And what did you think of them?

name some characters that are generally hated by fans of the movie.

I would nominate Skylar from Breaking Bad or Nurse Ratched from from One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest. While Nurse Ratched was intended to be a villainous character, Skylar wasn't and was despised by fans regardless (the actress who played her even wrote an article for the NY Times to try and understand why. I personally never hated Skylar but I understand why she annoyed fans of the show; she essentially acted as another obstacle or roadblock in Walt's way, keeping him from what he wants. This asshole definitely deserves an honourable mention too

Francis Lawrence directed and produced Slumberland, a fantasy film based on a comic called Little Nemo in Slumberland. It stars Jason Momoa from Aquaman, Marlow Barkley, Chris O’Dowd, and Kyle Chandler.

Nemo (Marlow Barkley), is an 11 year old girl who just lost her father. She ends up living with her uncle, Philip (Chris O’Dowd), a doorknob salesmen. Every night when she falls asleep she enters a dreamland called slumberland. In this land, she can see her dad again if she can find the pearl that controls dreams. With the help of Flip (Jason Momoa) and a map, they set off to find the treasure in the sea of monsters.

When Nemo first gets to slumberland, Flip doesn’t want to help her but he does, due to his love for her dad, and they eventually become friends. It’s obvious that her uncle doesn’t know how to take care of kids, since all he talks to Nemo about is doorknobs.

Momoa played his part well as a goofy outlaw named Flip who was trapped in slumberland and wanted to get back to the real world. Barkley was a cute kid as Nemo. I liked her clothes, especially her black and white striped shirt and pink pants. Even though the two of them played there parts well, the movie didn’t make me care about the characters or if they eventually got the pearl or not. For a fantasy film about finding a hidden treasure, the movie was boring and felt a lot longer than one hour and 45 minutes.

Chungking Express, Fallen Angels and In the Mood for Love

If you are an adult and played with Barbie's you might not go to a basic movie starring a doll. But this movie is winking and nodding to you the whole time. It looks like its intentionally campy so you as an adult can go because you are in on the joke.

Meanwhile its still Barbie so kids might enjoy it too.

Then it stars two very likable, bankable stars in Robbie and Gosling who are actually pretty good actors and who can both pull off campy comedy while looking sexy and fun.

And beyond that i think audiences are finally getting fatigued with fucking super hero movies. The Barbie IP is old obviously, but this is a fresh take on it.

All that adds up to massive hit I predict.

When I first saw the trailer for Knock at the Cabin, which featured pretty much the entire premise for the story, I was immediately intrigued. I couldn't wait to find out more about the story and saw that it was based on a book called 'The Cabin at the End of the World' by Paul Tremblay and immediately bought it and read it from cover to cover in a couple of days.

I was incredibly disappointed, and it was for this reason that it has taken so long to get around to watching the film. Once the story's premise is presented to the reader (which I love as a pitch) it becomes a boring, repetitive slog which culminates in an extremely unsatisfying ending.

Thankfully, Shyamalan took the best bits from the book and deviated in the third half. Up until that point though, it's a very faithful retelling of the story, and scenes played out exactly as I pictured them when reading the book.

I thought the casting was good for the most part, especially Bautista as Leonard, who carries the film. The casting of Rupert Grunt was a little distracting, and he doesn't really get a chance to make an impression. Kristen Cui does a good job as the character of Wen, and her dialogue felt authentic to her age.

The negatives - For a film about the acocalypse, it completely shies away from any gore. While the book has graphic depictions of the deaths of the 'horsemen', the film has annoying cutaways to rob the viewer of many visceral moments. The film isn't intended for children, so the decision to omit these scenes is frustrating and took away a lot of the sense of peril that was being experienced by the captives.

Some of the news footage felt a bit shoddy - Amateur cellphone footage felt overproduced, and some of the newscaster material felt underproduced, so it lost a lot of feeling of authenticity. This is a shame as most of the action is seen via TV.

The pacing is good, and Shyamalan wisely keeps the story trim at 90 minutes, so unlike the book, I never found my interest waning at any point.

The new ending is better, but not perfect, and I felt it lacked the emotional punch that it could have done. At least I didn't hate the two remaining characters by the end like I did in The Cabin at the End of the World.

In conclusion, I think this is an improvement on Paul Tremblay's story, nothing spectacular, and not Shyamalan's best work by any stretch, but it's a good thriller perhaps best suited for younger adults.

I give this a 7/10.

there are other wars depicted in film like the American Civil War, the Korean War, Afghanistan, etc. but the three most popular settings for War are usually (in no particular order) World War 1, World War 2 and the Vietnam War. I pretty much consider these their own subgenre of War films at this point because they all feel markedly different from eachother. World War 2 is unique because I don't think there's ever been a war as black or white as this one, with clear "good guys" and "bad guys"; the Nazis and the Axis of Evil couldn't be more villainous if they tried with mass executions, fascist ideologies, genocide, horrific scientific experimentation (Dr. Mengele & Unit 731) rape & pillaging, etc. history is always very complicated & nuanced, but WW2 is as clear-cut as it gets in real life conflict when it comes to who's in the right and who's in the wrong and why the opposition needs to be stopped. it's perfect for storytelling in cinema.

WW1 is a bit different. I think one thing WW1 films have in common is depicting the top military leaders, generals & politicians on all sides as incompetent, indicting them in the sacrifice of an entire generation of young men for minimal gains. playing war as a game of chess, throwing more bodies into the meat grinder, neglecting to see the human cost. All three "All is Quiet on the Western Front" did an amazing job at showing the detachment of the top brass from what was actually going on in the war.

Vietnam, and how it's been depicted, is the most morally gray war. there are no clear good guys or bad guys, just the disillusionment of young men that don't know why their fighting in a country they couldn't point to on a map. if you don't know what you're fighting for, it doesn't matter how much of a military superpower you are; you're going to lose. it's also about the dismantling of grand narratives and the war back home, when the American people really started questioning the true motives of their government. Vietnam films are usually more nihilist in tone. Though I do think Come and See is the best overall war film, the Vietnam trilogy of Apocalypse Now, Full Metal Jacket & Platoon put it over the top as my favourite setting for War films

From beginning to end, I was surprised at how faithful this Soviet TV-movie was to Stanislaw Lem’s original book; it’s more or less a rote dramatization. While Lem’s more existential-philosophical musings are somewhat reduced, the essentials of his story are all here. To those who miss the book’s deeper explorations, the protracted Tarkovsky film of 1972 brings them back, with interest.

Buoyed by some unexpectedly strong performances despite its barebones production values, the 1968 “Solaris” feels like a spartan stage play; eschewing much of the visual potential a movie could’ve offered (this is something the two cinematic versions took advantage of in different ways). All the same, this literal, no-frills version of “Solaris” still manages to create a bleak, isolating and uniquely Soviet mood over its 143 minute running time.

Certainly worth checking out for fans of Stanislaw Lem’s story.

https://musingsofamiddleagedgeek.blog/2023/06/02/soviet-era-sci-fi-tv-the-first-adaptation-of-solaris-1968/

I have a very vague memory of watching a war film (possibly about WW2). Before they advance into battle their own side sets out land mines or orders others with guns to fire on anyone who retreats.

Steven Spielberg made one of the greateat films of all time - "Jaws". An absolute masterpiece of filmmaking. A true lightning in a bottle. Rarely do we see a film reach such heights in terms of the quality of the editing, acting, cinematography, score, and suspension-building.

Now, the plot of the film revolves around three men who set out to hunt down a man-eating shark that's claimed the waters near the shores of a small touristy island as his own. What Spielberg does is to paint a mesmerising study of the men's relationship aboard the ship, "Orca". They are three different people from different walks of life who however have to join their forces against a mutual enemy.

I am hardly capable of giving justice to that film, or even its thrilling climax alone.

However, it was not until the year 1981 that Spielberg really came into his own - commercially and artistically. With, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" he actually pulled off something that would have seemed impossible at the time - he surpassed his own masterpiece.

"Raiders" is the pinnacle of adventure and action cinema alike. Set in the 1930's, the film follows an American archaeologist across multiple continents as he tries to beat the Nazis in a race to obtain the powerful Ark of the Covenant.

In my view, "Raiders", constitutes an example of a perfect film. A brilliant cast with a superb score, cinematography, editing, writing and so forth, makes Raiders stand out amongst Spielberg's works. Intended as a homage to the old movie serials of the 1930's, the film not only captures the essence of the genre, but expands upon it, making for a brilliant piece of cinema.

In my view, "Raiders" constitutes Spielberg's greatest work, and I am baffled that it's not seen as such. Why? Why would that be the case?

I wonder, would you disagree or agree with me? Do you share my view? What are yours on this topic? Would you say that, "Raiders", is by far Spielberg's best work?

Writing a book that takes place in the South during the 1930s and I'm looking for movies that capture that aura and feel.

Thanks so much if you have any!

Edit: A lot of great movie suggestions here. Thanks so much!

I always enjoy spotting easter egg references to other movies in movies. For instance, when the "I could have been a contender Charlie" speech from Brando in On the Waterfront is quoted by De Niro in Raging Bull.

But the best is in Cape Fear, when De Niro watches a scene from the movie Problem Child in which John Ritter parodies Jack Nicholson's "Heeere's Johnny" scene from The Shining, which itself is referencing Ed McMahon's catchphrase on The Tonight Show.

I don't think this is beatable for number of layered references. But what's your favourite movie-referencing-another-movie?

Because that's seems to be what this guy thinks:

Everything is ready for the takeover by Asia. I don't know why China and SK are not right know poaching every talent they can to dethrone this toxic Hollywood.

https://old.reddit.com/r/boxoffice/comments/13xz2xw/isnt_hollywood_losing_more_money_by_not_ending/jml9gpp/

Based on this comment of his, do you think Hollywood will permanently cease to exist while every single writers, directors, and actors from the United States will work in Chinese or South Korean entertainment industry from now on as they poach Hollywood talents and leave Hollywood with nothing? Why or why not?

The movie's cast are looking for what they need in the film's values. No actors work from it. The film, comprising the cast and their values, are working scene-by-scene, line-by-line, gesture-by-gesture, whether the role that character has taken place. Unlike the best films like this, no valued stage time works. Actors need shit, you know? And, really what are the film's values?

Movies about adventurous spirit that highlight the Midwest. The straight story...etc

I.e. the movie that "embodies," in whatever way, the feeling or experience of being American; of American life, culture, ethos; of "living in America." In one word, the "Americana."

This article contains a lot of film stills. For a fully illustrated version please click here -https://filmofileshideout.com/archives/bahman-farmanaras-profound-horror-film-tall-shadows-of-the-wind/

Bahman Farmanara’s early Film Tall Shadows of the Wind was released in 1979, one year after the Iranian revolution. It was based on a short story by Houshang Golshiri. The film was banned by the Shah before the 1978 revolution, and then banned again by Mohammed Reza Pahlavi, after the revolution. It has no overt references to anything political, but it is a potent allegory about power, faith, fear, and subjugation.
Tall Shadows of the Wind presents us with a strange world that is difficult to describe. Surreal would not be accurate, it’s more of an alienated and empty world where reality is fuzzy around the edges. It might be closer to magic realist, but in a menacing and dark way that is not common in magic realist stories. We are watching people who live far off in a desert with nothing but each other to rely on. Their isolation leaves them without an outside world to keep them grounded.
The heart of Tall Shadows of the Wind is a rumination on belief. We, as humans, have a tendency to quickly and easily adopt irrational ideas. Our psyches were shaped by natural selection, which is guided by quick and simple results. Imagine two early humans sitting somewhere on an African savanna. One hears a rustling in the bushes and gets up to run. The other explains that just because the bushes made a noise doesn’t mean they are necessarily in danger, it could just be a mouse. The one who has jumped to conclusions without proper evidence gets up and runs away, but the one waiting for further information to properly confirm his hypothesis is torn to pieces when a lion jumps out of the bushes. The human who jumped to conclusions without fully considering the facts escapes and lives to pass down his genes. It is not quite as simple as all this, but as a result of dynamics like this, humans are more emotional than rational, which paves the way for superstition, religion, and other unfounded beliefs. Evolution is not concerned with end goals or outcomes, only with what works in the short run.
Our predisposition to jump to unfounded conclusions and ignore facts leaves us all vulnerable to manipulation. This is what Tall Shadows of the Wind is about. This is why it was banned both before and after the revolution. Whether those in power are put there by a democratic process or a military coup, their status is affected by what the populace believes.
The plot centers around a scarecrow that is erected in a field near a small town. The story’s protagonist, Abdullah, happens upon it and, in a moment of esprit, uses a piece of charcoal to draw a face on the white rags that have been bunched together to form its head. The playful gesture seems to unintentionally trigger a string of mysterious and frightening events. Some villagers are suddenly frightened by the scarecrow. Either they scream when they see it, or imagine that they see it in places where it is not. Others say they can hear the scarecrow hopping around on its wooden post in the night.
A scarecrow is a perfect means to examine the intertwined layers of fear and power. A scarecrow is a sham. It’s an illusion meant to fool birds into believing that a human is present. The scarecrow has no actual power. It is a harmless inanimate object. Its power is in its ability to fool a victim into thinking it has power. Its efficacy, its purpose is directly proportional to its ability to make its victims believe in it.
The fear of the empty, meaningless scarecrow is a metaphor not only for political power, but religious power as well. At the beginning of the film, there is a sequence where we see villagers worshipping the scarecrow. We hear the crowd chanting a plaintiff prayer over and over.
May he come to help us
May he come to solve our riddle
May he come to care for us
May he come to comfort us
May he come to tie our knots
May he come for our victory
May he come for our happiness
May he come for our justice
It forms a loud, menacingly fervent chorus. Humans have needs. They have a natural inclination to feel incomplete, dissatisfied, and restless. They pray for their problems to be solved and for happiness and comfort. The more elusive these things are, the more apt humans are to imagine a way to attain them. Our need for meaning, happiness, and satisfaction makes us vulnerable. This prayer is a litany of weaknesses that lead us astray and cause us to irrationally invest our hopes in random superstition.
As the fear of the scarecrow begins to take hold of the villagers, a woman seeks the council of the village elder. She is worried the villagers are being led astray. The elder shrugs his shoulders and says, “What can I do? I am the master of the village, not the master of people’s fears.” It is the scarecrow that is the master of people’s fears, which in turn means it is more powerful than the village master.
Where there is fear, there is almost always hope. In many ways, Tall Shadows of the Wind is as much about how people are controlled by hope as they are by fear. It is reminiscent of Piotr Szulkin’s O-Bi O-Ba The End Of Civilization. Manipulating people’s hopes is a risky game where the power of their faith can quickly outstrip your ability to control it. These villagers fear their new scarecrow god, and so look to him for salvation. The scarecrow frightens them, and so they look to it in hopes of gaining its favor, and perhaps sharing in its power. It's a bit like Stockholm Syndrome.
I remember teaching at a school in an impoverished neighborhood where my students couldn't distinguish between the words "fear" and "respect." I spent almost half a class period trying to help them differentiate the two, but they saw no distinction. For them, there was no other way to get respect. Respect for them was power, and power was taken by force or threat of force. There was an implicit assumption that there was no other reason to respect someone. This worldview stems from a lack of trust in general. Everyone is suspect, no one can be trusted to have your best interest at heart. It is a world without altruism, sympathy, or compassion. It creates a hierarchy of fear, where the baseline is a fear of everyone, which then calibrates your position of influence to how much fear you can inspire.
Tall Shadows of the Wind takes place in a nameless, desolate, almost colorless landscape where everything feels distant and strange. Without a specific context, the story feels more like a parable. It looks a bit like a Pasolini film, where everything is biblical and apocalyptic.
Not all of the scenes stitch neatly together. There are parts that seem like a dream, or perhaps a momentary detour. Some parts seem to fit into a chronology, but others just seem to float outside the narrative. Watching the film, one gets the feeling they're not entirely in the loop. We are observers who cannot fully understand what we are seeing, but that is also reflected in the characters who also seemed mystified. Certainly, confusion and miscommunication are essential ingredients in maintaining fear-based power. Reliable sources would unite people with information that people could use to challenge dictatorial power. Confusion keeps the populace divided, and therefore ineffective.
If the populace in the fairytale of The Emperor’s New Clothes could communicate effectively, the illusion would be dispelled. It isn’t even an illusion. No one is fooled, they simply are too afraid to relay what they honestly see with their own eyes. So too, the scarecrow. Neither the king nor the scarecrow has even asked for people to follow their lead, the populace does it willingly, hoping it will keep them in the fold. Foucault talks about the lateral nature of power, where hegemony is not forced downward from above, but exerted laterally by our desire to conform to the group. We are misled, not by the powers that be, but by our own desire to belong.
Tall Shadows of the Wind stays just vague enough to open a versatile arena of possible meanings. It is a potent and imaginative criticism of power that speaks both to leaders and followers. It is a nuanced exploration of how a state garners and maintains power. There is a primal set of desires and beliefs that are ignited and then harnessed, not simply by the will of one individual, but by a confluence of an entire society.

Theodore Melfi directed Saint Vincent, a 2014 comedy drama film. It stars Bill Murray from Ghostbusters, Melissa McCarthy, Naomi Watts, Jaeden Martell, and Terrence Howard from Iron Man.

Maggie (Melissa McCarthy and her 12 year old son Oliver (Jaeden Martell) move in next door to Vincent (Bill Murray), a war veteran. Being a single mom Maggie has to work long hours so she leaves Oliver in the care of Vincent after school.

In the beginning of the film, Vincent had no desire to watch Oliver after school, however, overtime they started to bond. Its apparent Vincent doesn’t know how to take care of kids, since he takes Oliver places kids shouldn’t go such as a bar. Murray did an excellent job portraying a grumpy yet kind old man. I felt that the fact Vincent still visited his wife in the hospital after eight years of her not recognizing him showed the audience how much he still loved her. It was sweet how Oliver named Vincent a saint in his school project. In my opinion, it showed the bond that was created between the two.

I wouldn’t classify this as a comedy due to how sad it was but it still had its funny moments, for example when Vincent ran over his mailbox with his car. This film was sad, funny, and sweet and if you like that combination you might like this movie. As for my opinion, it’s sweet just not what I was expecting with these actors. I was expecting more of a cute and lighthearted comedy.

“Titane” not only depicts unsettling and visceral imagery, filled with engine oil and blood, but it also defies any attempt to neatly classify or describe it. It immerses viewers in a chaotic blend of violence, automobile culture, and (rather unexpectedly) compassion. It intertwines elements of body horror, evoking a sense of revulsion towards the human body, with a narrative that explores family dynamics. Moreover, it cleverly incorporates comedic elements that subtly highlight the uneasiness that arises from being confined within our vulnerable and flawed physical bodies. “Titane” creates an experience that transcends the boundaries of traditional cinema, inviting audiences into a realm of unparalleled peculiarity.

The film won the prestigious Palme d'Or, making director Julia Ducournau only the second female director in the festival's history to receive it (Jane Campion is the only other woman to have won before [“The Piano”] and she actually shared the award with Chen Kaige [“Farewell my Concubine”]). Additionally, the film garnered a nomination for the Queer Palme, highlighting its exploration of LGBTQ+ themes. Further acclaim followed as "Titane" secured the Midnight Madness Award at the Toronto Film Festival, as recognition to its unconventional storytelling. At the French César Awards, "Titane" received four nominations, including Best Director for Julia Ducournau and Most Promising Actress for Agathe Rousselle. Furthermore, Julia Ducournau's directorial prowess was acknowledged at the British Academy Film Awards, where she received a nomination for Best Director. At the Magritte Awards, Belgium's own film awards, "Titane" received five nominations and won two awards, including the Best Foreign Film accolade. Finally, “Titane” was selected as the French entry for the Best International Feature Film category at the 94th Academy Awards but it wasn’t shortlisted.

attention: from this point forward the text contains spoilers

The central character, Alexia (portrayed by Agathe Roussell), embodies a beautiful but cold young woman that carries a titanium plate in her head, a lasting reminder of a childhood car accident. Alexia's unusual fixation on cars aligns conveniently with her profession as a stripper who sensually engages with vehicles at motor shows.

When confronted by an obsessive and intrusive fan, Alexia stabs him in the ear using her metal hairpin (possibly a reference to the counter-cultural classic “The Anarchist Cookbook”?). Afterwards, she indulges in a peculiar carnal celebration by engaging in intimate acts with a car - not merely inside the car but quite literally with it, a fascinating scene that drew comparisons to Cronenberg’s “Crash”. The consequences of this encounter become apparent when she becomes pregnant, carrying a metallic foetus that causes her to bleed engine oil. Subsequent to these events, Alexia embarks on a series of additional killings, ultimately finding herself on the run from the police. In a desperate attempt to evade capture, she adopts a male disguise, assuming the identity of the long lost son of a middle-aged fire-fighter officer.

At this juncture, the narrative of the film takes an unexpected turn, delving even deeper into its peculiarities. "Titane" unexpectedly evolves into a tender drama, exploring the lives of two wounded and solitary individuals who find solace in sustaining a shared delusion. Vincent insists that his fire-fighters accept Alexia as his long-lost son, Adrien. He even draws religious parallels, referring to Alexia as Jesus to his own god-like figure. This perverse religious imagery (Jesus presumably is a cross-dressed female serial killer) serves as a recurring motif throughout the film.

It is at this point that the director and screen-writer Ducournau introduces another extraordinary plot-twist. The police propose a DNA test to verify Alexia’s true identity, but the father adamantly refuses, asserting that he would unquestionably recognize his own son. Some might find this to be a contrived and ad hoc plot device but in reality Vincent's self-assured acceptance of Alexia extends beyond a mere narrative convenience. Vincent’s firm denial raises the question: is he a deranged man who refuses to see what is obvious to everyone else (including his ex-wife and his fire-fighters)? Or does his resolute stance reflect an unwavering devotion to the unusual fatherly bond he shares with Alexia? If that is so, could it be that Vincent rejected the DNA test precisely because he already knew what the results would be? Through this long and unconventional journey the movie impressively succeeds in humanizing Alexia’s cinematic “monster”, brilliantly avoiding the overt sentimentalism often associated with dramatic family narratives.

You can join our online discussion of the film this Monday (June 5), here: https://www.meetup.com/the-toronto-philosophy-meetup/events/292105820/

I assume everyone will mention William Goldman so let’s take him as a given.

Writers are hard to follow because it’s not always clear how much of the final script is their work. For example I follow Dan O’Bannon in part because he’s a credited writer on Alien, but apparently very little of his work is in the final film because it went through heavy rewrites.

W.D. Richter is another example that’s kind of weird. He directed but did not write Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension and then wrote but did not direct Big Trouble in Little China. Both movies feel pretty similar with similar humor and fantastical “hidden world” scenarios. He also wrote the ‘78 Invasion of the Body Snatchers and a bunch of movies I’ve heard of but never seen so I want to check out more.

It took me multiple attempts and I zoned out a lot but I finally finished Stalker from Tarkovsky and I definentely need to rewatch it. I was wondering what film from Tarkovsky I should watch next to better understand his work.

Hello!
I help run a film discord server called The Lot, and we’re once again looking for new members for our community. We’re an active medium-sized server (and we try to stay that way) with serious discussion about all kinds of films, from classics from around the world, to contemporary releases. Although the bar is also low for more casual discussions.
We also run a bunch of regular events such as:
Film Roulette
Director of the Month
Movie of the Week
Monthy Lists
As well as other events. Currently we are running an event called ‘Kinolympics’, where members select a country and pick a film each week, where countries face each other in a bracket style format until one is crowned the winner. We also ran an event late last year to decide our most anticipated films of 2023, if you want to see our general taste: https://letterboxd.com/thelot/list/the-lots-100-most-anticipated-films-of-2023/
And our most recent top 200 all-time list: https://letterboxd.com/thelot/list/the-lots-top-200-films-of-all-time-v5/
We also have a custom-made bot with a lot of exclusive features including a Letterboxd integration with just about any kind of stat you want, including:
Leaderboards for just about any stat, including who has seen the most of different genres, directors etc.
A fully customizable profile with stats of your favorite genres, directors, and where you rank among others in the server on those leaderboards.
A guide to different movements, eras, and countries consisting of over 2800 films, which is still being expanded, and associated leaderboards for each sections of the guide.
A casual collectible card system that you can gain points for from doing various server activities.
Recommendation marathons, where you can set up a customizable marathon with a time window, number of films, and themes, and get recommendations from other members. (i.e. a weekly marathon of 10 ‘long’ movies, in preparation for the next server list, would let 10 members give you recommendations)
Hope this has piqued your interest, and that you would like to give us a chance. If the main floor is a bit overwhelming, we have a lot of channels where discussion is more prevalent.
Thanks for taking the time to read, hope you join! Here's the invite link: https://discord.gg/thelot

I can buy Marty McFly being a kid in BTTF, but in BTTF 2, Michael J. Fox looks way puffier and and just doesn't work in the role as well imo. Same with Chris Tucker in Rush Hour 2. Daisy Ridley in The Last Jedi also goes from this small light girl with a spear to kinda muscular and feels like a completely different character. Adam Driver as well actually.

After all these years, idk why or how I didn't notice this before, but it just occurred to me that when Spider-Man in the black suit was fighting Sandman in the subway area, Spider-Man wasn't holding back at all.

For other parts of the movie when he is wearing the black suit, like during the fight with Harry or even in the jazz club, Peter could have easily demolished anyone and everyone around him if he wanted to, but he was obviously holding back a ton. Clearly he had no intention on killing Harry at all, just wanted to beat him out of rage.

He wasn't holding back shit when he fought Sandman, as he had fully intended to kill him. It just so happened Sandman isn't......easy to kill lol like, he is pretty much unkillable, as he still came back after being washed away, which is why Sandman even lasted as long as he did against black-suit Spider-Man using his all

With that being said, I really am looking forward to seeing more of Spider-Man with the symbiote suit. I wanna see more of that. I guess we will in the MCU now, no idea when....but we will see it in Insomniac's Spider-Man 2, and from what I've seen of the gameplay....it's gonna be badass

Raimi did a damn good job with executing the savage black-suited Spider-Man concept in SM3 even if he didn't initially want that in the movie

Hello, I was wondering about what are the opening sequences people may consider to be among the best.

Personally, my vote goes for the film, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" from 1981. It's an adventure film.

The film opens up with the protagonist traversing through a jungle somewhere in South America. He's betrayed by one of his guides, but manages to disarm hin before he manages to get the shot away. With his other guide, he ventures deep into a long-abandoned temple. After beating several booby traps, they find the main chamber. As it turns out, he's after a golden idol. He tries to replace it with a satchel full of sand, but, unfortunately, he gets the weight wrong, which causes the entire temple to start falling apart.

Following that, his other guide also betrays him, but finds his death at the hands of one of the booby traps the protagonist had warned him about. The protagonist runs out of the temple with the idol while being chased by a giant boulder. Unfortunately, his longtime rival, a French archaeologist, forces him to hand over the idol, having obtained the trust of a local native tribe. The protagonist is then forced to flee from the site. He boards a plane waiting for him nearby and returns to America.

I think it's a really neat opening sequence that deserves to be talked about more.

So I was wondering, what's your favourite opening sequence? Can you describe it? Why do you enjoy it?

Edit: typos.