My son really enjoys older movies — he's seen The Birds, American Graffiti, Casablanca,Raiders of the Lost Ark, Casablanca, just to name a few. I'd really like to show him The Fugitive but the violence in the first 20 minutes give me some pause. He's 12-years-old. When did people watch or show their kids this movies for the first time?

I finally saw Akira for the first time with the recent re release in September and omg this might be one of my new favorite animated films of all time omg I went in knowing nothing besides the meme and the Akira slide and I came out going holy shit from the animation to the story to the music and the characters I really loved every second of this masterpiece

Word is that the opening five minutes of Terminator 2: Judgment Day has the same budget as the entire first film, and it's easy to see why. The prologue is a short glimpse of the Future War where the human resistance fight the robot forces of Skynet at night in a decisive battle, facing off against giant tanks and automated VTOLs. While James Cameron loved the setting he showed restraint and devoted only one scene to the conflict, since it doesn't feature any of the four principal actors.

Where in the first film we only saw the skeletal T-800 in rickety stop-motion at the climax, here we get a few cool seconds of him in motion as an animatronic. In the behind-the-scenes footage you can see Stan Winston's team practising the iconic shot where the T-800 crushes a child's skull into powder by stepping on it (Kudos to the children who donated their skulls for this moment). Notably we don't see any skeletal T-800's outside of this prologue, as it would have ruined the emotional climax of the movie if Arnie was missing all his skin when young John Connor hugs him. There are four T-800's together in one shot and nowhere else, two of them being articulate puppets and the other pair being mostly static props. It's an incredible animatronic for what little we see of it.

The Future War was the last scene filmed and it's important to consider the many special-effects heavy set-pieces they had to plan, storyboard, budget, and execute. The truck chase in the water channel, the hospital escape, blowing up Cyberdyne, the frequent body-horror, the climax at the foundry, and everything to do with the T-1000's shapeshifting nature. At a budget of 100 million, Terminator 2 was the most expensive film ever made back in 1991 and every dollar of it is on-screen. In all honesty it would have been cheaper to just hire real android assassins from the future to get the movie done. Terrific film, glad they stopped at two.

But what if James Cameron and crew had blown the entire budget on just two of those scenes and the rest of the film was entirely dialogue? Just Arnie on an empty stage, speaking all the lines off the script in his thick accent and voicing all the sound-effects? Imagine if Cameron flooded the Grand Staircase in Titanic, only to shit himself upon realising he hadn't filmed any other scenes there like the heavenly reunion between Jack and Rose? What if David Lean demanded every camera look up at some rare butterfly while the bridge over the River Kwai blew up behind him? Creativity aside, all movies are a matter of deadlines and logistics, and sometimes a production can get out of hand regarding one aspect. Maybe they get a sequence or two done to perfection, but it might come at the expense of the film as a whole. Or a ton of money and talent goes towards crafting a set-piece or special-effect that in the final film is sub-par, barely noticeable, or cut entirely.

Bonfire of the Vanities (1990) came out six months prior to Terminator 2 and is remembered as the premier 90's Hollywood bomb that wasn't Kevin Costner's fault. The movie begins with a five-minute tracking shot of a drunken Bruce Willis arriving at a party in his honour (at the Winter Garden atrium that was later destroyed on 9/11). It's a technically proficient scene but has a weirdly chipper tone for what is supposed to be the intro to a pitch-black satire. Willis's performance and narration is just plain awful here, and the film as a whole is remembered for its fatal casting choices and blunt interpretation of the source-material. They spent 80,000 dollars on getting a shot of a Concorde plane landing at JFK airport during sunset. An impressive feat, but also ten seconds that doesn't counter-balance the other two hours of arse. Julie Salamon tells the story best about the film's turbulent production in her book The Devil's Candy.

King Kong (1976): I like to believe this film secretly tells the backstory of Jeff Bridges' Dude from The Big Lebowski, as tussling with an oversized ape will turn any man into a pothead slacker who loves to go bowling. In this retelling of King Kong, 2 of the 24 million dollar budget went towards an animatronic of the ape that was forty-feet tall. What was the total screen-time of this giant? About 15 seconds. The machine was too hard to operate and unconvincing in motion, so they went ahead with a then-unknown Rick Baker in an ape suit for the majority of the runtime. To give credit to the animatronic's designer, Carlo Rambaldi, he did later create E.T. It was a slow year for Hollywood because King Kong actually won an Oscar for special-effects alongside Logan's Run. You ever see the robot in that one? He's a tin-foil cereal box that wants to kill Spider-Man. No wonder Star Wars set the film industry ablaze the very next year. King Kong '76 was a mediocre film all round, but goddamn was Jessica Lange smoking in that one.

The Thief & The Cobbler started production in 1964 and then never stopped for three decades. It's a breathtaking technical feat of hand-drawn animation, but a failure as a cohesive film. Beautiful but deathly dull. You know that gag in cartoons with an elaborate Rube Goldberg setup where random objects bump into each other like dominoes towards some comedic outcome? That happens in the climax of this film and it goes on for ten fucking minutes. Even in a world where Richard Williams had no shortage of funding I still can't fathom he'd have ever finished it in his lifetime. Lindsay Ellis tells the story best.

Justice League (2017) went through the effort of reshooting half the movie despite principal photography being complete, costing an extra 25 million instead of the more typical 10 for a blockbuster. Zack Snyder had to leave production for personal reasons, and his sweaty replacement went far beyond just finishing the movie with the material that entered his damp hands. Sometimes this degree of post-hoc meddling works, with the Anchorman we got being far more funny than the version that was planned. But with a special-effects heavy superhero ensemble it sounds insane to add an entire subplot from cloth about some Russian family in peril. Why were they in the movie? I haven't watched the notorious Snyder Cut and don't plan to, but it's interesting knowing there's a third unmade version of the film out there meant for a 2017 audience with a theatrical runtime and a perfectly normal upper lip on Henry Cavill.

I haven’t played Street Fighter or know anything about it so my review might not resemble some others.
Story was mediocre.
The fighting is mediocre.
Cody Rhodes and Andrew Schulz were both really funny and great.
The tournament was shit, the movie skips over almost all of it just to include mediocre story scenes in the middle of fighting scenes.
Only one actual street fight in Street Fighter.

Letterboxd Account

I watched Other Mommy with my daughter, and I honestly can’t say I loved it. The supernatural events seemed increasingly far-fetched, the characters’ reactions were strangely passive, and certain scenes made very little sense.

But the more I’ve thought about it, the more convinced I’ve become that there’s another way to interpret the entire film.

I don’t believe Other Mommy was a real demon. I believe we were watching events through Bela’s imagination as she tried to process the dysfunction, betrayal and emotional instability of her family.

And I think several details support this.

1. The plastic ball-pit balls

This is probably my strongest argument.
The balls repeatedly appear in impossible locations: the car, the beach near Grandma’s house, and eventually the family home.

But what fascinates me isn’t just their appearance. It’s the almost complete absence of meaningful consequences.

When the balls appear in public, we see people in the background, but there’s little emphasis on their faces or individual reactions. On the beach, the balls seem almost accepted as part of the environment.
And toward the end, the family is casually collecting them into plastic bags, as though they’re simply cleaning up household clutter.

Thousands of inexplicable objects have appeared in multiple locations, yet nobody seems particularly interested in investigating why.

What if the balls were never physically there?

What if they represent familiar childhood imagery that Bela carries between environments, connecting places and experiences in her imagination?

Their repeated appearance would then represent emotional continuity rather than supernatural activity.

1. We’re seeing Bela’s interpretation, not necessarily objective reality

Throughout the movie, terrible things happen, yet the characters often move on with surprisingly little reaction.

The abrupt changes of location, exaggerated situations and absence of believable consequences almost resemble a child’s fragmented understanding of adult events.

Perhaps Bela isn’t imagining absolutely nothing happened. Perhaps real things are happening around her, but we’re watching how her mind interprets them.

That would also explain why the movie rarely seems interested in the experiences of people outside Bela’s immediate family.

1. Ursula is the real source of horror

One of the first things I said after leaving the cinema was that Bela’s actual mother, Ursula, wasn’t a good person.

She’s dishonest, unfaithful, emotionally conflicted about motherhood and responsible for much of the instability surrounding Bela.

Bela discovers that Daddo isn’t her biological father and that the family she believed she understood is built around secrets.

What if Other Mommy represents Bela’s imagined alternative to a mother who doesn’t provide the emotional security she needs?

Rather than accepting the painful reality of her family, she constructs another mother who seemingly wants and understands her.

1. Uncle Frank’s death and Daddo’s Alice Cooper T-shirt

This is a visual connection I found particularly interesting.

When Uncle Frank is attacked, fingers emerge grotesquely through his open mouth.

Later, Daddo wears an Alice Cooper T-shirt featuring imagery resembling a hand emerging from a head.
Could Bela be incorporating familiar images into her imagined explanation of frightening events?

And could the circumstances surrounding Frank, Ursula’s affair and Daddo holding a gun suggest an adult confrontation that Bela has reinterpreted through supernatural imagery?

I’m not claiming Daddo killed Frank. But perhaps Bela’s mind is assigning responsibility to a monster rather than someone she loves.

1. Grandma, the ghost hunters and the lighthouse

Grandma’s enormous house, the dramatic coastal setting and the sudden appearance of ghost hunters all feel strangely exaggerated, almost like a child’s fairy tale.

The ghost hunters appear, supposedly confront the problem, and then largely disappear without satisfying resolution.

But the lighthouse is particularly significant.
A lighthouse cuts through darkness and guides people safely home.

I believe Grandma serves that exact purpose for Bela. She’s a source of stability and guidance while Bela’s understanding of her family is collapsing.
The lighthouse doesn’t eliminate the storm. It helps people navigate through it.

1. The ending is about acceptance, not defeating a demon

By the end, Bela has discovered uncomfortable truths about both her parents.

Yet she doesn’t stop loving them.

I believe Bela learns to accept the reality of her imperfect family, while Ursula begins to understand and accept her responsibilities as a mother.

Daddo must also confront the reality of his marriage.
Everyone is learning to navigate painful truths.

Perhaps Other Mommy disappears not because a demon has been defeated, but because Bela no longer needs to escape into an imagined reality.

My conclusion

I understand the conventional interpretation: Other Mommy is a supernatural entity, and the family experiences a literal haunting.

But that assumes the camera is showing us objective reality.

What if it isn’t?

What if everything, including scenes involving other characters, is filtered through Bela’s reconstructed understanding of events?

Even if this wasn’t the filmmaker’s intention, I find this psychological interpretation far more coherent than the literal supernatural explanation.

I didn’t necessarily enjoy the movie while watching it, but I’ve spent an extraordinary amount of time thinking about it afterward.

Maybe the real horror isn’t Other Mommy. Maybe it’s the reality Bela has constructed a monster to help her avoid.

I’d genuinely love to hear other interpretations, particularly concerning the ball-pit balls, the lighthouse and the Alice Cooper imagery.

What evidence do you think challenges or supports this theory?

Stumbled across Collateral Damage on Tubi tonight. I saw it in the theatre when it first came out. I’m sure I’ve watched it again at some point over the years but I can’t really remember seeing it. What I do remember is that it was originally supposed to be released in the fall of 2001 but after the 9/11 attacks the release was pushed for obvious reasons. It was never really a very well received movie and has kind of faded into obscurity.

Rewatching it tonight it’s actually much better than I remembered it to be or expected it to be. It’s actually a really nice role for Schwarzenegger, he really gets to play an every man in a way we don’t see much from him. But I can’t also understand why it was never going to work after 9/11. Without that lens it actually a pretty entertaining little movie. If it’s been awhile it’s def worth a revisit.

But it got me thinking what are some other movies that got seriously affected by real world events?

After having watched the movie in Theaters and then sitting down and watching it again at home, it dawned on me that the two main characters may not be the surface level characters they seem to be. Knowing the whole movie and not having to focus on the plot and sequence of events allowed me to think more broadly about subtleties or metaphors albeit unintentionally. Stating Daniel understands the mathematics of the universe, or what “we” know of the universe, and Margaret understands empathy and can manipulate what someone else thinks, sounds a lot like they’re a metaphor for AI. Rewatching it with that in mind changes the movie entirely. Once “she” “wakes up” to the reality of the ability to create a manipulated reality for other ppl she starts freaking out about it but can’t stop herself. Sounds like if an AI agent became self aware, but is force fed information it can’t help but consume and then return the information in a way that makes ppl believe something that isn’t real. Daniel having the ability to process that information can work through her by feed it to her digitally, but in the movie you see it represented as telepathically to maintain the metaphor. He has the information, because AI has the ability to access digital information because it’s such a powerful technological tool we can’t fully comprehend or control. Spielberg might be saying AI is an alien technology(NHI) an alien species is using to integrate with or possibly control humanity, however you want to look at it. There are a ton of subtle hints in the movie if you follow that as a metaphor and not the surface level storyline. Food for thought, or at least a more intriguing way to view the movie. It made it way better the second time watching it.

I am talking about those specific moments where the camera work, the lighting, the blocking, and the score all line up perfectly to tell the story without a single word of dialogue.For me, it’s the opening sequence of Inglourious Basterds the way Tarantino builds tension out of a glass of milk and polite conversation is pure mastery.What scene does this for you? Please drop the movie title and break down exactly why that specific sequence works so well mechanically or emotionally. I’m looking to deep-dive into some great cinema today.

I don’t mean obvious plot twists. I mean things like a specific camera angle, a lighting shift, or sound design that tells a story entirely on its own. For example, how the color palette shifts in a movie to reflect a character's mental state. What is a subtle touch by a director that made you go wow once you finally noticed it?

Lately something that stuck out to me was how a movie franchise or saga is doing relatively well for the most part as fans love the series, up until a particular revelation comes out of nowhere as the franchise becomes infamous for throwing in such a bizarre twist.

Some examples of the trope are Star Wars Episode 1 with the revelation about the force as it was such a cheap way to explain how the Force works, and another example is the Android moment from Austin Powers.

I don’t know if the Austin Powers one counts well due to the series being a silly spy movie series, but if I remember correctly, the series got a bit of flack from fans of the original movie due to how the second entry basically revealed how the main character’s romantic interest was a machine the whole time as it was a really bizarre revelation that came out of nowhere. (I mean that’s just my take)

Anyway, I just wanted to basically discuss infamous cases of movie franchises that became known for a particular revelation as I find the trope interesting in ways that are hard to explain as one more example I would like to share is the death of a major character in Rocky 4.

Apparently some of the designer references in the cerulean speech were made up. Aline Brosh McKenna discussed it in this interview report.

Which is funny, because that scene is so good at making Miranda sound like the final authority. Streep delivers it like she'd personally approved the existence of blue. Andy thinks she's opted out of fashion, and Miranda turns her own sweater into evidence against her.

The made-up details don't really bother me as storytelling. But they do make the mic-drop a little less airtight if you take it as an actual argument about fashion.

Does knowing that dent the scene for you, or is the convincing delivery most of the point?

Yo recuerdo haberla visto, pero QUIERO (Y necesito) volver a verla, pero no encuentro ningun lugar para verla en Chile :(

The cocoa scene is such a weird mix of funny and horrible. Truman is trying to get a real answer out of his wife, and suddenly he's talking to a commercial. Even the argument isn't just theirs.

But Meryl also seems like someone whose scene partner has gone completely off script. The ad feels like a little life raft: here's something she knows how to say, maybe this will make everything normal again. Terrible marriage advice, excellent sponsor commitment.

Do you read that switch as her trying to sell the drink, or panicking and reaching for the only script she's got? Laura Linney makes both seem possible.

For me it’s American Beauty. It's the type of film I'd write and direct. The message, subtext etc never ceases to amaze me. I relate to it so much. Every time I watch it I have a different experience, a nuanced experience. It's not one of those films that blow your mind, the deeper meaning may also go over your head but here's the kicker. In 1999, Hollywood released three unique films. All different in genre and story but metaphysically it's the exact same concept. The Matrix, Fight Club and American Beauty. All three films feature a protagonist who is fighting against the system, fighting for freedom which leads to some form of enlightenment or transcendence by unlocking the full power of their subconscious mind.

So let me see, how do I put it? Lately there was a subject I found interesting where a creator becomes known for doing successful movies as sometimes what happens is that they just end up vanishing in that they basically stop making feature films.

To help provide an example of the subject, I would like to mention the movie Team America World Police as it was basically the final feature film made by Trey Parker and Matt Stone since I remember how back then, they had been a bit prolific in films such as Orgazmo and Basketball that I just found it interesting how again the Team America movie was the last feature film the team ever did together.

What's the point of releasing a film on ott?If it can be taken down afterwards, the satluj controversy raises a question.I have been thinking about how much freedom do filmmakers really help while releasing their work on odt platform

As the title says, does anybody know if/when La Bola Negra is going to release in cinemas in the UK? I don't know a lot about film cinema run norms (I've only really gotten into film seriously over the past year or so), and I know it is going to release in cinemas throughout America next month, but I can't find any information about UK cinemas excluding Festivals/Select Cinemas in and around London. Will it come to UK cinemas after US ones, or is it just not coming to UK cinemas at all?

Sorry if this question sounds silly or stupid, but I genuinely don't know and really want to watch La Bola Negra because I am really interested in Spanish history and... other aspects of the film, and can't really afford to travel to London for it. :(

We all love a film that functions as pure eye candy, where every frame looks like an oil painting and the cinematography does absolute wonders. But there is a specific kind of frustration when you realize the dazzling visuals are just a massive smokescreen hiding a fundamentally broken script.I am talking about movies where the world building collapses under the slightest bit of logical scrutiny, characters make completely unearned decisions just to advance the plot, or the thematic depth is entirely surface level. It feels like the director spent 95% of the budget on the camera package and forgot to pay the writers.

A prime example for me is Tron: Legacy. The neon aesthetics, the architecture, and the Daft Punk score create an unmatched vibe, but the actual plot dynamics and character motivations are incredibly flimsy if you dissect them for two minutes.What movie fits this description perfectly for you? Let's skip the easy answers like Avatar give me something that genuinely fooled people with its visual style.

Not sure how many Horror fans are here or those familiar with this series. Always been one of my very favorite Horror series if not my outright favorite, mainly purely based off of the first two although I also think the third and fourth ones were pretty good as well (and also quite impressive despite their small budgets). The first two always see regular rotation from me every October as part of my Halloween playlist and the season never feels complete without them. The Tall Man is definitely among the more unique of the Horror icons and he was played to perfection by the late, great Angus Scrimm throughout all five. The series is such a great blend of surrealism and mind-bending Horror with some fun Action elements sprinkled throughout. And who doesn't love the iconic flying death spheres.

May as well rank them while I'm at it. For other fans, how would you rank them? Mine goes:

• Phantasm II
• Phantasm
• Phantasm IV: Oblivion
• Phantasm III: Lord Of The Dead
• Phantasm V: Ravager

2 has always very easily been my favorite of the series. It's literally not only my favorite Horror film, but one of my favorite movies in general. With the bigger budget you can tell so much more was able to be accomplished. It's like a vintage Survival Horror video game from the 90s as a movie. I have a lot of love and respect for the original as well, but it's always hard not to look at 2 as being the definitive entry.

The first two are classics, 3 and 4 are very good, but the fifth was sadly clearly held back by the very low budget. You can tell they tried their best but the budget and means just weren't there to do it justice. Still, I'm glad we finally got a fifth and final movie, and in light of Reggie Bannister's recent passing, it definitely hits much harder. Still so sad by his passing :(

1. The Matrix
2. The Odyssey
3. Mission: Impossible: Ghost Protocol
4. Inception
5. Jumanji: Welcome to The Jungle
6. Now You See Me
7. The Secret Life of Walter Mitty
8. Harry Potter: The Goblet of Fire
9. Mission: Impossible-Fallout
10. Spiderman: Brand New Day

TO WATCH (not in this order btw)

1. The Shining
2. The Patriot
3. Avatar
4. Gladiator II
5. Dune I, II, III
6. Kraven the Hunter
7. Deadpool 
8. Saving Private Ryan
9. Schindler’s List
10. Top Gun: Maverick
11. The Bourne movies
12. Now You See Me 2&3
13. Interstellar 
14. Dunkirk

Question, Which film is better, Fail Safe or Dr. Strangelove?

I re-watched Dr. Strangelove recently, and I have re-watched this film so many times. It truly is a great film, in large part because of the performances. Peter Sellers gives a master performance, George C. Scott gives a legendary performance, Slim Pickens, Sterling Hayden all great. What also made the film great is just how absurd the whole film is, and how Kubrick realized just how absurd the whole Nuclear Conflict is and how ludicrous it was for 2 mega-powers wo wipe us out for the pettiest and stupid reasons. Dr. Strangelove, to me, is a perfect, and probably one of Kubrick's Best.

On Fail Safe, I must admit, I only heard of this film because of Dr. Strangelove and how Kubrick & Peter George sued the production because they felt it infringed on Red Alert, the source material Dr. Strangelove was based on and managed to get the film released after Dr. Strangelove, this Fail Safe being overshadowed.

I heard people talk positively over the film, but I must admit, I haven't the film until just now, and I gotta say, It's a great film. While Dr. Strangelove is absurd, Fail Safe takes the whole premise seriously. Sidney Lumet masterfully directs the film, The performances are top notch, and I think the best performance was Henry Fonda.

I will say, You can tell the film was shot very cheaply. Granted, Dr. Strangelove was also shot cheap, but Fail Safe really looks like it wasn't made in the best conditions, and that Lumet had to shoot in own backyard. But I think it adds to the grittiness of the film.

Which is the better film, It's tough, but I'll give the edge to Dr. Strangelove. The Performances in Dr. Strangelove are just very memorable but I will admit, I was surprised with Fail Safe.

What do you think, Which film is better, Fail Safe or Dr. Strangelove?

A few weeks ago I asked on here and on some TV subs to get a sense of what methods people use, if any, to find things to watch with the people in their household, or with friends etc.

Was really nice to read that so many had family routines, or they shared spreadsheets with each other to find something that worked.

But it was also clear that many were in my situation, i.e. a movie fan that wanted to watch more with the people around them. The main hurdle in my eyes is the whole scrolling through menus in front of each other, where decision paralysis kicks in and one of you (or all of you) eventually gives up and agrees to something you have no interest in.

Long story short, there's an app I built for my wife and family to make this whole process a lot easier. Essentially, the aim of the app is to get you to a place where, when you sit down to watch something, you've already got the list of what you and they want to watch.

It's completely free. No subscriptions. No ads. Just something I made for myself that I thought might be useful to others. It's also a pretty good multiple watchlist manager and if you're stuck for inspiration, it has over 200+ prebuilt thematic watchlists.

https://reelones.co.uk/

https://apps.apple.com/gb/app/reelones-movie-night-match/id6760552930

MODS: I hope this is in keeping with the self-promotion rules given the nature of the offering and the previous post discussions. Apologies if not and delete if needed. Thank you.

So that new Carrie came out and people like it, including yours truly. Even though I never watched The Doctor Sleep his other king adaptation so far I thought it was great.

What I don't like is that people acting like this will replace the original just because of the differences and of course I'm one of those people who will say the original is There you can read it and you can teach and share it with your kids someday.

But then I realised, "Why do I say that?" and then came another realisation.

Why are people so excited when something goes in the public domain, while stuff like 2026 Carrie gets a boot kick for the change for just the slightest thing?

And this is the real question because after Mickey, or at least the Steamboat Willie Mickey made to the public domain, people have been excited to a point people are keeping track of this shit now.

So I want to ask the people what is different is it because once something is in the public domain, it is controlled by the people, whereas whenever a new reboot, reimagining, remake, or adaptation comes out, it is controlled by the studio at the thing.

Or is there something deeper?

So I want to know what y'all think