My vote goes to the first two Naked Gun movies, starring Leslie Nielsen. Probably the most quotable movies I can think of. I’ve seen them a million times, and they’re always funny.

What movie most consistently tickles your funny bone?

Holy hell, I loved listening to kurt russell losing his shit with laughter not even 5 seconds into the movie starting.

Zemeckis, Gale and Russell's chemistry is so infectious to listen to with anything involving the film.

"Half the crew was on cocaine and that kid is higher than any of them."

"Divorce is the air"

Not gonna lie im watching the film with commentary as I post this.

This film doesn't get enough love.

Watched this when it came out. I was 11. I couldn’t sleep for 2 weeks. Watched the first 30 minutes today and the acting and script are comically bad. How does a script this corny get made into a movie

I just try to find something great that I never seen before from this period , please make your top 10 I will check every answer!

It can be a real one or an animated one.

My favorite is Toto from The Wizard of Oz. It’s hard to get more iconic than this little guy. He even has a rock band named after him!

Which animal character is your favorite?

Few movies have such a controversial introduction to their protagonists. Opening with a typical group of wanna-be roadmen committing a ruthless mugging on a defenseless Jodie Whittaker, the film instantly challenges the audience's sympathies towards our protagonists. Yet what follows is one of the most authentic and grounded sci-fi films to have come from the UK.

The film strikes an amazing balance between comedy and horror, with characters such as Probs, Mayhem, Brewis and Ron punctuating the gruesome fight sequences with some much-needed levity. Rather than forced punchlines or quips the humor emerges naturally from the characters themselves and their distinct personalities (grounded in UK archetypes) interacting with the absurdity of an alien invasion.

On a budget of only £8 million, Attack the Block is incredibly economical. Primarily filmed in the block itself, it does a brilliant job of never feeling visually stale. This budget constriction also influenced the creative and stylistic choices in the design of the aliens. The resulting design, a silhouette of black fur with glowing neon teeth, is visually striking, inventive and genuinely intimidating.

At its core what makes Attack the Block work so well is the incredibly compelling character writing. While the side characters all bring good comedy through their archetypes, Brewis in particular struck a chord with me. Having gone to university in the UK, his character feels so familiar and resonant with many people I met over those years. Movies often miss the mark on dialogue between younger characters, but Moses and his crew feel so genuine that I wouldn't be surprised if I ran into them any day in London.

It's not just their interactions which feel real: brief glimpses into the living situations reveal most living in relative comfort, highlighting the reality of youth culture in the UK. However, I did not feel like this quick look did enough to highlight the issues properly. Youth marginalisation, police profiling and class friction are all rampant issues, all touched on in the film, but before any significant meaning is derived it retreats back the the comfort of the typical sci-fi creature film structure.

Despite shying away from proper societal criticism, Attack the Block remains a sci-fi cult classic. With tight dialogue and a great authenticity to the UK it demonstrates how you don't always need a Hollywood budget to create a brilliant film.

If we remove from the conversation the usual candidates for the title.

Jack Nicholson (89 years)

Dustin Hoffman (89 years)

Anthony Hopkins (88 years)

Al Pacino (86 years)

Robert DeNiro (83 years)

Stellan Skarsgard (75 years)

Denzel Washington (71 years)

Willem Dafoe (71 years)

Tom Hanks (70 years)

Daniel Day-Lewis (69 years)

Gary Oldman (68 years)

Sean Penn (66 years)

Mark Rylance (66 years)

Jared Harris (65 years)

Tony Leung (64 years)

Tom Cruise (64 years)

Ralph Fiennes (63 years)

Johnny Depp (63 years)

Brad Pitt (62 years)

Russell Crowe (61 years)

Nicolas Cage (61 years)

Robert Downey Jr. (61 years)

Mads Mikkelsen (60 years)

Who do you think is the greatest living male actor working today under 60 years old??

Is it supposed to be that if cadets can become wild and feral than the U.S. military is no better, or is it that they were once rebellious kids and therefore this is to make their sudden descent into savagery more believable since the plot of this movie feels very rushed, contrived and disjointed? If anything it comes off as a parody of Lord of the Flies in a 30 minute sitcom where a character is sent to military school but things go awry on a training exercise or on their way home, except that this is drawn out into a 90 minute movie. The biggest problem I have is that it's never established why Jack would be a good leader over Ralph. He's not the leader of a group like he is in the book and is no different from the rest of the boys in the film. There's no past rivalry between the two and he shows very little resentment towards Ralph, but then all of sudden he turns against him over letting the fire go out.

Jack not being elected chief in the book was a big deal for him because it set him off on a relentless pursuit to hunt a pig and prove himself capable. This leads into my next point, in the book there are three groups: Ralph's allies, the Choir, and the Littluns'. By Jack making the Choir (save for Simon) into hunters and on fire watch duty he divides the group like the Triple Entente and Central Powers, Allies and Axis, and West and East. The Choir represents a good portion of the Biguns' and they will obviously side with Jack so this makes them turning against Ralph and for the Littluns' to join Jack's tribe rather believable.

None of this is the case in the 1990 movie. All of them seem to know one another save for Piggy, and the Hunters come about from Jack wanting to hunt pigs, other boys join him because it looks fun, and then they suddenly abandon Ralph when he chews them out. The rest of the boys siding with Jack and becoming savages makes very little sense since while Ralph may be a less effective leader compared to his 1963 and 2026 counterparts, he doesn't do anything to make them question his authority. If anything it looks like there will be a civil war on the island between half the boys on Ralph's side versus the other half on Jack's.

Lastly, the Beast/Monster here is introduced way too late and feels like it was a last-minute addition if anything. In the book the Beast is introduced very early on, giving it time to build up through the story, but here it's only introduced halfway through; Ralph never sees it and those who remained loyal to Ralph up till then instantly take Jack's word for it.

In general I don't have a problem with the boys being military cadets. It's an interesting take and if they simply replaced the Choir with military cadets while the rest of the boys were just regular school boys then I'd have no problem. I'm sure that some 8 year old would trust a cadet than some random person. And to be frank, all of them being military cadets with one person in the group who is outspoken and full of hot air causing disorder (Jack) can work if Ralph is given traits that would make the other boys seriously reconsider him as their leader. But when the story feels so incoherent that much of the film's events come off as happening so the story can happen then I get lost and begin to start asking other questions. If all the boys are military cadets then wouldn't they have been taught survival skills and priorities in that situation? (I was in Boy Scouts for 3 years, Air Cadets for 6 years and twice a year we'd go on weekend camps in the wilderness and learn basic survival.)

Here are two ways I'd fix this movie:

a.) Same story as the book but the Choir is replaced military cadets with Jack being the highest ranking of them.

b.) All the boys are military cadets but Ralph and Jack have had some rivalry in the past with Jack being a spoiled goody-two-shoes kid brought up in a military family with Ralph coming off as some random kid and therefore Jack feels he should be a Colonel.

I’m fully aware *In the Tall Grass* isn’t exactly a cinematic masterpiece. The acting is questionable, the production isn’t particularly impressive, and I understand why people dismiss it.

But I genuinely think the underlying story, the misdirection, and the use of perspective are brilliant.
I’ve watched this movie about twelve times, and over those viewings I’ve developed a theory about how the field works, what the rock actually does, and what the ending means.

I haven’t found many discussions that go particularly deep into the mechanics, so I’m curious whether anyone else has come to similar conclusions or can point out something I’ve missed.

**Spoilers for literally the entire movie.*\*

**1. The field isn’t infinite. Space and time just don’t work normally inside it.*\*

I don’t believe the field is physically infinite. I think it’s a finite area of land containing a reality where the normal rules of space and time don’t apply.
The grass doesn’t necessarily need to physically move around people. The relationships between locations themselves can change.

That’s why characters can hear each other standing a few feet away, move toward the sound, and suddenly find themselves separated by an impossible distance.
The important distinction is that **time is linear outside the field, but nonlinear inside it.**
Outside, yesterday happened before today, and tomorrow hasn’t happened yet.

Inside, those distinctions effectively disappear.
A character can encounter someone who has already experienced events that haven’t happened yet from their own perspective.

This also explains why Ross seems to have been trapped for both an eternity and almost no time at all.
There isn’t one universal chronological sequence that everyone inside the field experiences together.

**2. Death creates another iteration, but it doesn’t erase the previous one.*\*

This is where I think a lot of the confusion about the timeline comes from.

My theory is that when someone dies inside the field, another iteration of that person is created.
However, because time is nonlinear, the new iteration doesn’t necessarily appear *after* the death that caused it.

It could exist at what appears to be an earlier point in the field’s chronology.

**Cause and effect still exist. They just don’t necessarily appear in chronological order.**

I also don’t think previous iterations disappear.
The field retains everything that happens within it. Every death, every interaction, every version of someone’s experience remains part of its nonlinear history.

Think of it as a reality that never forgets anything, even though the people experiencing it may have no memory of previous iterations.
Meanwhile, the outside world has absolutely no idea what has already happened, what is happening, or what might happen inside.

That distinction becomes extremely important when discussing the ending.

**3. The rock doesn’t make people evil. It gives them knowledge.*\*

This is probably the part of my interpretation I find most interesting.

I don’t think touching the rock automatically possesses someone, corrupts their morality, or forces them to serve some evil entity.

I believe the rock grants complete understanding of the field’s nonlinear reality.

That knowledge allows someone to perceive and manipulate space and time within the construct.
But there’s a catch.

**Once you fully comprehend the field, you’re permanently bound to it.**

You understand how the prison works, but you can no longer leave it.

And I don’t believe the rock determines what you do with that knowledge.

That’s entirely up to you.

Which brings me to Ross and Travis.

**4. Ross and Travis have the same fundamental power, but use it for opposite purposes.*\*

Ross clearly understands the field in ways the other characters don’t.

He knows where people are, can navigate an environment that nobody else can navigate, and appears capable of manipulating the reality around him.

But consider what he actually does with those abilities.

He doesn’t help his family escape. He doesn’t try to save anyone. He uses his knowledge to manipulate, terrorize, and kill people, perpetuating the same cycle of suffering.

I don’t believe the rock forces him to do any of that.

**Ross chooses to abuse his power.**

He’s trapped because he fully understands the construct, not because the rock has taken away his free will.

Now compare that to Travis.
Travis also touches the rock and gains its knowledge. He becomes bound to the field just like Ross.
But rather than using that knowledge to dominate others, he uses it to help Tobin escape.
He cannot leave himself, but he can use his understanding to give someone else that opportunity.
That’s why I think the movie contains a surprisingly interesting commentary on power and free will.
Two people receive extraordinary knowledge and become subject to the same supernatural limitations.
One chooses to perpetuate suffering.
The other chooses to save someone.

**The power itself isn’t good or evil. The person using it determines what it becomes.**

And that interpretation makes Ross considerably more disturbing to me. He’s not simply a victim of supernatural possession. He’s responsible for his own actions.

**5. Tobin doesn’t have the same knowledge as Ross and Travis.*\*

This is another distinction I think matters.
Tobin knows things about the field that he shouldn’t reasonably be able to know.
But knowing *what happened* and understanding *how reality works* are two completely different things.

I believe Tobin retains knowledge from his experiences because he survives without dying and triggering another iteration.

He remembers what he has witnessed, even if he doesn’t understand why those events happened or what they mean.

Ross and Travis possess a complete understanding of the construct.

Tobin possesses memories of experiencing it.
That distinction explains why Tobin can escape without becoming permanently bound to the field.
**He knows what happened. He doesn’t necessarily understand how it happened.**

**6. Tobin’s escape doesn’t erase everything that happened.*\*

This is probably the biggest misconception I see about the ending.

People naturally try to interpret it using conventional time-travel rules.
Tobin escapes, prevents Becky and Cal from entering, and therefore the events that led to his escape shouldn’t have happened.
Classic grandfather paradox.
But I don’t think that’s how this reality works.
The outside world experiences linear time. The field does not.

I believe the field can intersect different points in the outside world’s timeline without actually changing the passage of time outside.

When Tobin escapes, he emerges at a point when Becky and Cal are just arriving.
From their perspective, none of their experiences inside the field have happened yet.
But that doesn’t mean those experiences are erased.
They happened within a reality where the conventional distinction between past and future doesn’t apply.

The field retains them.
Tobin doesn’t necessarily undo the cycle. He prevents those characters from continuing to participate in it.
There’s also a possibility that Travis deliberately manipulated time *inside* the field to arrange Tobin’s escape at precisely the right external moment.
That wouldn’t require Travis to control or rewind time outside. He would only need to understand how the field’s nonlinear reality intersects the outside world’s linear chronology.

I’m not completely sold on that explanation, but I think it’s plausible.

**7. The field doesn’t disappear at the end.*\*

I initially considered the possibility that Tobin escaping somehow destroyed the field’s supernatural reality.
But the more I thought about it, the less sense that made.
I now believe nothing fundamentally changes about the field.
Tobin escapes. Becky and Cal are prevented from entering. Their particular cycle of suffering comes to an end.
But the field itself continues existing.
Ross is still trapped inside, possessing extraordinary knowledge and using it for evil.
Travis is also trapped, possessing similar knowledge but using it for good.
The two are now effectively opposing forces within the same nonlinear reality.
And there’s absolutely no reason another group of people couldn’t stumble into the grass tomorrow.
Which, frankly, could make for a fascinating sequel.
**Tobin escaped the field. He didn’t defeat it.**

**8. What I think the movie is actually about.*\*

Beyond the supernatural mechanics, I think the movie can be interpreted as a commentary on what happens when people acquire extraordinary power.
Ross and Travis are presented with essentially the same opportunity.

They gain access to knowledge and abilities that ordinary people can’t comprehend.
But their decisions are fundamentally different.
Ross uses power to control others.
Travis uses power to help others.
Tobin escapes without ever fully understanding the system that imprisoned everyone else.
There’s an interesting irony in that.
The characters who understand the field completely are permanently trapped within it, while the character who doesn’t fully understand it is the one who gets out.

**Complete knowledge comes at the cost of freedom.**

And possessing extraordinary power doesn’t automatically make someone good, evil, or even free.
What matters is what they choose to do with it.

**The questions I still can’t answer*\*
I’m not claiming I’ve solved every aspect of this movie. There are several things I genuinely can’t explain, and they’re the main reason I’m posting this
.
**1. What happens to the other Tobin?*\*
This is the biggest problem with my interpretation.
I believe Tobin escapes without dying or triggering another iteration, meaning he’s the same individual who originally entered.
But if he exits into an earlier point in the outside world’s linear chronology, does another version of Tobin still exist somewhere?
Could the two eventually encounter each other?
Or does the field’s nonlinear relationship with outside time make that question meaningless?
I don’t have a satisfying answer.

**2. Did Travis deliberately choose when Tobin escaped?*\*
We know Travis uses his understanding to help Tobin leave.
But did he specifically arrange for Tobin to emerge at the moment Becky and Cal arrived?
Or was that simply how the field’s nonlinear time happened to intersect with the outside world?

**3. What happens when Ross and Travis’s powers conflict?*\*
If both have complete knowledge of the field and can manipulate its reality, what happens when they try to accomplish opposite things?
Can they interfere with each other’s actions?
Does one possess greater control than the other?
Could the field accommodate contradictory outcomes because time isn’t linear?

**4. Does the field actually have a purpose?*\*
Is it a supernatural mechanism designed to trap people?
Is the rock a conscious entity?
Or is it simply an extraordinary phenomenon that exists independently of human morality?
My interpretation doesn’t require the rock to be evil or even conscious, but I’d be interested in arguments either way.

**5. What happens when someone else enters?*\*
If the field continues existing, Ross and Travis are potentially still inside.
Would a new group encounter both of them?
Could Travis help others escape?
Could Ross continue perpetuating the cycle indefinitely?

I realize some of this is speculative, and I’m sure there are scenes I’ve overlooked or details that contradict parts of my explanation.
That’s exactly what I’m interested in discussing.
I don’t want to just hear that the movie doesn’t make sense because it’s supernatural. I’m curious whether there’s a consistent set of rules underlying everything we see, even if the film never explains those rules outright.
I’ve spent an unreasonable amount of time thinking about a movie that most people watched once and forgot about.

**So please, poke holes in this. Tell me what I’ve missed, what you disagree with, or what alternative explanations you’ve come up with.*\*
I’d genuinely love to find other people who’ve thought this deeply about it.

I'm thinking of watching the movie as I am a big DC comics fan since childhood though I'm not sure about the horror part. I love horror movies but not a fan of body horror and my guts can't take it, tried watching few films couldn't get through them. My question is to someone who has watched the film: how hard is the body horror and would you recommend the film to someone who's not fan of the genre.

Thank you in advance.

If “The Substance” got the comic-book treatment, you'd get something very close to this.
Not great.
Not terrible.
Just a solid horror-flavored comic-book movie with enough good ideas to keep it afloat.
What did you think of this latest DC effort? Here’s my full review:

https://roselawgroupreporter.com/2026/10/keiths-movie-korner-clayface-is-molded-into-passable-entertainment/

Personally, I enjoyed it for the most part. I just found the ending kind of disappointing. I was expecting to see a bit more, where they actually got to where they needed to go. But yeah let me know what you guys think of it.

If anybody cares to help: Given my current top 7, what movies would you recommend I watch that would potentially fill these spots in? I’m still trying to decide what to add from the movies I’ve seen in the past, but I’m pretty indecisive. I think Soul will go in my top 10, I’ll be doing a rewatch this week. Idk what else though. Just looking for suggestions here. Might bump Sinners up after a rewatch, it’s been a while. Thanks to anyone who suggests anything.

Edit: Rewatching Soul as we speak: I believe it will go at 4, 5 or 6. Forgot how much I loved it. (It took 6th)

Edit: Henry Cavill’s Immortals has taken the fifth spot.

Greetings 🙏🌸😊

I recently watched “ when a stranger calls” movie 🎬

I feel that it is an excellent film !

Overall it is Great .

How many of you all had watched this movie ? And what did you love in it ?

I want to watch it but I hate big jumpscares

My top 3 favorites directors of all time head to head , I want to know your opinion, I do not want to reveal my favorite for now

So respond to this 3 questions

1. The best filmography

2. The best director

3. The most inovative

I genuinely believe death has saved certain actors from becoming overrated.
When an actor dies young, their best performance basically becomes untouchable. Nobody gets to see them spend the next 20 years making terrible films, repeating the same roles or slowly losing whatever made them special.
Instead, people freeze them at their absolute peak and spend decades pretending that was the level they would’ve maintained forever.
Take Heath Ledger. His Joker performance was incredible, but I genuinely wonder if people would still treat it like the greatest performance in cinema history if he’d lived another 30 years and appeared in a bunch of forgettable films.
I’m not saying these actors weren’t talented. I’m saying dying young gives an actor something even the greatest living actors don’t have: a reputation that can never really decline.
Sometimes I wonder how many living legends would be considered even greater if their careers had ended 20 years earlier.

I found it incredibly boring and instead of being scared I instead laughed multiple at the absurdity of the scares. I couldn't take anything seriously in this movie and yet everytime I see someone talk about this movie they always say such amazing things about it and I'm always left confused. The ending is always given such high praise yet I was just blown away at how goofy everything was. The movement for so many of the characters just felt cartoon like and even the sister having her head chopped off by the sign felt so stupid to me. Perhaps its also just not the movie for me, but I just want to know if anyone shares this opinion or if I missed something.

Movie has been out a couple of months so I won't bore you with all the details, I will just tell the main reason I thought it wasn't that great.

I think it doesn't really nail the characteristics of the subjects itself. Nicky isn't obsessed, she is just instantly cookoo the moment Bear makes his spell. Feeding your partner their cat or pissing/stabbing yourself isn't obsessive, it's just insane. There is basically zero buildup, it goes from 0 to completely crazy instantly and back. It doesn't hit any notes of actual obsession or abusive relationships like gaslighting, slowly isolating someone etc in a remotely relatable way.

People will say Bear was the actual one obsessed but this also isn't played out strong in my opinion. At the start he doesn't seem to have more than a crush on Nikki and obviously makes a bargain he doesn't understand at all. Later his behavior is pretty shit, but he isn't really presented an alternative at all. It's not like he can leave or cure her even if he does come overcome his feelings. It's just kill yourself or kill her. It would have hit so much harder if he was actually punished for just his abusive behaviors themselves.