of authority with Mark. He offers Mark a generous contract to come join his wrestling team, he takes care for Mark's needs, provide him a place to live in on his property. du Pont positions himself as some kind of coach and a mentor for Mark, and obviously as a very generous financial provider.

Du Pont gradually brings Mark's brother and his other wrestling friends to join the club and live on the property.

Gradually, using wrestling as disguise, du Pont starts to sexually harass Mark. Occasional fondling and groping during training, and late wrestling sessions of just two of them in the gym.

Du Pont gradually but steadily erodes Mark's sense of self, not just by sexual harassment acts, but also by psychological manipulations. Making Mark to constantly reaffirm his commitment to the club and to Du Pont personally in needless personal talks, interfering in all kind of small and trivial details of Mark's daily routine only to assert dominance and authority and just to make Mark comply.

You can see that Mark gradually becomes aware of what is going on, that he allowed himself to be drown in into Du Pont's trap. Mark feels completely helpless and isolated, too ashamed to speak out, and not knowing what to do. He feels guilty that he allowed Du Pont to take advantage of him like that, day after day, month after month. He can't even prove anything, Du Pont would simply deny any allegations. "It's just wrestling, it's all in his head"

And you see that even when Mark becomes aware of the situation, and despite being much more physically stronger, he still doesn't confront Du Pont, as the authority that Du Pont had established is still too strong to overcome. Instead Mark tries to avoid Du Pont as much as he can.

Mark starts to have rage attacks, he loses interest in wrestling, becomes secluded from other wrestling teammates, and eventually leaves the club.

The Foxcatcher reminds somewhat "Behind the Candelabra", only that in Foxcatcher the abuse and manipulations are much more explicit.

(Translated from French to English)

Those films are hard to find. I reviewed them because if I did not, who would?

Films viewed at the cinema library on May 15, 2024, in the Film Talks 2 series

Here are short reviews of seven of the eleven experimental short films screened at the cinematheque as part of the second part of Film Talks.

Leaving and Arriving par Lynn Loo (2017)

This film shows the departure and arrival of a train at the station filmed from inside a carriage. Arrival and departure share the same two-part screen. For the most part they are on screen simultaneously, but it also happens that the departure is shown independently of the arrival and the reverse is also true. In these cases, the other half of the screen is left blank. The originality of this film consists of superimposing part of the video showing the arrival and part of the video showing the departure in the center. This gives the impression that the train is stupid with two heads going in opposite directions. This creates an interesting setting to say the least, as two landscapes seen through the windows are both very similar and very different.

We can see this film as a late response to the Lumière brothers' film entitled The Arrival of a Train at La Ciotat Station . It's fascinating to see the progress we've made and such a simple event can still be a source of experimentation in the year 2020.

Available Light par William Raban (2016)

This film shows the reading of Capital by Karl Marx in accelerated fashion. The director chose to shoot only using natural winter light. An eccentric choice which presents a certain complexity because it makes reading the pages longer. But this choice remains in vain, because the film plays in fast motion and any feeling of difficulty or length evaporates. Reading a poorly lit page and a lit page seem equal. Besides, it seems a little pretentious to me to choose to film the reading of Capital if the difficulty of the subject of the book does not have more of an impact on the film. For example, we would have liked to see the reader go back to other pages, make annotations, highlight passages. None of this happens in the film and in my opinion it is a missed potential. For these reasons, the film does not seem to be of much interest.

Strontium by Malcolm Le Grice (2021)

With this film, the director decided to superimpose other less recognizable images on travel images, keeping only shades of blue and orange on the latter. The result of this experience gives the film a certain strength, there emerges an apocalyptic anxiety, perhaps even nostalgic, in seeing the first, so soft, images being covered and obscured by these tints of color. The feeling of anxiety can only be exacerbated by the soundtrack. Produced with the crashing sounds of a waterfall on rocks, it can be both gently nostalgic and terrifying when it evokes the radioactive fallout of an atomic explosion. This latter interpretation seems to be confirmed by the title of the work.

Intervals par Simon Payne (2023)

Stripes of primary colors of varying opacity intersect at different angles to form shapes, patterns, appearances of movement. This film is captivating. It seems impossible to distinguish the end of a finished movement and the beginning of another, as each image dissolves into the previous one. Thus the movements of the color bands blend into each other instead of ending. It's easy when watching this film to think of Norman McLaren's films, for example, Horizontal Lines and Vertical Lines . If now, making this type of film may seem easy, even programmable by computer, the fact remains that once again it has been proven that we can maintain the attention of an audience simply by playing with colors and tempos.

A State of Grace par John Smith (2019)

Thanks to its narration and editing, this film manages to construct a very simple story from images that we have all seen from the moment we read the safety instructions on a plane. By interpreting these images differently, by juxtaposing them in a judicious order, the director manages to make people laugh and reflect on anxiety. We read the safety instructions for an airplane, and we heard them from the pilot's mouth. They are familiar to us, but not to the narrator who takes a plane for the first time. With this film, the director manages to demonstrate the importance of editing and narration in cinema. Along the way, it also proves that experimental cinema can make people laugh.

Animal Studies par Guy Sherwin (1998-2023)

As the title suggests, this series of films is about animals. These play the main role in that no biological or taxonomic scenario or indication is given to their subjects. The camera just films their random movements and the material for the film is there. It is then somewhat modified. Some birds seem to dance with their shadows. Fireflies appear to trace lines of light against a starry background. The spiders seem to be performing a ritual. In short, with animals the filmmaker creates poetry. The films thus become much more than the simple study envisaged by the title.

The Oblique par Jayne Parker (2018)

Shots of magnolias to a soundtrack composed with a violin. The shots of magnolias and those with the violin alternate with each other. But, even when the violin is not on screen, we continue to hear its music making the pretty magnolia flowers even more moving. It is difficult to say if the magnolias are the illustration of the music played by the violin or if the violin is the voice of the magnolias. But, in any case, so much beauty cannot really leave the viewer indifferent.

So, I know that spice allows certain people to bend the laws of time and space. Does that explain how they managed to find Chani on the campus of Columbia University and bring her to Arrakis?

I know this is an alternate world and is actually in the future but we're dealing with a primitive desert society here and her anachronistic way of thinking takes me out of the movie. The second time I watched the movie, I felt palpable relief when they left Arrakis to get to Geidi Prime so we could escape the Paul/Chani story.

I had such high hopes for this movie but it was a big disappointment but I am going to watch it again this afternoon for the third time and I'm hoping I feel differently because the cinematography, score, and scale of the movie are top notch but I think DV made a big mistake by trying to make Chani the vessel through which the audience views Paul and his relationship with the Fremen.

For context, I’ve seen about every war/military movie under the sun. This is not a joke post.

I watched Starship Troopers last night for the first time in at least 15 years, and part of its success in holding up as a really really good satire is its depiction of the brutality of war.

Paul Verhoeven’s direction is excellent in building this fascist-propagandist world up to the point where by the time the soldiers are sent to Klendathu to kill some bugs, we the viewers are fully expecting them to kick some ass. But what Verhoeven does especially well in this sequence is showcase the FEAR and horror of the reality these soldiers have not yet been faced with. Everyone, from the starfleet to the ground soldiers have been misled to believe this will be an easy fight, but the bugs are far bigger in numbers and intelligence than anyone ever expected - leading to an absolutely horrifying bloodblath.

The sequence in question begins with a grandiose “Ride-of-the-Valkyrie’s” type action where these soldiers we’ve gotten to know since bootcamp are finally being sent off to war, and the viewer can absolutely feel this nervousness and sense of anxiety as the ships make their way down to the planet. Once on the planet, suddenly characters we know and were expecting to be larger parts of the story are being picked off in brutal fashion. That’s war. No one is a main character. Everything leading up to this moment makes this sudden carnage so shocking and almost heartbreaking, as we see the fear of these young soldiers as they realize they’re dead-meat.

This whole sequence is very effective to me, and even if this is a pseudo-comedy satire about giant bugs, I find it to be one of the most effective battle sequences I’ve ever seen.

What are ya’lls thoughts on this sequence, or in Starship Troopers in general? I find it to be an excellent film

Earth Days (2009)
Fog Line (1970)
Chasing Ice (2012)
An Inconvenient Truth (2006)
The Day After Tomorrow (2004)
The River Wild (1994)
Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)
Never Cry Wolf (1983)
Grizzly Man (2005)
March of the Penguins (2005)
Blackfish (2013)
Okja (2017)
Sleep Dealer (2008)
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)

Learned a lot of ecocritical theory, a life changing course, honestly. If anyone has any questions, would be happy to share any readings we did or the like. It made for a great lineup of movies.

General Discussion threads threads are meant for more casual chat; a place to break most of the frontpage rules. Feel free to ask for recommendations, lists, homework help; plug your site or video essay; discuss tv here, or any such thing.

There is no 180-character minimum for top-level comments in this thread.

Follow us on:

• Letterboxd
• Twitter

The sidebar has a wealth of information, including the subreddit rules, our killer wiki, all of our projects... If you're on a mobile app, click the "(i)" button on our frontpage.

Sincerely,

David

Firstly, those fucking frames DAMN, VOT ZE FOOK be Kurosawa and Nakai smoking to come up with those orgasmic shots.

And Secondly I had a doubt I wanted to solve. Is the prophecy real ? Because I don't think it is, because the spider's web castle at the end is destroyed and is not ruled by Miki's son. So dosen't that clarify that free will was always there and the movie becomes a warning against blindly following prophecies.

IK it is an adaptation of Macbeth but I have not read or watched any other adaption of it or the original, That is why I had this question.

And also yes this was my first Kurosawa film.

A quick thought on Challengers that I haven't quite seen voiced quite this way yet:

So the whole movie is this psychosexual drama between Tashi, Patrick, and Art, and their desire for each other that keeps drawing them towards this toxic, complicated mess of a threesome. Clearly Tashi never got over her career-ending injury, and so constantly strives to live vicariously through Art and/or Patrick; and Patrick, having lost Tashi to Art, lives in a limbo state of self-imposed destitution as he pines for both his woman and his best friend. So at the beginning of the movie, both Tashi and Patrick are profoundly unsatisfied with their lives.

But Art, at this point, has lost his drive for tennis - both the sport and what the sport represents. He's old and tired and just wants to rest on his laurels and raise his daughter. Which Tashi and Patrick both seem to see as an indication that he's "already dead" on the inside, but for any normal person, this would seem very healthy and reasonable! Art's already had a very successful career, and as he says himself, it's pathetic for him to still try to cling onto the glory of his youth into his 40's. Sports are a young man's game, and it's fine to want to move onto the next stage of his life.

Art, like Tashi and Patrick, is not particularly happy in 2019. But it's not because he's lost his drive for tennis, not directly - it's because he loves Tashi, and Tashi resents him for losing his drive, and it's painfully obvious. When Tashi comes back to the hotel after his affair with Patrick near the end of the film, she catches a glimpse of Art sleeping in their daughter's room; were it not for Tashi, this is the life he'd really want.

So when the film ends with Art embracing Patrick, having been ironically reinvigorated by Patrick and Tashi's infidelity, it's not a triumph. For Tashi and Patrick, this game - this back and forth of constant conflict and tension - is the only thing that will ever make them happy. Art, though, could've been perfectly content with a simpler, calmer, less aggressive life; the tragedy is not that he'd lost his love for tennis, but that there was still enough left in him that he let himself get dragged right back into the mess he thought he'd left behind.

After watching a good and thoughtful film, I enjoy doing some reading, thinking, and writing about it. The 1998 film The Truman Show (directed by Peter Weir) is the kind of film that I found myself watching twice in succession, and I've watched it several times since, because it is so intriguing. But is it a spiritual allegory, or is it just a good story, or perhaps something else?

This movie narrates the life of Truman Banks (Jim Carrey), who is unaware that his entire life on the island of Seahaven is completely constructed by a TV crew, and is part of a constantly running reality television program called The Truman Show, watched by millions 24/7 world-wide. But when Truman comes to realize that something is strange about his world, he makes plans to escape his artificially manipulated universe.

The premise is a clever one, and the film succeeds on the level of story alone. But what's particularly of interest to me are the profound philosophical and religious questions that the movie seems to ask. It raises age-old philosophical questions common in the field of epistemology, concerning what we can know about reality e.g. could I be deceived about what my senses and experiences are telling me about reality? But it also appears to explore many deep religious questions by means of allusions to Christian themes. Consider how the TV producer Christof (= Christ of) is the "creator" of Truman (= True Man), and functions as a god who controls his world.

This symbolism seems too strong to ignore. As a result there is considerable debate about the worldview behind the film, and whether it is intended to portray an atheistic or Christian worldview. I've found that reviewers who pick up on the Christian symbolism typically fall into one of two camps which come to opposite conclusions about the point of the film:

1. Those who see it as a secular film, by portraying the Christian God as a cruel and harsh dictator who operates a deterministic universe from which we need to escape by rejecting God. According to this view, Truman's liberation is a depiction of the Fall, and promotes an atheistic lifestyle of rebellion against the Creator and an escape from Eden. Others have tried to be more charitable by interpreting it in line with Calvinistic theology, suggesting that the film depicts the tragedy rather than the triumph of sin, but this is implausible in view of how the Creator is portrayed negatively and how the final liberation is presented so positively.
2. Those who see it as a criticism of secularism, by suggesting that Satan creates an artificial world for us, from which we need to escape by converting to the truth. According to this view, Truman's liberation promotes the need to escape the deception of Satan (the anti-Christ), and exchange it for a life lived in service to the true God. Some have even seen it as giving a positive message about Christianity, for if Seahaven represents an illusionary man-made Paradise, then Truman's decision to leave this old world behind is symbolic of a conversion experience, and he represents a Christ-like figure who models the way of salvation.

The first view interprets The Truman Show as a story of the Fall, where Christoff symbolizes the true God, and Sylvia (who encourages Truman to escape his "world") is a serpent-tempter figure that brings rebellion. The second view interprets The Truman Show as a story of Redemption, where Christoff symbolizes an anti-Christ, and Sylvia is an intercessor that brings freedom in contrast to the Judas figure Marlon. Proponents of both views have engaged in considerable debate over these two interpretations, the former which sees the Truman Show as a secular existentialist film, the latter which sees it as a pro-Christian film.

Certainly the rich symbolism in the film lends itself to an interpretation which gives the Christological imagery throughout the film a more important meaning than mere allusion. But neither of the above explanations is entirely satisfactory or consistent. Because how can Truman be a rebel who rejects God, and at the same time a Christ-like figure (he is depicted as crucified in the boat, and at the end walks on water and ascends into a stairway of heaven)? And how can Christoff be representative of a deterministic creator, and at the same time an anti-Christ? A consistent allegorical interpretation fails in its application, and should already be a hint that one is not intended.

Personally I think that the best solution is one which is neither overly critical nor overly charitable with respect to the Biblical imagery. Instead it is better to see the imagery as subordinate to other themes about the media and television.

Director Peter Weir has gone on record in more than one interview that the film is about television. Weir is of this conviction: "My attitude to television, personally, is too much of it is a bad thing." According to Weir: "And that's really at the heart of what the film looks at in a major way - this disturbance to our perception of reality, as a result of the immense entertainment and actuality coming at us, to the point where you can't differentiate anymore. News programs that are entertaining; video everywhere." Given Weir's remarks, I believe that the Truman Show is essentially a sharp criticism of the dangers of a false reality cultivated by the media, and a warning against losing our sense of reality.

Clearly Weir has chosen to portray the director Christoff as a creator figure very deliberately. But he does not use this image to push a religious agenda, but to give a social commentary about problems created by the modern media, which blurs the lines between appearance and reality.

In that regard, his analysis of television speaks to our time: to what extent is our perception of the world the result of manipulation by the media? And do we need to be liberated from the artificial reality of a TV world and return to the real world? I see this explanation as more plausible than one which sees the film as a simple spiritual allegory, or which interprets it as an indictment on reality television. It's also worth noting that the release of the movie predates much of the contemporary fascination with reality TV shows.

In short, I don't think the Truman Show is defending an atheist worldview or a Christian one. Instead it is merely employing Biblical themes and allusions as servants to its real theme and social commentary about the media and television. It has to be conceded that both Christoff's and Truman's characters have clear Christological symbolism. But the film is ambiguous about which of the two is to be identified as the Christ figure simply because it doesn't want us making a choice between them. Although the religious symbolism is too strong to ignore, in the end it is subordinate to the more central theme about the role of television and media in our culture, and is a means to an end rather than an end in itself.

So in my view, it's a mistake to see the film either as an attack on Christianity, or as a tool for Christian evangelism. That's not to say that the film doesn't raise interesting parallels on a religious levels, because it can spark interesting discussions about how a creator might watch over humanity, or how a Satan figure might deceive.

Ironically, the Truman Show has created its own deception: while appearances suggest it is a spiritual allegory, a closer look reveals that this perception is merely an illusion. It's first and foremost just a good story. But at the same time it is using spiritual imagery to raise important questions about the use of TV and the media.

I have never experienced a film quite like this. I remember my first time watching it and completely breaking down (I watched it on a flight). I rewatched it again and was filled with intense passion. It truly is an ineffable feeling. Does anyone know of something similar to this? I love Duras and the French new wave. Eric Rohmer comes close, and Alain Resnais. But for some reason it’s this film that always gets me!

I've seen 2 Tarkovsky films so far. I watched ivans childhood first but my friend called half way through and I was half paying attention to it, so i watched it again and didn't have any better understanding of it. I also watched Stalker which I do want to come back to in the future but at the moment it was not my thing, I was into it for the first hour but then i was just forcing myself through it. i want to check out Andrei rublev because the desc seems interesting. I know yall can't read my mind but if I wasn't a fan of ivans childhood and stalker should I wait on Andrei Rublev or give it a try?

When I hear or read about a film that's relatively obscure, it's a struggle to find it to watch. When I say obscure, I mean films in the vein of Love Exposure, 964 Pinocchio, Throw Away Your Books Rally in the Streets etc.

(I chose the above examples knowing they're relatively "popular" examples of arthouse. But they would be obscure for most mainstream viewers, and probably the first titles to come across for someone who's getting into more obscure variety of arthouse films. I just mention them to make clear what I mean by obscure arthouse film. In fact, they're all available on Internet Archive.)

Criterion Collection and MUBI are probably the most formal places to find and watch arthouse films. But they don't always have really obscure ones.

Internet Archive have many films, some obscure ones too, but really deep dive types seem to be absent or sometimes in broken files.

Torrenting sometimes helps, but even when you find the torrent link for an obscure film, the seeders are so few that it's unable to complete the download.

Not to mention that most of these kind of films have never had DVD releases, or at least are not available anymore.

So where do you find truly obscure films that you hear about on Letterboxd, blogs, magazines or from someone, when they're unavailable in the above mentioned sources?

Do you have go-to places (websites, forums?) for films that have a few hundred or thousand logs on LB or IMDb at most, and only a few reviews if any? How do people who write about them online find and watch them?

Here are some films that I wanted to see recently but couldn't find to exemplify what I mean by really obscure: A New Life (2002, Grandrieux), Timeless Bottomless Bad Movie (1997, Sun-woo)**, Injured College Girl (1995, Slocombe).

**: This is on Internet Archive but the file was broken when I last checked. 

PS: Maybe these are all not that hard to find and I'm just bad at searching for films. Guide me if you think so, I wanna know how to look for obscure titles.

In 1968 Peter Bogdanovich released his excellent debut feature Targets, in the early 70s he would follow it up with a remarkable run of The Last Picture Show - What's Up Doc - Paper Moon. A run that would rightfully earn him acclaim and earn him his place among New Hollywood's celebrated directors (even if not among the upper echelon with Scorsese, Coppola etc.) However almost every discussion of Bogdanovich (when there is any) pretty much starts and ends with these 4 films.

The general consensus on why that is would be that his following films simply lacked the quality of his first 4. While I think this is somewhat true to an extent, I don't think it's entirely fair.

It's not surprising given that Daisy Miller is a fairly left-field turn from what he had been doing previously, but what it lacks in comedy or even 'heart' it makes up for with it's stunning cinematography, it might be his best looking film, and the blocking and set-up of shots is on a different level than what Bog is usually doing imo (not to say his other films are lacklustre in that department, but DM is so strong) and the long takes really serve both our central characters

I don't want to go deep on all his movies in this post (and I haven't yet seen his post-They All Laughed work outside of Noises Off) but there is a lot to love if you have an open mine. At Long Last Love is a lot of fun, even if not everyone can sing super well. Noises Off would be the funniest film in any director's filmography and the only reason it's not for Bogdanovich is because he also made What's Up Doc, and Saint Jack and They All Laughed are shot by Robby Muller which should be enough by itself to make you watch it.

I've had a lot of fun exploring Bogdanovich's filmography recently (and revisiting The Last Picture Show which falling in love with it) and think he and his films deserve to be further discussed. This is a hot take, but for me Bogdanovich's 70s are as good as Coppola's.

There's a Tarantino interview where he talks about using a song so perfectly in a film that the song is permanently linked in people's imaginations to the way it was used in the film:

"When you do it right and you hit it right then the effect is you can never really hear this song again without thinking about that image from the movie. I don’t know if Gerry Rafferty necessarily appreciated the connotations that I brought to ‘Stuck in the Middle with You’ there is a good chance he didn’t.”

The same can be said for iconic locations. I was watching the new Fallout T.V. show and a key scene takes place at Griffith Observatory. It's an iconic landmark for Los Angeles in its own right but seeing it (especially seeing it represented in media) immediately makes me think of Rebel Without a Cause. Even going to visit Griffith Observatory in person gives me a sort of nostalgia for a time in my life that never existed.

I was wondering what some other examples of this are and I think Rebel Without a Cause is kind of a special case. There are movies like North by Northwest or Planet of the Apes that use the gravitas of the location to heighten the emotion of a pivotal scene and build a sensational action sequence or shocking twist. But Rebel Without a Cause, at least for me, created associations with a place that I never otherwise would have cared about (not being from Los Angeles). It holds a place in my mental landscape, has a sort of gravitas of the imagination that is completely linked to the tone of the film.

I can't quite think of another film that does this so well but would love to hear some ideas. Especially films that, like Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs example, brought connotations that seem to contradict what the place might otherwise represent.

I'd also be interested for those that agree about the uniqueness of Rebel Without a Cause, about how you think Nicholas Ray accomplished this. Was it just a perfect pairing of tone-story-location? Is it the particular way the location appears in the film (e.g. the compositions and editing)? Is the atmosphere of the film so thick that it just attached itself to the location itself? Is there something about the symbolism of observing the universe in a giant but sort of isolated monolith somehow linked to the film? Or to James Dean?

I first watched 2001 : A Space Odyssey in 2019 and when I first watched it, I really wasn't a fan. I had come in expecting this big epic space fantasy movie with a lot of action and drama. I had seen Hal's death scene before when I was younger and enjoyed that. It made me excited for the movie even though it ended up failing to meet my expecations. I was 23. I didn't really have a large knowledge of classic film outside of blockbusters at the time. And this was so much unlike them.

When I revisited the movie in 2022, when I was 26, I did so with a better understanding of how to not come into a movie with expectations of what it should be and just trying to understand and enjoy it for what it is was. And I understood it a little more. Especially because I was watching in 4k on an OLED TV. Visually it was stunning, very hypnotic and with some shots with a very epic scope in feeling.

But I still just that it was just okay. I thought that despite being beautiful the very sparse story and very slow pacing still made it a movie I was just iffy on. But it was one of those movies that I was iffy on but still saw something spark that most don't. It was the type of movie I wanted to understand more, even if to just see why it wasn't clicking to me.

Then I got to see the movie in a theatre last summer. I had fallen in love with Kubrick as a director through watching The Shining, Fullmetal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut, The Killing, and Barry Lyndon and I was now ready to finally give it another shot and understand why this movie people love so much by this director I clearly adore was so great.

So there I was watching it in 70mm and it finally clicked to me. It was wonderful. I finally understood how the visuals entranced you in another world. I finally understood why Dave's breathing was the soundtrack of a large portion of the second half because it made me feel like I was THERE with him. I didn't feel like I was watching space. I felt like I was in space. The movie and what it was trying to accomplish finally clicked for me.

Movies are supposed to transport you to another place and make you feel as though you live there during your time with it. I never felt that more than with 2001 in theatres.

I left the theatre with my friend and we were both in love with what we saw. He was already a fan of the movie but he had a deeper appreciation for it. And I now understood the movie Kubrick was trying to make.

It's just crazy how much watching a movie in a different environment can change it for you. It's why I always try to see classics in theatres when I can.

Loved the film, especially the ending. It felt like I watched a 2 hour set up for a singular gag. So good! I think Guadagnino was hinting at it through out the movie, but that absurd ending really cemented to me that it was an entirely non-literal, parabalistic tale.

So, to me, the film is all about Tashi. Her internal struggle is represented by the final tennis match that anchors the plot. Even the poster, mirroring similar shots from the movie, shows her in the crowd, with sunglasses, one lens reflecting Art, and the other reflecting Patrick, as if we have a window into her mind.

Given that, the film seems to be suggesting that Tashi has tapped into her inner masculinity to be a ruthlessly competitive and successful athlete. When she first meets Art and Patrick, her initial impulse is to further their bond rather than cause a rift, stating that she doesn't want to be a home-wrecker and tricking them both into kissing each other. Ultimately, their fawning, and her dog-eat-dog nature, compels her to set up a game where they compete for her. It's no coincidence that immediately after her career ending injury, Art and Patrick's friendship is broken.

Tashi has caused a rift between the Ying and Yang of her masculinity. By choosing the compliant, dependant, insecure soft boy in Art, she finds material success, but very little in the way of true happiness, as their relationship presents as dispassionate. Her signing Art up to the Challengers tournament is not so she can see Patrick, but so Art and Patrick can be together again. Just like she tricked them into kissing each other, she is again tricking them into being one again. As the final tennis match becomes more and more intense they eventually cross over into what Tashi calls real tennis, where they are in compete lock step with one another. It is at this point that they transcend the game of tennis and hug, becoming one and making Tashi whole, to which she exclaims "Come on!".

So for me the film operates as a satire of American capitalism from a female perspective. It asks the question, "what is required to be successful as a women in such a context?". The bifurcated timeline resembles how the mind, in a time of crisis, can jump around, tangentially searching for an explanation of how you got here. The tennis ball/racket POV camera shots simulate the chaos of an internal crisis. I've heard it said that the tennis matches stand in for sex, but I'm not totally sure about that. To me the film is intentionally hyper-sexualised, but ultimately sexless, and this is Guadagnino commenting on how American culture is at once commercially hyper-sexualised, but ultimately sexually repressed. Brands, and their products, including a very desirable looking Dunkin' Donuts' bacon and egg bagel, are ever present throughout reinforcing the materialism of the American experience. For most of the film it seemed to be saying, if you want to be successful in America, you must tap into you inner masculinity and sideline your femininity, as represented by the peripheral mother and daughter characters. With the ending though, perhaps we can infer the film is saying that we must abandon ultra-competitive systems and rise above materialism to become fully realised human beings. The world wants you to play tennis and compete, but the only way to true completeness is to abandon the game, hug it out and let your inner masculinity find balance.

Thats the broadest reading I had of the film that maybe explains the ending, maybe not. What does everyone else think about this reading or that ending or the movie in general?

"Ad Astra" is one of those few movies with high Rewatch Value. One of the many reasons is the tremendous investment in detail by their production staff. Movies like 2001 and Bladerunner did the same, with many examples of detail that added to movie but became readable text only decades later, adding to the appreciation of both films. I’ve noticed what appears to be Norwegian speech and text in “Ad Astra” but haven’t found anything clarifying in closed captions or online scripts to verify and translate. Hopefully, reddit and some Norwegian speakers can confirm or rule it out. This is the scene. The crew of the Cepheus are on their way to Mars and receive a mayday call from the Norwegian vessel Vesta IX.  Major Roy McBride and Captain Lawrence Tanner board the Vesta IX to investigate. Captain Tanner is attacked by a research baboon rendering his spacesuit damaged and he unconscious. Roy shoots the baboon and retreats with Captain Tanner to relative safety in a adjoining compartment, closing the door just before a second baboon reaches them. Roy hastily attempts to patch up Captain Tanner’s spacesuit and radios the Cepheus saying: “Attempting extraction now". The second baboon jiggles the door handle and is still a threat. Strenuously, Roy opens a valve next to the door whose label has two words. The first is readable: "Lukkende" - Norwegian for "Closing". QUESTION1: What is the (apparent 3 letter) word or acronym which follows it?  After Roy presses the red button and vents the baboon's atmosphere, an automated ship message says something whose phonetic English equivalent is "syncho blasting avenue peda". QUESTION2: Can any Norwegian speakers translate it or rule it out? Thanks for helping with these questions.  

I recently came across an article by David Bordwell where he defended the Lady in the Water.

As a thriller, it fails; the scrunts are scary, but that stems largely from the spikes on the soundtrack. It was bold of Shyamalan to confine the film to the apartment complex, creating a closed milieu consisting of fairy-tale types, but often they come across as forced (most notably, the film critic Farber). And it’s easy to hate a movie that has its characters omit contractions: “I do not understand.” “Where is the justice?”

For all that, the film displays stylistic ambitions that we almost never see on American screens. Critics have made fun of the plot’s clumsiness, but as usual, they’re oblivious to anything about visual texture that isn’t in the press release. (Who would have commented on the look of Miami Vice if the publicity hadn’t spotlighted its cutting-edge HD technique?) It’s a pity that Bamberger’s book doesn’t go into such matters either, but as a sportswriter at least he has an excuse.

So let me point out that Lady in the Water is rather daringly directed. Shyamalan is a genuine filmmaker; he thinks in shots. Unlike the filmmakers who believe in interrupting every shot by another one, Shyamalan tries for a natural curve of interest as the image unfolds to its point of maximal interest. In this film, his characteristic longish takes—on average, twelve seconds—are allied to his most oblique visual design yet. The first dozen minutes are engagingly elliptical, quite unlike anything in normal American cinema. The partial framings, offscreen characters, incomplete shot/ reverse-shots, to-camera address, and teasing layers of focus throughout the film echo late Godard and create a pervasive unease reminiscent of the domestic passages in Unbreakable (for me, the director’s best film). In his commentary on deleted scenes in the DVD version of The Village, Shyamalan explains that a shot that decapitated Bryce Howard was too “aggressive” for the naturalistic tone he wanted, but Lady makes fragmentary framings, often sustained for many seconds, more prominent. Some compositions, especially that showing the Smokers and others split up by the shower curtains in Cleveland’s bathroom, are quite inventive.

If Lady in the Water had been made by an obscure East European director, reviewers might have praised it as magical realism and tolerated its fuzzy message of multicultural hope. (The constant playing of TV battle footage from Iraq would doubtless have earned points too.) It was Shyamalan’s misfortune to make a somewhat goofy fantasy at a moment when critics were poised to puncture his reputation. Let’s remember, though, that many respected directors have spawned “personal” projects that come off looking strained, eccentric, even suicidal. Brewster McCloud, New YorkNew York, 1941, and Radioland Murders all come to mind. I hope that once the chatter fades away, people will appreciate the virtues of Bamberger’s book and of Shyamalan’s film.

This got me to look into what some big name critics and was surprised to find so many big name defenders. The funniest thing I've found is that he's made the Cahiers du cinema annual top 10 list thrice. Same number as PTA, Bong Joon Ho, and Lars Von Trier and 1 more than Wes Anderson, Justine Triet and Tim Burton.

I'm not a fan of Shyamalan. My opinion is similar to most people here (Unbreakable, Signs and The Sixth Sense good but iffy on the rest of his filmmography). But it's interesting to see how these critics view him(even wheb they critique him they seem to praise his compositions and editing) and the popular perception of him as a filmmaker on the internet(Hacky Twist guy) fuelled by people like Nostalgia critic and RLM.

Thoughts?

Sorry if my thoughts are a little disorganized, haven't had the time to editorialize.

The obvious direction to go after the Caesar trilogy would've been to make the movie about how the apes are now oppressing humans and then one lone ape realises humans have feelings too and so the ape teams u p with a human and together they take down the tyrannical monkey oppressing the humans and they live happily ever after (much like the marky mark tim burton remake). 

Instead of taking the obvious route though, this movie went in a more interesting direction exploring questions like, "What is knowledge and what is the relationship between civilisations and knowledge?"

At present, humans, at one time the dominant species due to their intellect, are living in squalor and are unable to cope with their new reality. On the other hand, apes, who know so little in comparison that they don't even know their own history, are thriving.

So the movie asks, what is the point of knowing shit if you cannot apply the shit you know to do stuff? There's a really great scene that illustrates this idea. After proximus captures Noah and reunites him with his clan, his mother says that the eagle clan is gone but Noah replies that the eagle clan lives inside them, meaning, they still have the knowledge of how to domesticate eagles. Then his mother replies, "we're here" and says that proximus has no use for eagles, implying that they are not what makes eagle clan, it's their knowledge base and since their knowledge is worthless in proximus' kingdom, the eagle clan is still gone despite many members of clan surviving. 

This conversation pays off in the climactic fight with proximus. The eagle clan, who were defeated and had their spirits broken, had a new fire light inside them when Noah demonstrated infront of everyone that their knowledge is still useful when Noah uses the eagles to defeat the proximus.

However, the movie also explores how civilizations cannot grow without learning through Noah's arc (no pun intended) and his relationship with his clan, Rakka and Proximus. Noah comes from a culture of ignorance where whatever the elders say goes without question. They know little to nothing about anything outside their little community and anything about their past. 

He then meets Rakka and Proximus and unlike him and his clan, both these apes have a lust for knowledge. Their curiosity and how they interpret and use the knowledge they acquire is what makes Noah realise the folly of ignorance and reconsider the ways of his clan. This leads to him embarking on a journey of enlightenment at the end of the movie.

The human woman character, Maya turned out to be far more interesting than I had thought she would be based on the trailer. She also contributes to Noah's arc by showing him the perspective of humans who had vast knowledge that they used to be the dominant species but now that their civilization has collapsed, they are at the bottom of the totem pole because none of their skills are relevant in the world their currently in. 

She and the other humans who were not affected by the simian flu represent the relationship between knowledge and power. Proximus wants more power by using Human's vast knowledge but Maya won't let him. She would rather destroy the last remnants of her civilization that allow what she considers an enemy to have it. 

One way to look at her relationship with Noah is that they are two opposites sides of a coin. While noah represents the vast potential that lies ahead of him in his journey to learn all the things he doesn't know, she represents the inadequacy of knowing too much and not being able to do anything with that knowledge.

A really great scene illustrating this dynamic was early on when Noah looked through the telescope for the first time. He is amazed by what he sees and he notices that when Maya looks through the telescope she also has a reaction. He later tells Rakka that maya reacted the way an ape would, meaning he realises she's not a low iq animal like the other "echos" they've previously encountered. At the time, Noah's interpretation of Maya's reaction seems true because we don't know the extent to her sentience. However, as we learn more about her, it becomes clear that her reaction was completely different.

When Noah looks through the telescope, it is the first step in his journey to realising the extent of his ignorance which eventually leads to him deciding to take the journey of enlightenment at the end of the movie. For Maya on the other hand, it severs as a sobering reminder of how far humankind has fallen. Once, human's capacity for knowledge was so great and they curiosity so unbound that they had to look to the cosmos to satisfy it. Now, all that vast amounts of information means nothing.

Anyway, great movie. Hope this does well at the box office so we see the whole trilogy because the set up is really compelling. Word of mouth unfortunately doesn't seem to too great but fingers crossed.

Please don't downvote opinions. Only downvote comments that don't contribute anything. Check out the WHYBW archives.

RIP to a legend of the industry and my sixth most-watched director.

RANKED
The St. Valentine's Day Massacre
The Intruder
A Bucket of Blood
X
The Haunted Palace
The Wild Angels
Battle Beyond the Stars
The Little Shop of Horrors
The Masque of the Red Death
It Conquered the World
The Trip
Bloody Mama
Not of This Earth
Sorority Girl
The Wasp Woman
The Raven
Premature Burial
The Tomb of Ligeia
Tales of Terror
Gas-s-s-s
The Secret Invasion
House of Usher
Machine-Gun Kelly
Pit and the Pendulum
Last Woman on Earth
Day the World Ended
Five Guns West
Attack of the Crab Monsters
Rock All Night
The Undead
The Terror
Creature from the Haunted Sea
Ski Troop Attack
Teenage Cave Man

An old favorite movie of mine (and the book) is The Andromeda Strain which I'm re-watching. Near the beginning of the movie while talking on the radio the base radio operator says "Caper one one to Vandal deca". I assume they are some sort of call sign but google is not turning up anything relevant. Anyone know offhand if in a situation like this with an operator at the base and an officer in the field would they just chose a few random words to use as radio calls like this?

Also apologies, I hope that all made sense. I do not know military radio... or for that matter radio parlance at all.

I just finished watching it, and except everything already written, I was expecting Yang yang's pictures to be more powerful. I don't know, maybe I misunderstood but isn't his teacher having an affair with the girl that bullies him? Was expecting some things about that, just a picture of both protagonists. Similarly, I didn't get the swimming pool scene, maybe it is linked to growing up?

I guess I have a feeling of fatality after watching the movie, but I liked it, there is just this tiny part missing but I may have hallucinated.

I remember a while ago this year during the days leading up to the Oscars there was this one user on r/Letterboxd that made a really cool elimination style game whereby they eliminated one best picture winner every day based on which movie in the comments had the most upvotes, hence producing a decreasing ranking of all best picture winners. I'm honestly not sure where NCFOM ended up being ranked but it was definitely in the top 5.

Now, this post isn't at all made to bash this movie, in fact I can totally see how people would find it a masterpiece, but i'm more puzzled as to how many people found it as good as that.

Correct me if i'm wrong but the over-arching plot of the movie revolves around people that struggle to come to terms with the fact that society has moved on from when they were 'in the game' and now their present contributions are redundant. Something something "it's a young man's game" type of notion. There's also the whole philosophical discussion around the concept of evil at play but I didn't buy that much into that.

My question is: how does a plot point like that relate to so many people (not just old people that can connect to the police chief's commentary) that it has such a massive following over dozens of oscar winners that are masterpieces in their own right?

Like I get how you can ackowledge a film's brilliance without explicitly relating to it, but how can so many people deem it a masterpiece?

Before December I would watch TV shows (mostly) and films purely to pass the time - Films similar to those staring Jason Statham would be my go-to. Since December I tried to "force" myself to expand my horizons and I like it.

I saw an infographic somewhere that had the following directors so I thought whenever I want to watch something, I'll pick something from the list

David Lynch, Paul Thomas Anderson, Stanley Kubrick, Park Chan-Wook, Terry Gilliam, David Cronenberg, David Fincher, The Coen Brothers, Martin Scorsese, Paul Schrader, Sidney Lumet, William Friedkin, Michael Haneke, Alejandro González Inárritu, John Carpenter, Charlie Kaufman, Lars Von Trier, Roman Polanski, Hayao Miyazaki, Guillermo Del Toro, Quentin Tarantino, Nicolas Winding Refn, Darren Aronofsky, Yorgos Lanthimos, Luca Guadagnino, Christopher Nolan, Denis Villeneuve, Michael Mann, Spike Lee, Wes Anderson

I started watching Boogie Nights, I'm 30 minutes into it and the only thing I noticed is how the opening scene introduces almost all the characters. I googled it and found it is something Paul Thomas Anderson does.

Searching this sub I found this suggestion (from this comment)

The main questions you have to ask are:

• what type of film does it set out to be?
• what techniques does it employ to fulfil this ambition?
  • the script and how it conceals or reveals information
  • acting
  • casting
  • costuming
  • lighting
  • colour palette
  • camera angles/pans/zooms/tilts/shakiness
  • sound/sound mix
  • music
  • editing
  • linear/nonlinear storytelling, e.g. timelines

I can analise these things (if I watch the film a few times) but how do I know I'm not just making shit up.

Anybody seen this movie? It's a time travel baseball movie with latino characters. Very cute and family friendly if anyone is looking for a nice movie to watch with the fam. I thought the time travel was handled well and most of the acting was good for an indie film. I also liked the production design and the cinematography is stellar for this budget level.

Wondering what other people thought that have seen it.

I am having a hard time understanding El Topo. I've seen some people talk about how the first part is supposed to be an analogy of the developing of Christianity (killing the other religions), but there is still much I don't understand, this including the whole second part of the movie, and many metaphors dispersed around both the first and second part.

For example, what do the 4 gunmen represent? The first one represents Taoists beliefs, but what about the others? What is the deal with the rabbits? What's up with the honey? There is just very much I don't get.

obviously the meditative pace, the tender moments, and the small details Hirayama notices add up to a movie that you feel better after watching...but the subtle heart break in the second half has left me reeling. When Hirayama finally shows anger on the phone with his management company after having to cover his coworkers shift ("this is the only time i'm doing this!"), the painted-on smile he shows when staring at his sister during their talk, the long slow shot of him gradually shifting from smiling to crying while driving in the car at the end...

God. There's something profound, beautiful, but also heart breaking about this movie. I related a lot to Hirayama...my life is in some ways perfect and yet I've kindof become a bit of a softspoken hermit like him, content with my routines but sometimes reminded of an isolation from others, a sense that I might not be operating in the same world as them...

Did anyone else identify with Hirayama? What did you feel watching this movie? Has it led to a new approach or perspective to your life going forwards? Would love to hear anything you all thought about because of this movie.

Imma be honest, this is an analysis I feel a bit too touchy on touching because I might get some suspicious stares for some of what I am going to say but I feel it's important for me to express something I personally felt and understood when looking at this movie which I found interesting. So stick with me here, okie?

First of all, I really, really like this movie. The animation, just like always with Disney, looks pretty gorgeous but I also like how it uses the jungle to show some pretty nice action and choreography for Tarzan's abilities in the wild.

The soundtrack is an absolute banger all thanks to Phil Collins. That nigga went so hard with it and it's some of the best music I've ever heard for a Disney film. "Son of Man" is such an uplifting and I think it beautifully describes Tarzan's character of self-discovery. The music in general not only sounds great but it perfectly expresses the themes/messages of the film and adds up to the emotions of the scenes where it plays.

Jane is also like really great as a love interest. She's genuinely very funny and the way she expresses her feelings is something I found to be quite relatable. Like fuck yeah, girl. Who wouldn't wanna climb up the tree house with the hot monke man? Hell yes. Go for it.

Also, I really liked how this film handled its dark elements. It was genuinely uncomfortable looking at the hidden corpses of Tarzan's parents who just got killed. Idk, the subtle way it is presented worked so effectively along with some good use of ominous music. The death of Gideon is so fucking brutal and it's crazy that even though you don't see it directly, you can actually notice the shadow of his body being hanged by the vines on his neck. And what's even worse is that he technically did kill himself in his fit of rage. Very good death scene. I think it did a good job at exemplifying some of the ways the jungle can be a unforgiving and cruel.

Also, I think this one does actually have some of the most tolerable comedic relief characters in a Disney films. Usually, they tend to be annoying and funny while at the same time getting in the way of the more emotional scenes but they were fine here. In fact, I thought Terk was pretty likable, funny and the voice acting for her was pretty good surprisingly. She was cool. The elephant less so but I thought he was pretty okay.

The movie also never drags and it doesn't feel like it goes too fast. My criticisms for a lot of Disney films I saw is that that they keep reminding me that it just wants to get straight to the point of the message and like time doesn't flow naturally in the world of the film. It also prevents me from further connecting with the more emotional stuff of the movie. I appreciate that it did use the time right and the characters felt well developed enough.

I also really liked Kala. She did really gave off that motherly warmth extremely well and that's not something I see very often with a lot of these Disney movies. The scene where she sings to baby Tarzan and where she tries to make him feel like he fits in Gorilla Tribe are some really lovely scenes. This whole movie in general is very solid and it does multiple things that are very great.

The only problems I have with it is a few of comedic moments but otherwise, not any big issues with it at all.

But anyways, I'm not typing this post just to express how much I liked some of the more technical stuff about the film but give my personal interpretation about the film which I think elevates it in a unique way for me in contrasts from other Disney movies.

I think this movie works as a kind of racial allegory. A discovery of your heritage. The desire to fit in the culture you're either raised in and trying to find connection with culture you have felt has been hidden from you. And as we can see in the movie, Tarzan is a human raised by gorillas. But not just human but a white person of British descent as implied with the flag and his parents.

When Tarzan is shown as a baby, we can see that his skin is pretty white and his hair is shown to be straight. However, as we later see in the film, his skin becomes noticeably much more tan, which kinda makes sense since he must be out often in the sun as he travels and hunts in the wild. He also does wear long dreadlocks, which were likely done by his gorilla mother. And from what I checked, in much of the old art and covers for the original Tarzan, Tarzan does look whiter and he keeps his hair straight, which I think it's interesting as it reveals a pretty deliberate choice to make his hair different.

Honestly, if I saw this movie without any context of who his parents were, it could be argued that Tarzan looks like a pretty mixed/light-skinned black guy in a way. But no, in this movie, he's meant to be white but I think the choice of his design and also being raised in this new environment does create a situation in which Tarzan becomes "mixed" in the metaphorical sense. Not just in his design but also literally in his cultural heritage as someone born from British parents but raised for most of his life by Gorillas. And as you can start to notice, the gorillas, are in a way, his black family. And I know, I know! That sounds very bad understanding the ancient history of Africans being compared to apes but I can't help look at the movie and feel like it is creating this subtext. Tarzan is a white person, raised by gorillas in Africa and as said by Kerchak, he cannot consider him his son because he's... different. And that difference is not exactly explicitly said what but obviously, his problem is that he's a man and they are gorillas. But it also could be understood that Tarzan is rejected because of his race. Not just him being a human person but also a white person. Like if you were to design the gorillas to be actual Black African people and kept the subtext like how it is with some minor changes, it would be clear to notice the racial element of Tarzan's relationship with his adopted family. His whole conflict is that he wants be trusted and accepted by his community despite of his race. If he fails to protect them and brings them closer to the human hunters, it means he's no longer part of it and is instead, like the men. The white men seeking to hunt and capture the gorillas.

This movie's main theme is also about self-discovery. Tarzan gets to meet humans for the very first time, which leads him to not only realize that there creatures that look more like him but that he comes from those kind of people and that his appearance is different for a reason. For this reason, he feels like exploring more and finding out all of the ways these people live which is so different from what he has seen before. This makes realize and question about his parents to his gorilla family. And for this reason, he feels at first that he needs to come with these outsiders. To find his "real home". He's choosing to live as a white man over his black side. However, it is not as simple as that. He doesn't fully let go of his life living with his gorilla family but he actually desires to have both his relationship with Jane, a white human woman and his mother, his gorilla mother. He wants to be able to embrace both aspects of his heritage and culture. Giving the lyrics, 'Two worlds; one family', a whole new meaning.

But the unfortunate thing of it all is that he isn't allowed to choose. The gorillas, especially Kerchak, does not trust the humans and the humans want to take him away from them as they wanna raise him as a human living in a human environment. Trying to unite these two at first gets his family in danger and him in a lot of trouble as Kerchak tries to attack Clayton and Clayton tries to kill him with his shotgun. This conflict also motivates him further to catch the gorillas rather than just leave without him.

In the final fight, we see Tarzan protect his people from Clayton and eventually, he's able to disarm him and point at him with his own gun but instead or just being afraid, he encourages him to shoot so he gets to kill him like a man, furthering the colonalization subtext of the film with him using his weapon as a sign of him becoming one of those very men who tried to invade the homes of his family and somebody who feels has the power and advantage on killing them. But instead, Tarzan rejects to be that kind of man and instead, is able to defeat him by using vines of the jungles and leading Clayton to create his own death in his desire to see Tarzan dead. In the end, he decided to defeat Clayton not as a white man but as the man of the jungle.

In the end, Tarzan decides to stay with the family who raised him this whole time knowing that in his father's last words, he is now considered his son and part of the Tribe. He is no longer rejected. But Tarzan is also allowed to be with Jane, embracing both side of himself. Him as a man and as a gorilla. As white and black. And they get to share that experience with the celebration of what histrue family raised him to be while also accepting the other side of himself.

I am myself a Latina. Both my parents are Latin people but the difference is that I was raised for most of my life by my mom, a black Latina and often, I would visit my dad, a white-passing Latino. So my relationship with my race has confusing and complex for me in some ways. I am not able to pass as someone light-skinned like my dad due to my hair, my tanned skinned and somewhat thicker lips but I also have enough of his traits for some folks to not see me as necessarily black. However, some do often see me as Black. And others as just a Latina. I personally identify myself as a Afro-Latina and I am proud of embracing the parts about myself but there's also the reality that people will look at me differently because I am mixed. Because I am neither fully white or fully Black. And it can be rather alienating at times because I find myself lost in that part of my identity and I wanna be able to be accepted from the side of my mother. But just like with Tarzan, some will not consider you part of the tribe but an outsider and one of those men. But also, I cannot fit in with those men nor do I feel that way. So I am left unsure of where I am at all. In that sense, I thought the movie really spoke to me and like it was presenting something very real.

I personally find myself being a lot more connected to the gorillas than most of the humans in "Tarzan". To me, they really feel like a family to me and like the people who raised me and who represents me more. But at the same time, I can accept that in some ways, I am different. And even still, I can still be just okay having those sides running through my bloodstreams.

The Counselor

Synopsis: A lawyer finds himself in over his head when he gets involved in drug trafficking.

Director: Ridley Scott

Writer: Cormac McCarthy

• Michael Fassbender as Counselor
• Penélope Cruz as Laura
• Cameron Diaz as Malkina
• Javier Bardem as Reiner
• Brad Pitt as Westray
• Rosie Perez as Ruth

Rotten Tomatoes Score: 33%

Metacritic Score: 49

IMDB Score: 6.2

If there was a remake; what would you suggest to change the plot and other parts of the movie?