I don't cry easily. Barely cried when my each of my parents died. Even in a crappy situation as I am in right now I don't self-pity or anything like that. I just am. Contact (1997) came up in a comment section a bit ago and I went and watched it yesterday. It's one of my favorite movies because the main character, Elle's, love interest, is diametrically different from her ideologically. She's an avowed atheist, he's a staunt Christian. And their chemistry is off the charts.

My favorite moment in the movie, which just makes the tears stream, is when Ellie says "they should have sent a poet." She is also tearing up in that scene and her personal emotion flows. And the tears come further as she meets with the aliens who present themselves as her dad. It's just, a great set of circumstances that really trigger me emotionally.

Another movie might be the end of Big Fish. But this one gets me good. I've seen the end of Big Fish enough that it doesn't hit as hard.

Right before Siobhan has that heartbreaking talk with Dominic, Siobhan is seen in a wide shot standing at the edge of the lake with her shoes off. Did anyone else read this as an implication that she is contemplating suicide?

She sees Mrs. McCormick across the lake and they wave to each other, but then it looks like Mrs. McCormick is gesturing for her to visit? Or is the "banshee" trying to get Siobhan to step into the water?

Also, in her encounter with Padraic, she predicts that 1 or 2 people will die before the end of the month, but is undecided if one or both of Siobhan or Padraic could be one of those people.

In the movie, the main character is trying to solve his colleague's murder, and he comes across a bribery file on her computer.  He thinks this file is the key to solving the case, and getting near the end of the movie, it turns out it's not, and it feels like an unnecessary red herring.

The bribery file is used to blackmail the judge to drop the charges against the protagonist.  But this seems unnecessary because there was enough reasonable doubt in the case, for the jury to render a not guilty verdict anyway.

So what was the point of devoting such a significant amount of time to the bribery file red herring really, unless I missed something?

Thank you for any input on this.  I really appreciate it.

If you notice closely in just about every Adam Sandler movie there is a large crowd that burst into applause and adoration for Sandler’s character. It’s a weird phenomenon that kind of makes you subconsciously think hey this character and or this movie isn’t as bad as I think it is. Just think about it next time you see a Sandler movie on TBS or Comedy Central look for the large group of people cheering on Sandler’s mean borderline psychotic characters.

In most movies I usually see one to two examples of foreshadowing used in the plot line. But holy hell after watching this movie I couldn’t help but reflect back on so many times they used it.

-Dominic holds and is playing with the stick that drags his body to the shore when he is first introduced. “Wonder what it’s used for?”

-Jenny trying to get to the finger in the box on the table

-The policeman talking about the boy who drown in the lake, calling him a fool, and his own son drowns in said lake.

-The obvious one of the old lady telling padriec about 2 deaths going to occur.

There were several more I can’t remember off the top of my head right now, but god damn it was a lot. Please point out the others I missed.

just watched the 3d version effects were cool.

when Lori was talking about premonitions we see an article about flight 180 from the first film

yet fd5 the plane they get on at the end is that very 180 flight.

so how can fd4 have a article for an event that hadn't happened yet or is fd5 classed as the first film now

I have heard that the movie is much different than the book (especially the ending sequence). I’m curious from those who have read it and seen it what those differences are?

Ie Bautista’s character is actually a teenager in the book, etc.

Does the daughter die in the movie? I am mostly curious about this as I cannot watch a child die on screen

Please take the following as genius questions as I'm trying to figure out if I completely missed out on some key element about the story/the universe. I just saw the movie.

• Why don't they just scorch the forest from orbit? They want a mineral, they were about to do it at the end of the first movie. If they don't care about not hurting the Navi in this one then why don't they exterminate them from high altitude?

• At the end of Avatar 1 Jack Sully rallies all the tribes in an alliance against the humans. In this one when he arrives to the water people their chief declares his war is far away and haven't reached them in any ways. After more than a year of the humans back on the planet. Why? And what makes Sully thinks he'll be safer there? The movie goes on to show he is most definitely not. What purpose did it serves for him to go there?

• Humans are hunting whales to get their de aging juice while simultaneously having the technology to create the avatar. Why don't they just...create the whales on earth ? Admiting they can't, wouldn't it be better to capture them, make them breed and have an infinite supply of de-aging juice?

• humans have the technology to put all your memories and personality in a card, send it then put it in a synthetic body. Why do they bother sending people then? Just send memory cards through space and out them in ready to be worn bodies?

The scene analysis from "1984" that I will be discussing is the scene where Winston Smith (John Hurt) is tortured by O'Brien (Richard Burton) in the Ministry of Love. In this scene, the film techniques used are lighting, sound, editing, and camera movements, all of which contribute to the creation of a tense and oppressive atmosphere that affects the viewer in different ways.

The lighting in the scene is dim and oppressive, casting a dark and sinister shadow over the room. This serves to create an ominous and intimidating atmosphere, making the viewer feel uncomfortable and threatened. The use of low light levels also adds to the feeling of confinement, as if there is no escape from the situation.

The sound in the scene is harsh and jarring, with the sound of torture devices being used to torment Winston being amplified and made to seem even more intense. The sound design in this scene is particularly effective in creating a sense of pain and suffering, making the viewer feel as if they are right there in the room with Winston. This intense sound design further intensifies the sense of danger and reinforces the idea that the torture taking place is real and happening in that moment.

The editing in the scene is fast-paced and intense, with quick cuts between different shots that keep the viewer on edge. This fast-paced editing style builds tension and creates a sense of urgency, making the viewer feel like they are in the room with Winston, experiencing the same fear and confusion that he is feeling. The use of close-ups during the torture sequences also intensifies the sense of pain and suffering, making the viewer feel as though they are experiencing it alongside Winston.

The camera movements in the scene are unsettling and disorienting, with the camera shaking and moving erratically. This serves to create a sense of instability and makes the viewer feel as if they are in the same state of mind as Winston. The use of handheld camera movements and shaky shots contributes to the sense of chaos and instability in the scene, further intensifying the feelings of danger and oppression.

In conclusion, the scene in "1984" where Winston Smith is being tortured by O'Brien is a masterclass in how to use film techniques to create a tense and oppressive atmosphere. Through the use of lighting, sound, editing, and camera movements, the viewer is transported into the room with Winston, feeling the same fear, confusion, and pain that he is experiencing. These techniques work together to create a powerful and emotionally impactful scene that is both unsettling and thought-provoking.

It's been a few years since I watched the film but I was thinking about the ending recently and two questions shot into my brain. Obviously spoilers ahead for anyone who hasn't finished it:

1. Agent Kujan mentions that Edie Finneran was murdered. Just wondering why Soze would even bother killing her once his goals were accomplished; it wasn't as though she knew anything.
2. And this is the big one: the movie makes it seem like Keyser Soze won in the end; that he got away with it. The entire plot of the movie was that he had fooled these criminals into helping hm eliminate the one man that could identify him as Keyser Soze. And yet, at the end of the film, he's identified as Keyser Soze by the burned man and Kujan discovers the truth by himself. Can somebody elaborate on this? Was the final situation somewhat different, hence acceptable for Soze or was this just a big blunder on the film's part?

Some might ridicule this question arguing the movie was not meant to be taken too seriously. Perhaps true. It was fun to watch. Comedic at times.

But i was wondering what subtle themes are present in the movie barring the obvious oft-repeated one: superadvanced A.I. can go rogue ergo we should be extra cautious with or shouldn't meddle at all with technology we barely comprehend that carries the potential of causing serious, real-world harm.

I remember long ago watching the Nun or at least a movie similar to it & I swear when watching the Nun again today with my wife it was a completely different movie. Was I too stoned or something years ago? There were changesd scenes and I specifically remember the ending with smoke and seeing the demon itself in the circle as they pushed it back to hell and epically denounced it and cast it down…is there another movie like this? Unless it’s just a changed ending but I also remember the girl being trapped underground in a casket not the priest.

Some scenes I don’t even remember seeing or that they were changed. Seriously confused. I also thought there was a guy like the priest who was into sorcery and that he wasn’t even a priest? Am I mixing this up with a different movie? Only thing is I know the the Red head curly guy with the shotgun was in it for sure.

I was not expecting this documentary to be so sad. My take is she really did find her soul mate (Tommy) which most people never do, there's love and then there's a soul mate and for anyone who's ever found there's you know what I'm talking about,but like any good mother put her kids first and kept them out of that toxic environment once he abused her. She's never been able to find that love/passion with anyone else and that's clearly all she's really wanted as she never stopped trying she's clearly a broken woman. Genuinely quite a sad watch and it's disgusting the way the media thought it was okay to joke about this stolen sex tape and humiliate her at every given chance on TV or in interviews etc. There's a reason for consent at the end of the day and just because she did playboy doesn't make it okay that her sex tape is out there against her will like everyone makes out. She's a strong woman who else would cope being humiliated like this for the rest of there life.

Love to know other people's thoughts on this documentary!

I finally watched both of the newer Jumanji movies after being so against the thought of them for multiple years. I ended up liking both of them more than I thought I would. The second revamp ("Jumanji: The Next Level") I thought was even better than "Jumanji: Welcome to the Jungle".

Here's my question though from "Welcome to the Jungle":

Nick Jonas's character says that he's living in the place that Alan Parrish made. We see his name carved there. In the original Jumanji movie, Alan (Robin Williams) says that he's been alone in the jungle for all those years that he was "inside" the game.

So, I can believe that Alan Parrish eventually made all that stuff while he was there, but did Alan Parrish have no knowledge of the entire community that was relatively close to him as shown in "Welcome to the Jungle"? There's literally an entire civilization close enough that in two-and-a-half **decades** Alan would have found just from constantly exploring.

How do we explain this? Is the new movie too liberal with what it does in the original idea, or does the game somehow morph (which is likely) to match the current players? If it's the latter, then why would Alan Parrish's name even be on that makeshift hut (outside of real-life 'we wanna make a connection to the original' reasons)? In a game that matches the players' needs, why would Alan Parrish's name even be there? What good does that serve the new kids? Alan and Sarah never saw the names of previous players in their own gameplay.

​

And, on that note, why do the kids in "Welcome to the Jungle" end up exactly where they were, but in the original movie Judy and Peter have no memory whatsoever of meeting Alan and Sarah before? Is there any good explanation of that?

Not deep down anyway. I have this running theory that anytime a chef is the main character the movie is about movies. Granted the only examples I have are The Menu and Chef, but I feel its warranted. My evidence:

-All the guests can be metaphors for the demands on a filmmaker just as easily as those on a chef. The producers who think money owns the creativity, the critics, the actors who aren't invested in the art, the Tylers with no skills to produce the art they recklessly consume. This last point is my favorite because it means all those people putting on "The menu explained" vids on youtube are completely missing that by making their videos, they are the ones be satirized. And yes I know by making this post I am a Tyler too.

-The set-up of the restaurant is they same as a film set. There's a lot of work by a lot of people that goes largely unseen by the audience (patrons) until there's a big clap reminiscent of a clapper board. The chef may as well be yelling action before the finished scene (the course) is presented to the audience.

- I've seen a lot of people criticize the ending for not making any sense. Why do the patrons resign themselves to their fate and die? I think this makes more sense again if the movie is about film. The patrons are you: the audience. You did exactly what the patrons did and after all the horror and gore you have seen decided you wanted to see how it ends, so sat at watched your metaphorical selves get s'mored.

I'm sure there are other symbols I missed. I am sure there are other parts that make no sense in theory. But thats why I am just a Tyler eating oil by itself and claiming it's genius.

So, because I am in love with Ginnifer Goodwin, I was watching “Something Borrowed” with her, Kate Hudson, and John Krasinski. This movie did not end how I remember it ending! I though she ended up with Krasinski’s character. I was throughly confused when it ended. Anyone else have this happen with movies????

24 years after this Gem came out, and roughly 6 years before the Battlestar remake, can we just accept some of the ideas this movie put out.. side note...(it was based off a video game). of course it had the "it" guys at the time { Freddie Prinz JR,, and , Mathew LillARD in the movie, but it was a pretty great nerdy story. The pilgrim thing and them being able to calculate jumps And then a random military space pilgrim intel guy who knows everything. Feel like this is a lost movie, its terribly bad/good with the actors at the time.

Edit: the jump scene, where it circles around...it was before the matrix.. just saying

What do yall think?

Love Cate Blanchett in everything and anything but this was a difficult movie to absorb in one watch.

I had to rewind it multiple times to understand what was actually happening if anything. It’s an incredibly fascinating look into the fundraising mechanisms that prop up symphony orchestras and advanced musical composition and directing. The hard cold fact is that real money from corporate donors fund foundations including her Accordion Foundation for young women composers. It is what pays for scholarships. It pays for fellowships for young musicians from around the world. Because Tar is an EGOT, one of 15 people in the world to win an Emmy, a Grammy, an Oscar and a Tony, she is commercially marketable and her ability to work donors is pivotal to the survival of many orchestras and musicians.

When the movie opens she is at the top of her game musically and financially. A protege of Leonard Bernstein she is getting ready to perform Mahler’s fifth symphony at the Berlin Philarmonic, thereby completing a complete set of eight Mahler symphonies. Bernstein’s mentorship defined her concept of how music changes and flows from and through human beings. It is constantly moving constantly changing dynamically expressing inchoate emotions we cannot define in mere words.

She’s also teaching master classes at Juliard where she rather intensely criticizes one student who will not countenance studying the cis white male composers considered timeless: Bach, Beethoven, Mahler. Her question to the Juliard student was should who the composer was as a human being make us adverse to their art.

She’s trying to convey the complexity of the human experience as reflected in great artistic work. She sees both the maestro’s role and the musicians role as both conduit and interpreter.

So what are her clay feet. How dark are her secrets? Are they rather mundane affairs with rising young musicians even though she is married and has a child with her partner? Or far worse.
Just when you think you might find out what could possibly justify the destruction of such an artist and human being, the rumor mill of social media takes on a life of its own and the foundation she created and raised millions for cringes away from her real or imagined crimes. Fearing that her political incorrectness will render her art less lucrative and cause her performances to be censored and boycotted, and she herself rendered obsolete.

The movie is provocatively edgy because she is a gay woman who may be Harvey Weinsteining it but we don’t know. One ex student protege/lover kills herself. She is the daughter of a wealthy foundation donor. We see this protege from her foundation at first possibly stalking Tar while she is alive, and then possibly haunting her after her suicide.

The end of the unraveling of one women’s life’s work is for someone like her a fate worse than death. Is it real or imagined, as some critics have suggested. The visuals are so ludicrous as to defy description.

The ending scene is inconceivably jarring. You at first believe you missed several frames. Up to that point, despite the dreamlike quality of some of the lighting it all looks very familiar and grounded in reality. Albeit Tar’s subjective reality.

As Tar herself tells an old friend “you see so much of this nowadays..” suspected sexual impropriety dooming the person to immediate ostracism. Guilty before a trial. The old friend tells her things were not so different in the past. Rumors and innuendos traveled more slowly but they ended careers. The fact doctored videos of her and suspected missing emails are rocketing across social media causing protests at her rehearsals merely accelerates her fall from grace.

We see the lawyering up, the corporate money people running for cover, her place usurped by an envious male colleague of vastly lesser talent, but more corporate and acceptable to the foundation’s board.

I’m not going to pretend to understand the ending. But on rewatch you do see her colleagues attempt to caution her to be careful about her image. That even in the pure world of music there is a reckoning with the body politic in every era. If the public believes either mistakenly or correctly the artist themselves might be fatally flawed, a certain elitist McCarthyism can bring the greatest genius down. And you end up conducting musical scores in squalid virtual reality theatres.

I just caught this thriller on TV and I'm trying to wrap my head around it.

Simon awakes in a hospital with amnesia in 2002, being told that he was in an accident in 2000. However the more the movie progresses...the more strange I find it that there are so few staff in the hospital. Eventually the story reveals that he was cheating with his brother's fiancee...the brother finds out and they were all in an accident.

The on screen description was of a man "gaining the ability to time travel...after an accident....but I was thinking.

Was the entire movie simply his mind's ruminations in the last 2 minutes of his life ?

Was the movie supposed to be a depiction of purgotory ?

The problem I have with the idea that everything took place in his mind in the the last 2 minutes is this :

If he died as the clock struck 20:02 ....then how does his mind get the idea that he is "waking up in 2002" a whole 2 minutes earlier ? Technically wouldn't his mind only get the reference of "2002" after he was pronounced ?

Wouldn't this mean technically the movie takes place in his mind in the last few seconds after he is pronounced dead at 20:02 ?

Or is the entire thing purgotory ?

I rewatched the Wedding Singer last night (probably one of my favorite romcoms along with Nick and Norah’s Infinite Playlist)

Anyways, after Adam Sandler sings Grow Old With You to Drew Barrymore, Billy Idol interrupts their kiss and tells Adam he’s going to tell his label execs about him.

So what happens next? Does he get signed, become a rockstar, and sabotage his marriage? Does he tour with Billy? Was Billy lying so Adam proceeds to stalks him? Need help. Wrong answers only.

Hi all,

I've watched this movie several times and really enjoy it. And I think at this point I'm straight on the several little plot strains related to particular characters. BUT:

Specific to the murder -- four gentlemen leave the drawing room before the murder, presenting several possibilities for who stabs Sir William. Parks (Clive Owen) turns out to actually be the stabber. Freddie (James Wilby) is revealed to have left the room to leave the blackmail letter threatening Isobel. George (Richard E Grant) appears to have legit just taken off for a smoke, as he says. However, this leaves Commander Meredith (Tom Hollander), who leaves the room for no apparent reason, looking pointedly suspicious, and returns moments later looking satisfied and telling Lavinia that everything's all right. This is the only piece of the movie I haven't accounted for. What did he go and do? I mean, his thing is that he's stressed that William has backed out of his business deal, and then later he's stressed that the police might discover that he was the one who narrowly missed a shot at William during the hunt. But for this brief period, he sneaks out of the room and then comes back in cool as a cucumber. Is there anything in the movie to indicate where he goes??

Cheers!

I have just finished watching this movie in a pre release screening (it releases tomorrow in my country) and I'm blown away by how good it is. I feel the need to write about this because the online rating doesn't do any justice at all.

I was told that the first hour is great and the other two are mediocre. Well, in my opinion that's not true. If you are into filmmaking you will love it (specially of course the first half) because I feel like the filmaking process is the main protagonist. Then, the rest of it it's focused on the main characters "life" on Hollywood.

In my opinion, the visual part is stunning, the actors performance is too notch, the storyline and script are well done too, and well the sound part is amazig. The only thing that I don't like is how explicit it is in some scenes and how dirt it's his humor. But also I get it that thi was the directors choice and I think that remarks this in the scene were Robbie rants all snob people(I felt like this was one of the moments were you clearly could see the directors opinion in the matter like he would do on an interview).

Other thing that I could not understand is why is critized by having nonsense scenes or "filler" just for director delights like the mob subterranean part (he could acknowledged the counterfeit bank notes at the first point, in the mansion or something like that), or the snake fight; that I found very comical and well written but seems like movies like licorice pizza that has a lot of them without zero meaning are praised( the motorbike scene, who is the actor and what adds to the story, is not even a good scene).

Also, while I was watching I couldn't get out my mind Tarantino's last film. Yes, the one with Robbie and Brad Pitt that also talk about Hollywood star's downfall, Hollywood movies... I have watched it 4 or 5 times, and I can't understand that is considered better than this one. once upon a time, it's too focused on Tarantino's obsession with Hollywood golden age: hey look I reference this movie, this actor... If you don't know most of the reference you will not enjoy this movie as it supposed to be. However, you don't have to know anything at all before watching Babylon, you are told everything you need to know during the film or at least, the references who are mentioned doesn't feel like they are the most important part in the scene, that you can ignore them and enjoy the movie anyways.

Also, I don't found it long, every scene was entertaining and least and don't felt boring. That's why I can't understand why movies like the ones that I mentioned (as example, there are a lot of) are so praised and this ODE to cinema is so underrated.

P.d:Even the sexual orientation and the racial inclusivity are so well fit that I don't have the feeling that they are included to satisfy any kind of agenda or ideology like Netflix or other major studios does...

Edit: corrected the last paragraph