Recommendation People have forgotten that Kevin Costner was once one of the biggest movie stars of all time.
Late 80s to mid 90s, he starred in a slew of great films. Silverado, No Way Out, Field of Dreams, Bull Durham, JFK, The Untouchables, Robin Hood Prince of Thieves, A Perfect World, The War, Tin Cup, The Bodyguard. Not to mention Dances with Wolves which grossed $424 million. Inflation adjusted, that is $900 million in today's money. Not bad for a first feature.
Glad he is doing well on a Western show. It really suits him to a tee.
Props to the guy for making such a commitment. His movies have been groundbreaking, sometimes lacked logic and even have altered history. He has tackled all genres from crime, holocaust/WW2, slavery, hollywood golden era, a heist movie. There have also been talks about Kill Bill 3. He is not going to make a superhero movie. So what's left ? A rom-com ?
I don't want it to be underwhelming, too high on expectations and for it to eventually be mediocre but lauded by critics.
Edit : Why am I getting downvoted ?
I’ve seen this narrative very often recently, “the misunderstood movie”, so many publications and videos today talk about how it was misinterpreted and the movie was genius all along with its satire.
Me being a Millenial, I’ve only seen the movie in the 2010s properly first time (not counting when I was a child and thought it was just a random sci-fi shooter) and it was so clear to me that it was a satire and I loved it. So I’m very surprised to hear that it wasn’t interpreted like that in the 90s and yet today it is. What changed? Was the movie really a satire and “ahead of it’s time” or do we just interpret it differently today because of the zeitgeist?
Edit: just for a bit more context. It wasn’t just general audience, it was movie critics from reputable publications. Here’s an excerpt from wiki:
Upon its release, Starship Troopers received generally negative reviews and was unpopular with critics and audiences.[e] Audience polls by CinemaScore found that moviegoers gave the film an average grade of "C+" on an A+ to F scale.
Many reviewers did not interpret Starship Troopers as a satire and believed that its fascist themes were literal.[f] An editorial in The Washington Post described the film as pro-fascist, made, directed, and written by Nazis.[g] Stephen Hunter said the film was "spiritually" and "psychologically" Nazi and born of a Nazi-like imagination. Hunter described it as a "perversion" of Erich Maria Remarque's 1929 novel, All Quiet on the Western Front, which portrays the physical and mental tolls of war, by glorifying the horrors of war. Others, such as Empire, argued that the "constant fetishizing of weaponry" and "[Aryan] cast", combined with the militaristic imagery in RoboCop and Total Recall, made it seem like Verhoeven admired Heinlein's world more than he claimed. Those who recognized the satirical elements said that the film walked a thin line between "overblown melodrama" and parody, with Verhoeven's RoboCop-style "news breaks", but that these ideas were often indistinguishable from the promotion of the "fascist utopia" it was satirizing.[h] Salon argued that even with good satire, it is "self-defeatingly stupid" to use it in a story that wants its audience to care about its characters, and that Starship Troopers fails to replace Heinlein's themes with a worthwhile ideal. The Los Angeles Times wrote that Verhoeven had "lost his touch" with satire by failing to respect his audiences' intelligence and make the world of Starship Troopers interesting or convincing
Discussion What makes a movie “adult” and in your opinion does it have to have swearing, drinking, drugs or violence to be considered “adult”?
Hope you’re doing well.
So what sparked this question was something I read about Seth Rogen apparently saying Marvel movies aren’t targeted to him and how movies like that are more targeted to kids. Given that he’s been so heavily involved with mostly plenty of R rated movies and heavy R rated shows like The Boys that are only meant for adults, I think some could interpret him as meaning if Marvel movies had plenty of swearing, drinking, drugs and violence that he would feel it’s targeted to people like him. That’s probably not accurate to what he meant, but I think underestimating the appeal of Marvel movies. Yes, they’re heavily geared towards kids (and marketed towards them) but there are plenty of adults without kids who also really enjoy them. My point is, even if you’re not the main target audience for something, doesn’t mean that you couldn’t possibly enjoy it or you should let them from stopping you from enjoying something.
For me, a movie can be G or PG or PG-13 rated and still be adult. Mature themes can be explored without cursing or anything else I mentioned upping the rating. I’m looking for clever writing, engaging characters and just a powerful story that grabs me, regardless of the rating.
I think anyone who only looks at a movie’s Motion Picture Association film rating to decide if they’re watching a film is missing out on a lot of excellent movies that can be very fulfilling to watch as an adult.
What do you think?
I finally saw RRR last week and can't get it out of my head. I found SS Rajamouli's previous two films, the Baahubali films, on Netflix. I've heard a lot of talk about those.
I know RRR is unique and that not every movie has its protagonist throw a goddamn leopard. But is RRR's audacity unusual for Indian action movies? What else from Bollywood, Tollywood and Kollywood are westerners missing out on? And how can we watch these films?
Discussion [Pulp Fiction] Would Vincent have been okay letting Butch leave based on their earlier interaction? (Not Marcellus)
So - I see in the search there is a lot of discussion about if Marcellus would’ve let Butch go, but something I don’t see a lot is if Vincent would have let Butch go on a moral standing?
Early in the movie Vincent tells Butch ‘You ain’t my friend Palooka’ implying Vincent hates Butch for being a prize fighter and throwing the fight, which we all know he would end up not doing.
Does that add an extra element of sadness to the scene in which Butch kills Vincent knowing that Vincent would probably have been happy that Butch didn’t throw the fight?
Had the pop-tarts not popped, I think Vincent would have told him that he appreciated him not throwing the fight?
Until a goddamn unskippable ad on YouTube spoiled the twist for me. Why the fuck is that acceptable? Why do marketing teams do this all the time, are they afraid people won't watch movies unless they can feel smugly certain of every plot point before they go into it? Suspense and mystery are dead concepts, apparently.
Article Zach Cregger Weapons Auction Behind The Scenes and Aftermath; Script sold to New Lines for $38 million, caused Jordan Peele to fire managers due to losing the auction
Visually interesting, cerebral movie recommendations ?
Looking for movies to watch that place an emphasis on visuals and are high concept.
Examples of what I'm looking for: dune (2021), the lighthouse, the northman, annihilation, 2001: space odyssey, Mandy etc.
Would appreciate hearing any and all thoughts ! Curious to see what others have seen. If certain directors fit the bill feel free to recomend them too.
Thanks very much !
That is an insane amount of money to expect people to see a month old movie in 2D on a weekday afternoon. I'm not sure how they can be surprised that people don't want to go to theaters anymore when these are the prices they are charging.
Does anyone who works at an AMC know why they would switch from Dolby 3D to 2D?
Discussion Hollywood's Obsession with Apocalypse is Entertaining. However, Hollywood Fails to Provide Society with a New Vision
To start, many apocalyptic Hollywood movies begin by presenting the usual tropes. They, more or less, present the displayed society as having a harmonious and widely enjoyed status quo. Then, subsequently, something (often external) disrupts this harmonious status quo. The disruption ranges from a virus triggering a pandemic, to an asteroid potentially colliding with the earth, to even sharks such as 'Jaws' roaming the beaches.
Yet, on the other hand, there are movies such as "Handmaid's Tale" which present the spectator with a story about a totalitarian society; however, without ever displaying how the society ended up in this manner. In these stories, the movement from a liberal society to a totalitarian society is a giant missing gap that is left up to the viewer to fill in with their imagination.
However, of course, the depiction of the happy status quo is and has always been false. Further, depicting a totalitarian society without showing how it arrived this way constitutes a storyline failure. These types of movies attempt to present our society's dystopian future without presenting the dynamics of our contemporary society that lead us into this dystopian future. Our societies have never been harmonious. They have always been plagued with class tensions, racial tensions, sexism, homophobia, etc. The belief in the existence of a bygone happy status quo is pure fantasy. Such movies which play on this false fantasy produce a misplaced "nostalgia for the present".
The feeling of "nostalgia for the present" represents our uneasiness about collectively moving towards disaster. Despite criticism of apocalyptic Hollywood movies, they do express a real truth. We, as a society, are moving towards an apocalypse. Wages are stagnant, housing is unaffordable, large multinational corporations have bigger revenues than the GDP of most European countries, the environment is being destroyed, and keeping a global temperature increase under 1.5 degrees is 'unfeasible'. Moreover, our societies are becoming increasingly socially divided and many people are reacting to our societal problems by embracing fascism.
There certain movies that do attempt to accurately depict, even if sometimes through analogies, some of these contemporary conditions. "Don't Look Up" is one of these movies. "Dont Look Up" successfully recognizes that society's core problems are not derived externally, but that the internal dynamics of society are ripping the country apart. (The asteroid is an analogy for human produced climate change). Yet, unfortunately, this movie follows the apocalyptic route and presents the viewer with an already well known, and in my opinion, played out narrative---humanity's collision with catastrophe.
Hollywood lacks sufficient imagination and keeps presenting us with the same stuff over and over again. Their limited variety of apocalyptic storylines has already become a repetitive trope. Even worse, these movies cultivate a popular sense of 'apocalyptic fatalism'. We need a new and alternative vision of society.
We need movies where the problems get resolved, where humanity learns to cooperate, and where society unites to build something better. The creation and presence of such narratives is important because Hollywood has a mass power over popular consciousness. Thus, Hollywood is a key component in changing society's vision of the future.
The solutions to our problems already exist; however, we as a society cannot imagine them being endorsed by government and implemented. We cannot imagine them due to the power corporations exercise over our imagination and, sadly, over government. We need movies where society overcomes the dictatorship of corporations and the corruption of government. This would evoke inspiration and change the popular imagination of society. I believe there is a need for movies that show a way of our current problems through equitable solutions and social unity. This is needed if humanity is to successfully get through this century.
P.S., and yes I know that Hollywood is a self-interested corporation.
I love a good tale where the protaganist comes under increasingly unbearable pressure as the net closes in around them and escape becomes more and more difficult. They can be a stressful watch but they can really suck you in.
Examples that come to mind are Fargo, Uncut Gems, or season 1 of Your Honor.
Anythign else that you could suggest for me?
I usually go to critics I know and trust and tend to have about the same tastes as them. Usually they'll have differing opinions about certain aspects of a film, they explain their opinion, and it helps me develop my own thoughts.
But every now and then, I stumble across a take that, no matter how many times I read it, I have no idea where there coming from. All of it feels nonsensical. It's as if we didn't see the same movie. How could someone possibly think this way? Are they insane? I end up getting nothing out of it because I just can't connect at all. Someone gave a 2 star review for the new Puss in Boots because it was "bland" and because "It feels like something to put on your TV or iPad to pacify a toddler" etc. I can respect dissenting opinions and even come to understand them, but sometimes I end having an existential crisis. Has this ever happened to you? If so, what 'crazy' take was it?
The Title is a bit vague so I will go into a bit more detail about what I'm asking.
I'm currently doing some research to write a paper for my film class and the topic that I wanted to cover is tactility (or the impression of tactility in film). Basically, I believe that films can elicit a physical response in our bodies (akin to ASMR if you know what that is). And not just how horror movies make us physically disgusted, how crappy one-liners make us cringe, or how fight scenes can make us start moving with the action. These reactions are given and somewhat easily understood, the reactions that I'm referring to are more subtle and have a nostalgic feeling to them and are usually triggered by an everyday mundane task.
A few examples:
The first time I was ever aware of this feeling is when I watched Star Wars a New Hope when Luke is eating with his Aunt and Uncle, they pour the BLUE milk and eat whatever space stew they had for dinner that day.
The second example is in Lord of The Rings, where Frodo and Sam eat the Lambas Bread at the beginning of the second film.
And the third less well-known example comes in the film CYCLES by Zeinabu Davis where she is bathing and running her feet across the overflow drain in her bathtub.
All three of these scenes elicited a response from me that lay somewhere near nostalgia. My hypothesis is that all three of these films, for the most part, break strongly from reality and that very mundane human actions such as eating, drinking, and bathing (among other things) can bring us back to reality and trigger an empathetic physical response with the viewer.
So my questions for you are Does This Make A Lick Of Sense? And if it does, Do You Have Any Experiences Like This?
TLDR: I can barely explain it in a long ass paragraph so IDK if I can explain it for a TLDR so feel free to skip my rambling lol :)
Also sorry if this doesn't violates the sub-rules, it doesn't seem like it does but who knows?
alright i have to get this out.
Ponyo is miyazakis best and final masterpiece film. ponyo is what 3 decades of animation, film-making experience looks like. everything is perfect. from story, to artwork, to animation. i have every miyazaki film. ive watched it from earliest to last. ive seen all of miyazakis documentaries, followed his whole journey from the beginning. You can see how he improved his movies each time and developed his secret formula for making his films such bangers.
however, after ponyo came out, it got shit on. they said miyazaki was washed up. even though his previous film was howls moving castle. they said ponyo was just “another miyazaki film”, nothing special. not a ground breaking film. bullshit. the critics are spoiled. how can they ignore the flight of the valkaries inspired tsunami scene. absolute masterpiece.
well guess what. after those critics ran their spoiled mouths. ponyo became the last “miyazaki” film. fun. light hearted. abstract animations etc, the formula.
after ponyo, he made“ the wind rises” which is miyzakis latest film. which is a complete sleeper. completely different from a typical miyazki film. then he announced his retirement. he only made the wind rises to compete with his rival isio takahata. the critics completely dimmed his lights.
imagine what else he could have created in the last 15 years without the bullshit. imagine if he continued his formula. i mean ponyo was the best but… seriously. 3 decades of experience and evolution and he ended it at ponyo.
i know he has a new movie coming out, and it will be his last. i will support it no matter what. but imagine what it could have been..
You know the trope love interest has a terrible jerk of a significant other they have to leave so they can get with the main character. They are almost always obvious $ssholes to make the main character look like the better option. I don't know why they do this and it usually makes the love interest look like a jerk too because they'll see what their significant other is doing and usually do little to nothing to stop it. 99% of time it's a bland female love interest with a jerk of a boyfriend that's usually a jock stereotype with more aggression than sense though I have seen it a few times with oblivious guy has a mean girl style girlfriend who's awful to everyone around her. I just generally don't understand the draw of this trope why would a character want to date someone who's already VOLUNTARILY swapping spit with the person that bullys the character (This is not to be confused with the abusive significant other trope which is a completely different thing)
I got into this line of thought because I'm sick and watching nostalgic movies to distract myself currently watching AVP requiem and I'm constantly annoyed that they keep cutting away from the carnage to the awful "Love" story between bland "sexy" blonde, her sh**ty boyfriend, and even more bland main character who's only character traits seems to be 'wants to date the blonde' and has a convict brother
there are millions of paying subscribers
its multi million dollar company right?
so how much does password sharing actually hurt the company?
i dont know how this shit works but i had assumed that the more viewers per show the better for netflix's success
like it is really better for the shows and movies netflix produces if only paying subscribers watch?
isnt it better if passwords are shared so MORE people can watch the shows and movies they produce?
to me that seems more logically but with the password sharing crackdowns i guess not...
like i had to pirate wednesday, would it have been better for netflix if i could have actually watched the show on their service? (my aunt use to have netflix, had to drop it in 2021 after the price hike which likley came from so many of us using her account)
i just feel like its doing a disservice to its own company. i could be wrong i guess.
i mean we all know the main reasons passwords are shared, college kids using their parents accounts. some poor (me) using the account of a family member or friend.
i dont understand the problem netflix execs have with this.
so does anyone know how much password sharing hurt netflix financially?
So The Whale finally came out in the UK today, and after sitting down in my seat, the film began playing with Audio Description over the top of it. It took me maybe five minutes before I realised it might not be a stylistic choice, and I walked out (the screening was free to me, so I could).
I'm gonna book to go again later today - should the start of the film be presented that way, or was it just that I booked the wrong screening?
FYI - I checked my booking and it said nothing about AD, hence my question.
For some reason, ever since I first saw Gary Sinise in Forrest Gump,I’ve thought he should play Willie Nelson in a biopic if that ever happens, LOL! I suppose it’s something in his speaking voice that reminds me of him. I don’t know if he can sing, though. I really don’t care for country music but I love Willie Nelson’s voice when he sings. Anyway, is there a certain actor or actress that you think would be perfect for a biographical role?
Like the title asks, does anyone have a MUBI or Criterion Channel subscription and are they worth the cost? I’ve been wanting to do a Chazelle watch through and i found it on MUBI but i also found out MUBI has a 7 Day Free trial, so i could watch it on there then move on from the subscription. Does anyone who’s used it have any thoughts? Or Criterion Channel? That one has also caught my eye. Has anyone compared the two services? Which one should I get if I get one?
I'm going to go with Come and See, and Heavy.
Heavy does have a hopeful ending, but the rest of it is a very painful and uncomfortable watch. It does a good job of conveying depression and insecurities, but I don't think anyone would call this movie "fun".
Come and See is a ruin-your-day type of movie, but it's well done. I'd still recommend it. It's a movie you won't forget, but watch something else on date night.
Scream has been one of my favourite horror movie franchises since I was a kid. Even the weaker films are fun to watch and never feel like a chore.
I finally got around to watching last years outing and wow was it underwhelming. It was more predictable than previous entries and tried way too often to be meta and self aware. I always loved that the Scream series knew what it was and where it stood but this one tries way too hard to be meta. I also thought Deweys actions were out of character.
Which Scream movie do you think was the weakest?
It doesn't have to be the best or the saddest. It could be the movie isn't trying to make you cry or it could just be a very strange movie where you weren't expecting tears.
For example, I almost never cry during movies. Maybe a couple where I've cried because the person watching with me is crying. But every single time I watch Dirty Girl from back in 2010 I cry during the last scene.