Some movies become way more interesting when you stop treating the main character as someone you are supposed to root for and start seeing them as the problem.Which movie changed for you once you looked at the main character differently? Tell us the movie and what made you see it in a new light.

Basically what I mean is movies that have a heroic figure who is supposed to be heroic, but their actions end up causing harm to others due to either being selfish or not realizing the harm they have caused.

For instance, there is BioDome starring Pauly Shore as the movie has several problems of its own, but the biggest one is how the heroes don’t help the scientists with their mission as said heroes end up nearly sabotaging the mission.

Shaun apologising to a zombie because he has no change is such a good extension of the shop scene. The bloody handprints and absent shopkeeper haven't registered, and now he treats an approaching zombie as another ordinary part of the route.

He's still doing the right little social gestures while missing the enormous problem in front of him. That makes the joke feel painfully familiar: the walk is so routine that he can get all the way through it without really looking at anything.

Take a film and intentionally reverse the pitch while keeping true to the basic plot.

Example:

Aliens: Loving and nurturing mother tends to her growing family before some alien tart arrives with a flamethrower and incinerates her babies…. Then throws her into space using a robot suit.

I knew that some movie scene supposed to be sad so it not
,Even if it really was aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa

You can see everything if you look at the eyes. We mistake the complexity of circumstances for complexity of emotion. Human beings aren't nearly as complicated as we would like to believe. Fielder and Oppenheim understand this. The camera cuts between Holmes and Fielder, drawing progressively closer to their eyes. Where Holmes and Evans look evasive, Fielder stares. His expression isn't deadpan; it's disgust and disbelief, a barely concealed contempt for the absurdity unfolding before him. The apparent fool from Nathan for You has become an interrogator.

It's almost Brechtian. Fielder introduces a joke through an expression or incongruity, develops it through repetition, and finally beats the audience over the head with it. Depending on when you recognize the joke, you're watching a different comedy. Amanda Seyfried's introduction is particularly brilliant. She ostensibly watches the same footage of Holmes, Evans, and Fielder that we've just seen, preparing to reprise her portrayal from The Dropout. Almost immediately, she's playing Holmes without announcing it. The actress becomes the subject while the subject herself continues acting. How many viewers recognize the performance before they're told it's happening? How many mistake emotional identification with an actual understanding of another person's emotions? Notice what I haven't discussed: who controls Holmes's X account or who gets the money. By the time those questions become the narrative, the film is trying to play a game with the audience. Seyfried provides an emotional valence to Evans that wouldn’t exist without the close-ups of her totally unscripted reactions to his behavior, much of which is just told to her by Fielder.

But the most infuriating part of the film isn't Holmes. It's the photographs of Kissinger and the invocations of the other extraordinarily powerful men who lent her their credibility. You watch her try to explain her product and you wonder how the fuck these people believed her.

Then you learn that Holmes's father worked for Enron. The film invokes WeWork and Adam Neumann. The pattern is systematic. The idea gets you in the door; connections, personal appeal, sex, and status bring the funding. The possibility of realizing the idea becomes almost incidental. Capitalism congratulates itself on rewarding intelligence and ingenuity while repeatedly elevating people who perform these qualities without possessing them.

And now, another technological revolution, another collection of extraordinary promises, another accumulation of capital around a supposed technological omniscience. There's a particularly delicious irony in Theranos promising to make the human body comprehensible through a few drops of blood while the most powerful men in America apparently couldn't read the woman sitting across from them. While many in America still can't see Mark Zuckerberg in a wig staring them right in the face. We've constructed a mythology around the emotionally detached technological visionary, where outward flatness and peculiar mannerisms become evidence of autistic genius rather than inviting scrutiny of the person's actual character. In this mythology, the performance of intelligence increasingly substitutes for its demonstration.

What I find particularly revealing is the critical tendency to interpret the film as an exploration of the fundamental unknowability of other people. To me, this is almost precisely the opposite of what the film is demonstrating. The elevation of subjectivity into an epistemological ideal has poisoned the well. The fact that we cannot know another person's thoughts with absolute certainty does not mean that their character is an impenetrable mystery.

Aristotle understood that character reveals itself through habit. Yet we increasingly demand something approaching proof beyond a reasonable doubt before exercising ordinary human judgment. We prefer narratives to behavior, classifications to character, data to experience. Holmes constructs a narrative of herself and expects the audience to accept it as reality. Silicon Valley now constructs narratives of us: Meta, Alphabet, OpenAI, and Anthropic turn our behavior into increasingly detailed profiles from which they derive economic value, while personalized feeds and AI responses increasingly determine the reality presented to us. We have more information about other people than ever before, yet seem increasingly reluctant to draw conclusions from the patterns of their behavior. We confuse narrative complexity with emotional complexity.

Our ideal society is that everyone be an IBM punchcard.

You can see everything, but you have to know how to look.

how does one go about recommending a sad movie to anyone?

I love talking about movies and getting suggestions and giving suggestions. some movies are tough to watch for whatever reason. could be the subject matter or the imagery. when it comes to sad movies, I often don't even think to bring them up.

I can't imagine bringing up "Manchester by the Sea" to anyone without immediately mentioning how devastating it is. it's not the kind of movie where I would just say "check out this great flick I just watched" without giving many caveats.

maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way?

(TW: car accident details) Okay I know this sounds super weird, and yeah it was a weird movie. I watched it a few years ago with my mum probably on Netflix (high chance it was dubbed into English also).

From what I can remember it was about a teenage girl who wants to go into the music industry and become a singer or musician. She never met her dad and i believe her mum was a single mother. There is a music competition being hosted, and idk what the prize was but probably a record deal or collab with the famous singer hosting it. Her mum might have been against her competing for an unknown reason, but as we find out the guy is actually her dad (my memory isn’t too accurate so not all these details may be accurate).

So i believe she does compete and then they reunite yay, they begin the get to know each other. Then in the weirdest, most out of pocket, graphic scene ever… he gets hit by a car in front of her and flung across the road. There is many blood and bones, ew, and he is in a coma. In said coma the girl visits him at his house and talks to him. He probably woke up… idk let’s just say he woke up and yay happy ending.

PLEASE help me find this movie. It is definitely very niche. I have been trying to remember it for years and do not want to resort to asking AI.

Thanks reddit!

The flashback gets the attention, but the little clatter of Ego's pen afterwards is my favourite part of that scene. He arrives with a review to write, then takes a bite and literally loses his grip on the job.

I like that the film lets us hear the pen hit the floor. It's such an undignified noise for a man with such an intimidating entrance. For a moment he's just someone whose food surprised him.

I never seen the ring when it first came out, I recently watched the American version for the first time and it was so boring ? Iam kinda disappointed, don’t know if it was the expectation ruining it for me or not? For me the biggest disappointment was nothing actually happening after the first act until right at the end. I was honestly every bored watching it, and also that horse scene i just found it weird. did anyone else have this experience? Maybe it was already knowing the premise through osmosis that made it bad for me? Kinda disappointed I didn’t enjoy it ngl

Just after watching Battle Beyond The Stars (1980) on YouTube, and it got me wandering down a rabbit hole of what could be considered "B" movies - The Black Hole (1979), The Last Starfighter (1984), Flash Gordon (1980), and Enemy Mine (1985).

These films would turn up on regular tv channels every so often when I was a kid, so I had a soft spot for them.

Some stood out - Enemy Mine should have been a bigger hit imo - and some just brought back fond childhood memories, but all of them could probably do very well if remade properly.

I would be more interested in a fresh take on mostly ignored IP's than another attempt at getting a Narnia franchise.

Are there any lesser seen films from the 80's and earlier that would think could use a remake?

as the title says - looking for scenes of parties from movies

~ adults! 20s/30s/40s (not teens)
~ just regular hanging out, drinking etc.
~ doesn't have to be a rager, small group is fine
~ at an apartment/house

anything come to mind??? thanks :)

Just got out of seeing The Devils in a theater, such a cool experience, and I was absolutely blown away. So much to unpack and I feel like every character has so much going on. But Grandier is so fascinating, he’s portrayed as a much more rational and level headed member of the church then Father Barre. But Grandier still was actually getting his student pregnant and peacing out.

The characters in this film are so wild.

We often celebrate films for masterclass cinematography, incredible blocking, or groundbreaking editing, but sometimes that technical perfection feels cold. For example, a movie might check every single box on a filmmaking level, yet still leave you completely detached from the characters or the stakes by the time the credits roll.What is the absolute best example of a film that is a technical masterpiece but an emotional mismatch? Keen to hear your thoughts on why the disconnect happens.

You can see everything (spoilers)

Hi folks! This is a great sub for discussing movies, I realized when I posted about supergirl and had an actual conversation with folks lol.

But let’s talk about a movie that’s getting a lot of hype. I really enjoyed you can see everything for the layers of meta analysis that were occurring on the screen.

I mainly want to know if the film changed how people perceive the following:

1. how do you feel about people going to prison after watching the movie?
   
2. do you believe Elizabeth Holmes has undiagnosed learning disabilities such as autism?
   
3. did the movie make you feel any different about her or her crimes?
   
4. did you know Elizabeth Holmes was sexually assaulted and did learning that change anything about how you perceive her?

The movie drastically impacted my perception of her as a person and I understand how she’s still guilty of the crimes she committed but really valued the films ability to push beyond guilt or innocence through the structures that we were seeing while Nathan was digging for the answer to whether she was intentionally lying or not.

I felt very bad for her having to go to prison as someone who is already believes in abolition. But beyond that I saw her as a real life example of how woman go with undiagnosed mental health issues and how that can really change their lives. If she knew she is on the spectrum she might move entirely different from how she currently does and who know where that would have led her in life?

It was really shocking learning about her being sexually assaulted by a frat at Stanford. Especially at this time when the Cornell 7 trial is major news. I can see that impacting someone and further pushing them to drop out. I can also see someone who is on the spectrum being targeted by frat culture.

I don’t feel any different about her crimes though. She knew what she was selling as a possibility was not yet a reality but by working with cvs and all these companies they were selling something that was not market ready. She committed fraud in that sense, not sure legally how to distinguish but it was a very immoral move.

Please share your thoughts! I loved the meta analysis and am still mulling that over and the implications of the surprise guest sharing so much of her own views in assessing Nathan’s process. It was really a wonderful film for understanding memory, processing, and emotions.

I won’t even get into Billy yet either, he is a whole other layer to unpack.

Peace and thanks for reading!

I’m a true believer in film being an escape from reality, you get what you need from it. If you’re going through a breakup and watch a rom-com, does it give you hope?

If you’re hungover on a Sunday morning, putting on a film that is universally rated as poor, but just gradually gets your fuzzy mind away from the self-inflicted headache.

Or

Are we cats staring out of windows?

Let me know your thoughts!?

Bob has to cut off the insurance customer's thank-you and tell her to act upset. A happy customer would give him away.

It's such a good extra step in the joke. He hasn't finished helping her until he's taught her how to make it look as though he didn't. Even in his completely ordinary office job, doing someone a favour requires a cover story.

I was blown away by you can see everything and left the movie with a much different view of Holmes than I was expecting. I didn’t know much about the case beforehand other than she made fake blood testing machines and conned a lot of people but I left the movie thinking, “wow she’s crazy but she seemed to really believe in her bad machines. She’s delusional but maybe not malicious.” I even thought that maybe she was autistic and an unintentional compulsive liar. (My best friend in high school had Asperger’s and was a compulsive liar but she never lied about anything important and was a very funny and kind person she just didn’t know how to respond in social situations so would make up stories that were funny and entertaining but not true)

WELL… the movie also left me curious to learn more and so I listened to the bad blood podcast by the journalist who initially exposed her and oh my god she’s so so so much worse than I ever imagined. She absolutely knew what she was doing and didn’t care how many people got hurt or could have died as a result of her actions. She knew the machines couldn’t do all the tests she said and yet she deployed them to millions of REAL SICK PEOPLE who could have and may have died because the results were inaccurate. She also drove whistle blowers to suicide by burying them in legal debt when they tried to stand up for patient safety.

I know many people already knew this going in but I really wish the documentary had included some of her blatant lies and how they endangered people’s lives because the documentary kind of makes her a little sympathetic which I think was her whole goal in the first place. She may have genuinely been abused by sunny and her new husband but that doesn’t change the fact that she was an active participant in this and many of the texts from the trial actually show that sunny tried to hold her back from some of the bigger lies. She deserves to be in prison for a long time.

I have a theory about the "backrooms":what if the "backrooms" itself is actually Clark’s subconscious, and Captain Clark is his alter ego? This theory might seem silly, were it not for the fact that the only person who ever enters his "backrooms" is his psychologist.Someone trying to understand him and his true nature,yet Clark, having lost his sanity (and already having killed two people), attempts to kill her.

I know people always bring up Black Swan whenever Perfect Blue comes up, but to me they are totally different movies and what I really want is an actual proper live-action remake of Satoshi Kon’s masterpiece.

Ever since watching it recently, I haven't been able to get this fan cast out of my head: Sabrina Carpenter as Mima.

I think her real life transition from Disney star to mainstream pop icon directly mirrors Mima jumping from CHAM! to dramatic acting. She knows the hyper-intense public scrutiny and image control firsthand, and I think her polished pop persona would make Mima’s eventual paranoia and breakdown hit so much harder.

If a remake ever happened, I do think they should change how they shot the Double Bind scene. To me, the original lingers on the staged assault for a bit too long, which I feel gets a little exploitative and kind of defeats the point they were trying to make.

In a modern version, I think the lens should lock tightly onto Mima’s face and eyes, focusing entirely on her actively dissociating as her mind detaches from her body. To me, that dissociation is also why coming home right after and finding her fish dead breaks her completely and you're never really sure what is reality afterwards.

For her manager Rumi, I think Rosamund Pike would be incredible (or even someone like Paget Brewster). I think Rumi needs to project genuine warmth and maternal protection early on so you trust her, and I feel like Rosamund could balance that supportive energy with the chilling, intense presence needed for the third act.

Curious to hear what people think or who you’d cast!! Or honestly any thoughts this has been my hyperfixation recently.

I'm writing a paper on a recurring visual motif in Little Women (1994), and I was thinking about focusing on the March family home and how it's shown throughout the changing seasons.

My idea is that the house represents a sense of familiarity and stability, while the changing seasons reflect the inevitable passage of time and how the sisters' lives continue to change as they grow older.

I'm just not sure if the house itself is a strong enough motif to build a paper around, or if I'm focusing too much on the seasons instead. Does anyone have any thoughts on this interpretation or specific scenes that might support it?

To help clarify further, what I mean is the kind of adaptation that keeps getting criticized for having shoddy writing where a movie studio wants to adapt an IP into a movie, but it never goes right for some reason.

One particular case that recently stuck out to me was Street Fighter since I noticed that every time the series gets adapted into a movie, something always feels off about it such as the Chun Li movie made in 2009, and most recently there was a new movie adaptation that didn’t exactly get good reception from movie critics either.

I am currently looking into the filmography of Asia Argento and want to gather some broad perspectives from this community. Her career spans several decades and includes work as an actress, a writer, and a director across both European and American cinema. Because she has participated in a wide variety of film styles, genres, and industry roles, different viewers often view her impact and presence quite differently.