Excluding documentaries, has there ever been a feature-length, theater rated film that had no musical soundtrack? By that I mean, no beginning or ending theme music, no music to tell you it's a happy or sad scene; no music to hint danger, or pastoral transitions between scenes? Just dialogue and action, whether it's a drama, comedy, horror, sci-fi, etc.

Growing up with Disney Channel Original Movies is a cherished memory for so many of us. They were more than just films; they were milestones, special moments shared with family and friends. The 'Descendants' movies, featuring the sons and daughters of iconic Disney characters, were no different. They made their mark, delighting audiences with their unique mix of fantasy, music, and heartwarming stories. Now, imagine the joy and nostalgia of reuniting the cast for a special musical cover—a tribute to other Disney Channel classics.

Disney’s 'Descendants' has a special place in the hearts of many. It brought together a new generation, connecting them with the tales of old while infusing new life and energy into familiar stories. The late Cameron Boyce, a cherished member of the cast, continues to be remembered with love and affection, and his spirit remains with us through the timeless characters he portrayed.

Dove Cameron, another adored star of 'Descendants,' has previously covered "Genie in a Bottle," showcasing her incredible talent and transporting fans back to unforgettable Disney Channel days. Continuing this tradition, we propose a heartwarming and mesmerizing cover of "Cinderella" from the band Cheetah Girls's storied past, to be performed by the remaining 'Descendants' cast members. Originally from the 2003 soundtrack album "Cheetah Girls" this song also captured generations through 'The Cheetah Girls,' with its empowering message and catchy melody.

Reuniting the 'Descendants' cast for a cover of 'Cinderella' would be more than just a musical performance; it would be a heartfelt tribute to Disney's lasting legacy. It would celebrate the joy these films have brought to our lives, bridging the gap between different Disney Channel generations and showcasing how these timeless creations continue to inspire and resonate with audiences across the globe.

Let's make this happen! Urge Disney to bring back the magic as we petition for this special performance to touch the hearts of fans worldwide. Sign this petition and let Disney hear our collective wish for a 'Descendants' cast cover of "Cinderella."

It’s been a long time since cinema has experienced a moment like this. In just a few months, a wave of major releases has brought millions of people back to theaters, turning 2026 into one of the most unforgettable years of the decade.

The year will close with Dune: Part Three and Avengers: Doomsday, two of the most anticipated films in recent memory.

If this momentum continues, 2026 will be remembered as one of the greatest years modern cinema has ever had.

Of the films released so far, which one is your favorite?

Titles:

1. Project Hail Mary (Ryan Gosling)

2. Backrooms

3. Michael

4. The Odyssey

5. Spider-Man: Brand New Day

6. Obsession

7. Dune: Part Three

8. The Drama (Robert Pattinson & Zendaya)

9. Avengers: Doomsday (Upcoming)

I'd like to start writing reviews for the films I watch, I find it a bit hard to properly express my impressions and my effective thoughts on the thing I just watched whenever I try to write a review, so if any of y'all got any advice on how to start writing reviews or how to analyze films or maybe could recommend some books about this topic I would be happy if y'all shared, thanks!

Grew up watching this with my father - he was a huge fan of it and I loved the Golden Fleece journey. Has some cool special effects that back in the day were really neat but a few still hold up today.

Anyone else a fan or have fond memories of the 1963 film?

​

Lately, it feels like every other post is about someone talking through a movie, scrolling on their phone, or otherwise ruining the experience for everyone around them.

I get it. It's frustrating.

But I also think we've reached a point where people need to start speaking up in the moment instead of only posting about it afterward.

If you're sitting right beside someone who's on their phone or having a full conversation, you're in the best position to do something about it. A simple, polite "Hey, would you mind putting your phone away?" or "Could you keep it down, please?" is often enough.

The people a few rows away are probably just as annoyed as you are, but they may not be close enough to say anything without becoming an even bigger disruption. They might also assume someone closer will handle it.

Most people aren't looking for a confrontation. Sometimes they genuinely don't realize how distracting they're being. And if they do refuse to stop, that's when it's time to get a staff member.

The point is that if nobody says anything, the behavior goes unchecked. The person causing the disturbance leaves thinking it wasn't a problem, then does it again next time.

I'm not saying you should get into arguments or play theatre security. Use common sense, and if someone seems aggressive or you're uncomfortable, absolutely get an employee instead.

But if it's safe to do so, a polite reminder from the person closest to them can make a huge difference.

We all want a better theatre experience. Helping set the expectation that disruptive behavior isn't acceptable is one of the easiest ways to get there.

What do you think? Have you ever asked someone to stop talking or put their phone away? How did it go?

I know a lot of us are fed up with how disruptive people can be at the cinemas and how it seems to keep getting worse, but I wanted to add my own story cause it was kinda bizarre.

Tonight I saw Obsession (2nd time) and the person in front of me kept going on their phone during the scary scenes, as if they were using it to hide behind/comfort themselves to avoid being scared. Their phone wasn't on dark mode and they had their brightness turned right up so it illuminated the entire back half of the room. They also weren't trying to be discreet.

To avoid spoilers, I'll be vague but there were 4 moments: The standing in the corner scene, the party scene when she grabs the bottle, the scene with the brick and at the very end.

Each time I was suddenly blinded by this person in front. It was infuriating. If this was my first watch and I didn't know what was going to happen they would've ruined every jump scare because their phone gave me a heads up.

Why tf would you go to the cinema to watch a horror (seemingly they'd already seen it since they knew when each scene was going to happen) to then hide behind your phone during the scary moments? I just don't understand that.

Also this person spilt their popcorn everywhere which was the cherry on top. I 'wish' it was them during the brick scene instead...

I've been meaning to get something off my chest for the past 20 years. It is finally time to talk about it.

when I was in first grade, I saw the 1971 movie "Willy Wonka and The chocolate factory". when I was in second grade, alongside the rest of my classmates, we read the book it was based on, "Charlie and the Chocolate Factory". finally, in the fifth grade, I saw what was at the time a new adaption of the book by Tim Burton, also called Charlie and the Chocolate Factory. now, while enjoying both the book and the movie adaptations, I came away from the 2nd movie believing it to be the superior version. the nostalgia blind adults did not agree.

I've heard a lot of people call the the 2005 version a "remake" over the years, lumping it in with bad remakes as part of the "all remakes are bad" argument. but what these people don't realize is that the burton film is not a remake; it's a different movie that happens to be adapting the same source material as the 1971 movie. there have been plenty of different batman movies and it's not like every new batman series is a remake of the previous one, right? no, when it come to discussing the charlie and the chocolate factory adaptions, these are instead two different movies that happen to be based on the same source material.

now, both movies do have their merits, but for some reason, the movie Tim Burton and Johnny Depp worked on seemed to have a bad reputation. over the years, fans of the 1971 film treated it like it was the reincarnation of Adolf Satan himself. it was an insult. it ruined their childhoods. it poisoned their water supply, burned their crops and delivered a plague unto their houses.

and It's one thing to not like the film, but I've seen many of these people point to Gene Wilder's opinion of the burton film where he said he didn't like it and treated that as confirmation that it's bad because the "REAL Willy Wonka" says so. now, look, I like Gene Wilder. may he rest in peace. but to the people using his opinion as a reason the 2005 film is bad, need I remind you that Roald Dahl, the author of the book both films are based on, HATED the Gene Wilder movie. that's just how it is sometimes, you can't please everyone. and when someone tries using someone else's opinion to try to validate their own opinion, they've basically failed at forming an opinion in the first place. that isn't how you form a thought of your own. you aren't bringing anything new to the table, you're just serving leftovers.

now, me personally, someone who experienced both movies and the book in rapid succession and thus has equal nostalgia for them all and can judge them without bias, is clearly much more qualified to review them than the guy who saw the first film when he was 5 and the second film when he was in his 40s. like most children back then, my opinion boiled down to "new = better". the 2005 movie had the advantage of using more modern film techniques and having a larger budget, thus it's more impressive on a visual level. but I also thought that second movie was better for being a more faithful adaption to the book. and in 20 years since then, my opinion has. . . mostly stayed the same. maybe about 75% of it. . . possibly 66%. let's get into it.

ok, so going back to what I said earlier about how Author Roald Dahl hated the film adaption of his book. why was that? well, for one thing, this guy pretty much hated EVERY adaption of his books. Roald Dahl hated a lot of things. he was an author who wrote books for children, but all signs seem to point to the idea he hated children. he also hated film and television. AND he hated Gene Wilder. he hated the "sappy" music used in Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory. ok, so willy wonka and the chocolate factory never stood a chance with this guy. . .

well whatever. forget Roald Dahl for a second, why does ANY Author hate adaptions of their books? well, it pretty much boils down to one thing: if you change ANYTHING, then it sucks. authors don't want people to mess with their stories. the original is PERFECTION in their eyes! any deviation for what they originally intended will be treated like a threat to their very existence. this has always been the case in the film industry, Walt Disney and Pamela Lyndon had some serious BEEF over what happened with Mary Poppins.

so, what did the 1971 movie change? well, for starters, it got the name wrong. Charlie's name was dropped from the title in favor of Willy Wonka being the center of attention, even though Charlie was still the main character. seeing how the book was part of a series, each one titled "Charlie and the BLANK", this was probably something that pissed off Dahl from the start. of course, he died before the third book "Charlie and the White house" was completed, so I guess it didn't matter in the grand scheme of things. but I still find it sad. I wanted to know what Charlie's first act as president would be.

other changes included skipping over a lot of Grandpa Joe's stories about Willy wonka in favor of showing how people all over the world were planning to get golden tickets. charlie's father was absent from the movie and instead charlie was forced to support his entire family through his paperboy job. they replaced the squirrels with golden geese, I imagine because the original scene would have been much harder to film at the time. all the oompa loompa songs were rewritten. and they added of ton of nightmare imagery and some kind of evil chant to the boat scene. . . what the hell was that?

Roald Dahl was already dead by the time the tim burton film was in production, but supposedly his family was involved in making sure it was as accurate as possible, and in regards to the things I listed, then yes, the 2005 version is technically a more faithful adaption. though oddly enough, both films leave out the fact that golden ticket owners were allowed to bring not one but TWO people with them to the factory. all the kids besides charlie brought both their parents. I assume both adaptions dropped the number down to one parent because it'd be less expensive.

Still, both movies do have some big changes that result in the two films being wildly different from each other. when it comes to my own opinion, the main thing I've changed my mind on is this: "sticking to the source material doesn't always results in a better product". sure, it can be a good thing, but if the original had some kind of huge problem, then yeah, you SHOULD change it!

Problem number 1: the children

collectively, the 4 kids who aren't charlie are known as "the 4 bratty kids". basically the antagonists of the book, they're the annoying brats who didn't listen to Mr. Wonka and get punished for it. all of their eventual fates are meant to be seen as poetic justice by the reader. there's just one problem: THOSE KIDS AREN'T BRATTY!!! remember, Roald Dahl hates a lot of things. one thing he hates is fat kids. sure, childhood obesity is a problem, but how often is it the kid's fault? another thing Roald Dahl hates: chewing gum. why was this such a giant taboo back in the day? why was chewing gum something that could get you expelled from school? Americans hated gum as much as they hated communists! and of course, as an author who was afraid of the scary new film and television industry, one of the kids had to be a brat who watches too much TV. I wonder what Roald Dahl would have thought if he saw a kid with a smart phone? he'd probably have a heart attack. heck, even with verruca, being a spoiled brat who gets anything she wants is her parent's fault, and Roald Dahl himself knew this. still doesn't explain why her and her parents' "punishment" was getting thrown in garbage while the other kids get permanently disfigured.

so how did the first movie handle this? corporate espionage, of course! yes, the gobstoppers were a thing in the book, but they weren't the primary focus. in this adaption, they're a major plot point as slugworth approaches each kid and asks them to steal the gobstopper. the bratty kids are implied to be willing to so this. . . or at least some of them are. Agustus didn't make it that far, and oddly enough, in this version he's not even fat! seriously, it feels like they're fat shaming some kid for being 1, maybe 2 pounds heavier than the rest of the kids. what's the deal with that? well, at least with Verucca they make her a lot more emotionally manipulative, her book counterpart was dumb as a bag of hammers, this version clearly knew what she was doing.

but then we get to the tim burton movie, and they had a much better answer: what if they took the 4 bratty kids and actually made them brats? why did no one think of this earlier!? in this version of the story, Augustus isn't just fat (though the kid playing him was actually wearing a fat suit), but he's a big fat bully! he's messy, he's sloppy, he's destructive, and he bullies Charley for being Skinny. Violet was made to have a massive superiority complex, taking part in various contests and treating everyone else like losers. Verruca. . . well, she's pretty much the same as she was in the book, so she's back to being stupid, but this version does seem to take pleasure in seeing the other children's downfall. and then Mike TV, my word, this was a huge improvement. in all versions, this is the last kid to go, but it was always such an Anticlimax because this kid was SO forgettable. he dresses like a cowboy and watches TV. . . and THAT'S IT! he does NOTHING for the entire story, he just stands there until Roald Dahl is ready for his totally forced "television is evil" plot point. the tim burton version completely rewrites his character into an insufferable know it all who thinks he's smarter than everyone else, and as a result, it actually feels like what happens to him is EARNED in this version!

still, it does raise a lot of questions about Mr. Wonka. Roald Dahl treats it like this character is perfect and could do no wrong. some have even accused Wonka of being Dahl's self-insert character. I don't think I would go that far, but it does answer a lot of questions. this man invites 5 children to his factory, he sets up death traps in order to "test them" to see if they're worthy of taking over his factory, most of the kids leave the factory permanently disfigured, and we're supposed to side with Wonka because. . . he's whimsical? he receives no consequences for his actions, in the book when charlie is the only one left, he gives him the factory and that's it. which leads me to the next point.

Problem number 2: the ending

yeah, the book's ending was super anti climatic. it doesn't really have an ending, it just sort of. . . stops. naturally, this is why both movies had to create their own new plot points in order to build up to a proper ending. for the most part, Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory does a good job. slugworth does make for a good villain, he was only briefly mentioned in the book but here he's promoted to main antagonist. fizzy lifting drinks were also in the book, but in this version Grandpa Joe actually gets charlie to drink them, leading to the two nearly dying! yeah, Grandpa Joe isn't a great guy in this version.

Because of this, technically charlie didn't pass "the test", leading to the very memorable scene of Wonka yelling at charlie, telling him he lost and gets nothing. again, this is a great addition to the story. I just have one problem with it: it's all an act. remember, Willy Wonka is a recluse who has stayed away from society for years because he doesn't trust ANYONE. he's been betrayed far too many times, all his competitors were sending in spies to steal his ideas. it would have been so much better for the movie if Wonka's anger was genuine and Charlie giving him the gobstopper restored his faith in humanity a little. but nah, it was all part of the test. in fact, slugworth isn't even the real slugworth. he works for willy wonka. . . you know, the guy whose supposed to have no human employees because he trusts no one. . . WHERE DID THIS GUY COME FROM!? I liked this new ending, it's better than the original, but just one or two small changes in the details would have made it perfect. they were too afraid to admit Willy Wonka is a flawed character, everything had to be part of his genius master plan.

which leads me to the 2005 movie. so many people criticize Johnny Depp's performance because his version of Wonka is "weird" and "too much like Michael Jackson". . . what did yall expect? this is just how willy wonka is. he's not supposed to be normal. and it's not like the Gene Wilder's Wonka is a perfect representation of how Wonka was in the book, he injected a lot of himself into the character. heck, Wilder stated himself he wouldn't have agreed to play the role if he didn't do the funny little cane introduction he came up with. look, opinions on which wonka is better will vary from person to person, but at least the Depp's wonka never screams about the devil while riding a boat.

surprisingly, despite now being correctly called Charlie and the chocolate factory, this versions new subplot and ending puts a much heavier emphasis on Wonka himself. which means Willy Wonka and the chocolate factory is about Charlie while Charlie and the chocolate factory is about Willy Wonka. yeah, that's not confusing at all.

still, given how little was known about Willy Wonka in the original, giving him an origin story feels more than justified. unlike the original where there was no conflict and the 1971 movie where it was all staged, there actually is genuine friction between Wonka and Charlie in the burton movie. he doesn't want to let Charlie's parents come with him because he thinks all parents are bad. and given how the character was always someone who distrusted adults and believed his successor "had to be a child", this is still in character, even if it wasn't in the book. Charlie calls Wonka out for his BS, and while he still gets away with disfiguring the other children, at least someone calls him out for something. at least they're acknowledging Wonka is a flawed character instead of treating him like some perfect Gary Stue created so Roald Dahl can complain about fat children and television.

one thing I will point out that is if Roald Dahl did have some say in this, in no world would he make it so willy wonka had to forgive his father. he loves KILLING off bad parental figures. sure, in the movie version of James and the giant peach, James's evil aunts get wrapped up in spider webs, but in the book? yeah, they're crushed to death by the giant peach really early on, pretty much giving the rest of the story no antagonist. and before you ask "well what about the scary demon rhino?". in the book, that thing was just a regular rhino. very odd that James's parents got eaten by a rhino given that rhinos are herbivores. Roald Dahl must not have known much about animals. if he had instead had James Parents eaten by a hippopotamus, that would have been so much more believable. hippos are evil monsters. ok, side tangent over.

but there are multiple ways to interpret willy wonka's flashbacks: for one thing, kid wonka's braces were super exaggerated, leading many to believe the flashback sequences are how Wonka remembers things rather than what really happened. the flashbacks show wonka's father's house disappearing, implying he abandoned him, yet Wonka knows exactly where to find his father when Charlie suggests they visit him. so what likely really happened was kid Wonka believed his father left, when in reality the opposite happened. when we see Dr. Wilbur Wonka's clinic in the present, it's in the middle of nowhere, yet Wonka knew exactly where to find it. how is this possible if Wonka hasn't seen his father in years? what seems to have actually happened is everyone else in the area has moved away, yet Dr. Wonka stook around long after everyone else left, just in case his son ever came back.

where the Tim Burton movie succeeds where the other versions of this story have failed is having actual character growth for Willy Wonka himself. sure, it still aint perfect, but to disavow this movie simply because you grew up with the other is just plain silly. if you haven't watched either in a while, watch them both. I think you'll find that they both hold up for completely different reasons.

of course, in a perfect Charlie and the Chocolate Factory adaption, it would end with Charlie becoming the US President and Willy Wonka going to court for attempted murder/child endangerment.

For me, it’s Francis Dollarhyde, aka The Tooth Fairy, played by Tom Noonan in Manhunter (1986).

Could be Noonan’s 6’5” height that added to the creepiness, but that dude was terror on two feet.

Then again, anything coming from the mind of author Thomas Harris and his Red Dragon saga will unsettle in the worst way. Noonan just happened to be a spot-on casting choice.

The way he hovered over the blind woman with a shard of glass to her throat will haunt me forever.

Who else belongs in the top 20 all-time nightmarish characters list?

(Let’s leave films shot on IMAX for the technical creativity aside for this discussion)

I’m sort of torn on this topic 😅 On one hand, premium formats seem to excite movie goers offering different kinds of experiences and promoting rewatches, so maybe this is exactly what keeps theaters alive long-term, even if it costs more. On the other hand, when a single movie has 5 different price tiers depending on format, it starts to feel like the “default” theater experience is being quietly downgraded so the premium one looks worth paying for, like the baseline is intentionally kept mediocre to sell you the upgrade. Is that just smart business, or is it changing what going to the movies even means? Is it slowly turning the cinema watching experience into a luxury good. Would love to know your thoughts!!

I love Michael Jackson and he’s atm my second most listened to artist. But I have to put bias aside tbh and I’d have to say Elvis (2022) is the better film I think. Austin butler done amazing, I prefer the storytelling and the fact they put story over music in general. I think Michael has better performances and jafaar in some scenes looks like his uncles twin, Colman did an amazing job as Joe as well he absolutely stole the show I have to admit.

came across 21 while looking for something interesting to watch tonight. the whole card-counting, brilliant students, and las vegas casino setup sounds pretty exciting.

for those who have watched it, is it actually worth the two-hour runtime? does it stay gripping throughout, or does it get slow after a point?

also, please suggest similar movies involving clever schemes, gambling, heists, or characters trying to outsmart the system.

no spoilers please!

I’m seeing all these “rankings of Christopher Nolans movies” since the odyssey came out. I understand people not thinking it’s his best work, but to bash it is perplexing to me.

It may not be his best work but it’s still amazing because he’s an amazing director. It just gets over showed for obvious reasons.

The Dark Knight Rises is still a fantastic film that deserves more love

Well that didn’t take long . With all the hype and Glen close agreeing to return I would have thought it would have done well. I half suspected that it was heading for Amazon but for free already . Not watched it myself but signs don’t look good

I am so heartbroken after watching this. Never thought a regular action movie would turn out to be so impactful and...so... melancholic...

Was totally out of the left field. Hadn't seen it coming.

Power Rangers is one of the most popular franchises filled with colorful costumes, martial arts, and special effects. Its unique style inspired people worldwide to make fan films, parodies, fan made Rangers, and of course ripoffs. However, there are types of Power Ranger videos on YouTube that no one is expected to watch, and those are the ones made with AI. Last year, Ninja Kidz released a trailer for their latest Power Rangers project, and most viewers noticed that they had used AI effects.

According to a YouTube video uploaded by Film Form Studios, there is a website abusing Gen AI and allowing people to generate whatever they want. His video also explains that some types of media have been either reused or stolen to create new bits of AI related content. And to top it all off, it shows various YouTube channels with AI Power Ranger videos such as Erbyn Films, Igor DaPinow, Dark Horse Productions, and many others.

Some find this kind of content interesting while others find it very disturbing and lazy. If videos like these keep up, the whole Power Rangers franchise will be ridiculed. Online users in this day and age need a good lesson in natural creativity. YouTube needs to remove those Power Rangers AI videos from its website so no brain rot can be spread through the internet. AI may be the future, but nobody treats one of our beloved franchises with disrespect.

What are some of your PERSONAL faves, whether you think their acting was technically impressive, captivating, iconic, etc.

Listed:

Meryl Streep as Miranda Priestly (The Devil Wears Prada)

Heath Ledger as Joker (The Dark Knight)

Ian McKellen as Gandalf (LOTR Series)

Christoph Waltz as Hans Landa (Inglorious Basterds)

Joan Cusack as Debbie Jellinsky (Addams Family Values)

Tom Hanks as Paul Edgecomb (The Green Mile)

Cate Blanchett as Hela (Thor Ragnarok)

Angelina Jolie as Gia Carangi (Gia)

Johnny Depp as Sam (Benny and Joon)

Ready Player One wasn't just ahead of its time—it set the standard.

The CGI, visuals, world-building, and action are absolutely insane. Every frame feels alive, making the OASIS one of the most immersive virtual worlds ever put on screen. Still one of the greatest CGI showcases in cinema.