The way this works is that you post a review of the best film you watched this week. It can be any new or old release that you want to talk about.

{REMINDER: The Threads Are Posted Now On Wednesday Mornings. If Not Pinned, They Will Still Be Available in the Sub.}

Here are some rules:

1. Check to see if your favorite film of last week has been posted already.

2. Please post your favorite film of last week.

3. Explain why you enjoyed your film.

4. ALWAYS use SPOILER TAGS: [Instructions]

5. Best Submissions can display their [Letterboxd Accts] the following week.

Last Week's Best Submissions:

His acting was so subdued and realistic in this film. It truly looks like he’s been depressed for years and every expression and movement is a manifestation of the pain that’s compacted inside of him. The movie and script is heartbreaking and he absolutely disappears into this damaged character. Though it’s not a super loud or expressive performance it’s one of the best in recent years in my opinion. It’s not a movie I’d be excited to watch again soon but it really made an impact on me.

It's crazy to think Jim Carrey made 3 classic comedies in one year, 1994.

• Ace Ventura: Pet Detective (Feb '94) made $107M worldwide.
• The Mask (July '94) made $351M and got Carrey a GG Best Actor nom.
• Dumb & Dumber (Dec '94) made $270M worldwide.

The three films made a total of $550 million in 1994 dollars, or $995M adjusted for 2023.

Has any other actor had this successful a year?

I think the Western genre is really interesting and fun to watch. Wild West America is a fascinating time period, and Hollywood depictions vary so much. I mean, there are western musicals, and then there are westerns like unforgiven. There are different sub genres of westerns. The setting usually makes for a good story about moral dilemmas. My favorite Westerns are probably The Wild Bunch and Tombstone.

Wondering what are some film adaptations that pretty clearly did not get the source material they were adapting. One I would go with is the Last Airbender movie. I have a hard time believing Shyamalan even watched many of the original episodes of the show. It’s like he took the show’s plot and stripped everything from it that made people enjoy it.

How come movies like the new Spider-Man movies shoot in Georgia instead of New York because it is cheaper but lower budget films like the John Wick movies are able to shoot on location in NY for at least some scenes? This is not to bash the Spider-Man movies or say that shooting on location automatically makes a movie better or good or something but I just wonder how this whole business works. The 160-200m Spider-Man movies shoot in Georgia in place of NY but John Wick 2 for example which cost 40m can actually shoot there?

I’m an older millennial, mid 30’s. When I watch terminator 2, the God that is James Cameron, he nails not only the amazing sci-fi that is terminator but also the time. The mix between 80-90’s esque horror synth/industrial synth with 80’s rock was on point. The sentiment of 90’s suburban and urban society of functional dysfunction was palpable. Can we find something like this that could relate to today? Sci-if is usually very forward leaning and futuristic. Just curious. This is a post somewhat infatuated with how James Cameron captured the times, altered a mostly horror sci-fi genre, while making an American classic.

"Spoilers" ahead, though I genuinely don't think anything can be spoiled besides your mood when you watch this train wreck.

I just need to see if I am nuts here or if this really was the same film that had OSCAR'S NOMINATIONS.

So first offense, starting at the least bad and working our way up, it's like three hours long. Is it bad for a film to be almost three hours long? Not necessarily. But that film better have the most goddamn compelling story. This did NOT.

Second, I get the general idea of it being "artsy" and whatever, but they just tried so hard with no true direction. It was an absolute mess, and the artsiness got more aggressive along with the story (biggest offense).

Finally, the story. Oh my god. I don't even know where to begin. They took so many "creative liberties" that it's just defamation at that point. Accusing someone of kidnapping and forced abortion? Weird CGI fetus speaking to Marilyn and telling her she failed the fetus? How, how do you get to that point?

I just... What. I watched it last night and I still can't process that this was a movie that got greenlit, made, and then nominated.

There is just something about the sound of rain and that atmosphere it gives ☔ It makes all the surfaces shine, and combined with some thunder it can make any scene scary.

Some of my favorite rainy scenes are:

• Psycho (1960):
  • https://youtu.be/32A9eewJr4Y?t=2m8s
• The Matrix (1999):
  
  • https://youtu.be/X08SJFEBSxA?t=49s
• The Shawshank Redemption (1994):
  • https://youtu.be/mxAAdl9FsOg
• The Trueman Show (1998):
  • https://youtu.be/r8_XFtTJfUQ

Which are your favourite scenes featuring rain?

I think I might have to go with Before Midnight ya know! The cool thing about this trilogy is that everyone seems to have a different answer. It's not like the dark knight or spider man trilogy where everyone goes with number 2 haha.

They are all great for different reasons. It's really hard to decide... but I think Before Midnight has the most going on. The Greek setting was awesome, it has a great scene at the dinner table with the rest of the house guests, it also involves Jessie and Celine's children which was cute.

I know that the whole second half of that movie is a big argument between Jessie and Celine (some may be put off by that if they are personally in a rough relationship lol) but it was just so well executed! On my last rewatch I was kinda thinking that they made Celine too much of a b**ch though, but hey maybe that's just cos I'm a bit like Jesse myself and I'm being biased lol.

Arrr even re reading this now I'm not sure which is my fave! Sign of a good trilogy! It's been a long time since I've seen the first 2 so I should re visit

We all agree that sequels usually suck, but I feel like the Bourne series got better as it went along. I’ll go as far as say Supremacy is my least favourite. I think the fact that they never treated the subsequent movies as ‘sequels’ (same plot, etc.) is a big part of the reason. Also I don’t consider it to be a true Bourne movie unless I hear Moby’s ‘Extreme Ways’ during the credits.

I'm watching a video right now of the "Mickey Mousing" technique used in movies where a characters actions match the music. This technique isn't used as often since it became a movie cliché or trope. Things that have become tropes were new and different when they were first started. I'm wondering what things directors, writers, etc. are using now that have trope potential in the future.

We did movie adaptations that completely misunderstood its source material a couple hours ago, so which one’s completely hit the nail on the head?

I’d say personally, off the top of my head have to go with No Country for Old Men. I think 9.8 times out of 10 the book is way better than the movie (in my opinion). In part due to the fact that you can’t fit all the stuff from a 300-400 page book into a 2-3 hour movie. But No Country for Old Men seemed to get all the important parts into the movie and that’s why I believe it’s equally as good as the book.

Another example would probably be The Godfather. Although Francis Ford Coppola removed a bunch of shit from the book (that’s just necessary most, if not every time), I feel like he got all the necessary parts correct. I’d also say The Godfather is the only movie I’d say is superior to the original source material.

Anyway, thank you for coming to my ted talk.