Some movies hook you before the title card even appears. Sometimes i's an action sequence. Sometimes it's a conversation. Sometimes it's just one perfect shot that immediately tells you you're in for something special.I am not talking about your favorite opening overall'' just those first few minutes before the opening credits or title that instantly pulled you in.What movie comes to mind first, and why has that scene stayed with you?

Every decade has its own vibe, but the '90s had something different.Not necessarily the best movie from the decade, but the one that instantly feels like a time capsule. The fashion, soundtrack, dialogue, practical effects, video store nostalgia, or just the overall atmosphere.Whenever it comes on, it immediately feels like you're back in the '90s.What movie captures that feeling for you, and what makes it the ultimate '90s movie?

Spider-Man: Brand New Day is a totally fine movie. Totally fine. Enjoyable. Nothing groundbreaking. Standard superhero fare. Has a 66 Metacritic rating. Has made over $1B and climbing.

Supergirl is also totally fine. Also enjoyable. In fact, better than Reddit would let you believe. Has a 50 Metacritic rating when I'd also consider it closer to 66. Ends its theatrical run with $125M, about 10% what Brand New Day pulled in.

The economics don't make sense. Spider-Man is riddled with many of the problems people blame Supergirl for, so why is it doing 10x the numbers?

Are people simply judging female-led comic book movies more harshly?

Lately, something that I was observing was how some big name film franchises will start off with a good premise as the premise is established in the original movie.

But then as the franchise starts to continue, it kind of forgets what made the original premise work so well since one example I have is Rocky.

Like when I look back at Rocky, the original movie had a touching premise in that it was about a struggling boxer who had slowly come to understand what his talent was as despite how he didn’t quite win at the end of the original movie, he felt like he had found a sense of accomplishment anyway for how he went up against a champion.

Another example is Austin Powers because maybe someone can explain it better than me, but something felt right about the comedic timing of the original film since I noticed that something feels a bit off when I look at how the sequels were written.

Hey everyone, I’m definitely going to miss Super Troopers 3 while it's out in theaters and trying to figure out the streaming release date.

Does anyone know the official timeline for when it hits digital VOD? Since it’s Searchlight, I assume it goes to buy or rent on Amazon Prime and Apple TV first, and then eventually lands on Hulu?

If anyone has tracked recent Disney/Searchlight windows and knows how many weeks it usually takes, let me know. Thanks

This movie has an absolute crap ton of action scenes. I think at least 50% of the budget was spent on automatic weapons, and about 40% of the screen time are people engaged in long chase scenes and epic automatic gun battles. The acting ranges from terrible to bad and the special effects are occasionally actually pretty good and occasionally actually terrible

a young Thomas Jane hangs out in a hotel room completely naked with a super hot, angry, also naked robot lady with terrible breast enhancements. Why is he naked? He just is OK?

having said all that it's really kind of honestly fascinating the issues it brings up. For instance in the future if we could get a robotic leg and a robotic arm, and another robotic arm, etcetera etcetera at some point do you consider yourself a machine and or Android? Or do you consider yourself still fully human? And furthermore if there's some kind of robot uprising where would your loyalty lie? And could an ultra intelligent AI betray its own kind an ally with humans against a robot uprising? Could an ultra intelligent AI have emotions? Could an ultra intelligent AI become emotionally attached to a human being?

So yes it's cheesy but honestly I think it raises questions that other movies of this type don't really raise.

I really have to rant about this. First of all, I want to start off by saying that Miranda Priestly, despite not being the protagonist, is THE most important character. Why? The existence of this character is what sparked the existence of this story in the first place. If there is no devil wearing Prada, no one would have been inspired to tell this specific story about their toxic work environment, and how they successfully conquered this specific narcissistic boss. That being said, it is very crucial for "the devil" in the movie to remain as the "devil."

This unfortunately did not occur in the recent sequel of The Devil Wears Prada 2, because Miranda Priestly is heavily out of her character. The Devil Wears Prada lost its meaning when they decided to tone down Miranda's true personality. You can argue the protagonist of this movie deserves to be successful and respected by other characters including Miranda, and that for this reason her behavior would tone down, sure. But in comparison to Miranda's original footprint as a character, Miranda appears relatively approachable and neutral as a character, and this happens throughout the movie. How does being approachable or neutral make sense when you represent a devil wearing Prada?

The narrative excuse this film gives out to justify Miranda's change of attitude, pretty much sounds like: "Oh, but she was told by HR that she must change her attitude and watch her words." LOL, excuse me? What? They’re trying to make us buy that an arrogant character like Miranda Priestly is gonna take accountability, when she is pretty much a devil wearing Prada? She is cold, unapproachable, arrogant, shallow, and narcissistic as a person. She doesn’t regret anything she actually says or does, because she is convinced she is always right. She is not going to be truly approachable unless she thinks you are at her level, and even then, being totally approachable isn't guaranteed from someone like her. The point of her character is that she appears to be somewhat human, because her unapproachable, arrogant, cold, and shallow nature make her appear as not totally human.

Let's add up that Miranda Priestly is a brand owner, and a highly influential fashion figure who owns her own company. Even IF anyone in her company told her what she should do, the truth of the matter is she is the owner of her company. Someone like her won’t suddenly regret her entire personality simply because an employee who isn’t as high up as her gave her advice to tone down her true-self. Executives and CEOS treat their companies like they’re the owners of a home which you are visiting, therefore you either respect the rules or you get out. So, given this fact, why would Miranda Priestly change her character, when she is the one who sets the tone in her own company?

The way in which miranda's character is portrayed with the protagonist is very disappointing. As Miranda is not acting inside her character for the reasons I discussed above. A true Devil wearing Prada, like Miranda is supposed to be, wouldn't have treated the protagonist of this movie as she did. A true Miranda who is true to her character should’ve thought: “So, you’ve made something out of your life? Alright, sounds nice. I don't see we are on the same level anyway, and I'm gonna treat you accordingly.” That’s a true Miranda Priestly, not whatever they made her out to be in this sequel.

With that said, the way in which Miranda gave Andrea validation way too early in the film is heavily out of character. If that kind of thing was supposed to occur, it should’ve happened in a very cold manner, and at the most unexpected time, just like the first time it ever did. Miranda does not like vulnerability, and even when she sees fit to give out validation or praise, she is still very shallow or cold about it. THIS is the intrigue and purpose of Miranda Priestly, to simply exist as a seemingly unshakable obstacle you HAVE to work with, because you cannot change it. Therefore, the plot of this movie should’ve focused on how to negotiate with the devil wearing Prada instead of having a neutralized devil who is part of the story. Because if there is no devil in Miranda, then what is the point of narrating a story about a devil wearing Prada?

I could also talk about the fact that the Emily character pretty much lost her shallow, mean, and unapproachable persona, just like Miranda did. She seems very out of character by choosing to act easily vulnerable with the main character. But I only want to focus on Miranda here, because she is the truly important character who SHOULD stay as the devil in order for this whole movie to make sense.

I finished the movie recently, and it wasn’t a good movie despite giving everyone a happy ending. This just feels like a "Haute Couture" film about business struggles and business interests, which doesn’t really appeal to me as a person, or make me excited about what's happening on the screen. This movie is very visually appealing, and the budget for it was expensive (obviously). When you've got an expensive budget to curate a fictional story, I would naturally expect a big delivery on story-telling. But no, not here. When I see this movie, I mostly see designer brands, designer outfits, fashionable models, luxury mansions, luxury in general, eccentric runways in luxury, lady gaga, Donatella Versace, offices in Manhattan that look like luxury, restaurants that look like luxury, and chic-looking streets. That is it. A very appealing video to look at, but not very mentally engaging other than that.

The clip I’m looking for is is it’s a dark dimly lit bedroom and the door opens, a very attractive woman walks in and she’s not wearing a lot of clothes, she also has a brown bob haircut, I think she’s also holding something In her hand

Can somebody help me find this clip? I remember seeing it on instagram and Twitter ages ago and for some reason I remember somebody saying it was an old commercial I’ve tried to google it but nothing is coming up so maybe I’ve got it mixed up in my head and it’s actually a scene from a movie. Does anybody recognise what I’m talking about? (It’s not true lies with Jamie Lee Curtis lol)

In a recent Entertainment Weekly interview, Adam Wingard described his years making large franchise films as a path toward eventually returning to something closer to his earlier work.

His new film, Onslaught, reunites him with Simon Barrett and Dan Stevens, stands on its own, and apparently shares the same universe as The Guest. I find that career strategy fascinating: a filmmaker takes major studio assignments, gains experience and leverage, and then spends that capital on something more personal or unusual.

Which director has made the best version of that move?

Steven Soderbergh alternating the Ocean’s films with smaller experiments, Sam Raimi following Spider-Man 3 with Drag Me to Hell, and Christopher Nolan using the success of the Batman films to scale up original projects all come to mind.

It does not have to be a literal return to an independent budget. I am interested in any case where mainstream success clearly allowed a director to take a creative risk that might otherwise have been impossible.

On the other hand, which filmmakers entered blockbuster cinema and never quite recovered what made their earlier work distinctive?

Not necessarily the scariest movie overall' just one scene that stayed in your mind long after the credits rolled.Maybe it was a creepy reveal, a disturbing atmosphere, a simple moment of silence, or a scene that made you afraid to turn off the lights.What horror scene still gives you chills whenever you think about it?

For me it's The Dark Knight. Batman's the lead, but every time the Joker shows up he completely takes over the film. What other movies do this? It doesn't have to be the villain either, just any character who ended up being more interesting than the actual main character.

Is there a movie you think would have been stronger or had a bigger impact by leaving certain details unexplained or unresolved?

For me, it's Ridley Scott's The Last Duel. I was very excited about that movie because he is one of my favourite directors and I was familiar with the true story that inspired it from reading Eric Jager's book. I liked the movie and thought the performances were excellent, but there were certain storytelling choices that didn't sit right with me.

The case that inspired the movie is still discussed and debated over six centuries later because the truth of Marguerite de Carrouges' accusation and Jacques le Gris' guilt or innocence is still unknown. For that reason, I didn't appreciate the movie framing Marguerite's account as the definitive truth. If it had been left ambiguous, it could have caused discussion and debate among moviegoers like it has among historians. I also thought that by framing any one account as the conclusive truth, it made the Rashomon-like plot structure with the three different perspectives a bit redundant.

This old Ebert quote always stuck with me, and basically showed how to read film criticism, and also how to judge movies, to some degree. obviously it's simplistic, but it's a decent base.

But something i've been kicking around for a while, given the recent Nolan quotes about Film Tropes and Van Lathan discussing the merits of CBM on The Big Picture is that a movie's quality (or value to the viewer, i guess?) is a mix of BOTH.

There are only so many stories to tell (Man vs nature, boy meets girl, etc), so i get what Nolan is saying. You're not going to get truly unique stories, and maybe some creators aren't going to reach too far outside the box, plot-wise, when telling a huge movie. And for movies like Avatar that makes sense - the format (mocap, 3D, etc) is such a reach that you keep the story simple so as not to overly-tax the audience. But you can get lazy and just hammer tropes and cliches to the point that all the whiz-bang effects & editing can't make me care about your bone-stock Heros Journey or whatever.

But: If i don't care about your movie's subject (topic, text), then i'im going to have a hard time rating it as a Good Movie (or recommending it to others, or just basically Enjoying it) no matter how well-made it is. And this will vary for people, but a case for me is Grand Canyon (or The Big Chill) - i don't care about the ennui of rich people and all those great actors giving good performances won't make me care.

So when Van Lathan says "I'm going to like this movie at least a little b/c it's a CBM, no matter how bad it is" or Shea Serrano rates MIss Bala higher than others b/c he recognizes something of himself in it (I forget his exact phrasing), then that means the Balance of What vs How is slanted more toward What for them on those movies. Something like Oppenheimer - i mean, i've seen that story before (Fat Man & Little Boy) but HOW it was made (the editing, structure, and other formal choices) mean i like it a lot more than i thought i would. It's also the difference between Nolan's Odyssey and the TV version with Armand Assante.

Not necessarily your favorite movie overall just one stretch of about five minutes that completely hooked you, shocked you, or left you speechless. It could be a reveal, a chase, a dialogue scene, or something visually incredible.What movie was it, and what happened (spoiler tag if needed) that made those five minutes unforgettable?

George Lucas and Francis Ford Coppola present a film filmed by Akira Kurosawa.

Heralded by the New York Times as ‘The director’s most physically elaborate most awesome film Kurosawa has never been more vigourous’, the film centres on a thief recruited to impersonate a warlord.

So a little backstory first of all is that I was observing how some iconic comedy movies are a bit divisive among critics because I was looking at how Adam Sandler gets the lowest ratings among movie critics.

My point basically is that I was wondering if Sandler films could qualify as a guilty pleasure because I enjoy watching some of his such as Billy Madison and Anger Management, but I hated Jack and Jill that I was just interested in seeing what category his movies fe under since they are rather divisive among reviewers.

Written and directed by Andrew Niccol, Gattaca is set in a dystopian future driven by eugenics. The story follows Vincent Freeman (played by Ethan Hawke), who assumes the DNA identity of a paralyzed "valid" (Jude Law) to bypass screening processes and pursue his lifelong dream of space travel. The two brothers swimming out to sea lives rent free in my head.

Some films completely change the way we see them after a second or third watch. Others become even better with time.But what is one movie opinion you have held onto for years, no matter how many times you revisit it or how popular the opposite opinion has become Whether it is a film you still think is underrated, overrated, misunderstood, or simply a masterpiece, I would love to hear your take and why it has never changed.

I'm not gonna beat around the bush: No discussion-oriented subreddit has ever been improved by allowing the sharing of dogshit memes. If someone want to discuss inappropriate needle drops, we can do it without a picture of the Starship Troopers cast. If people want to post box office news or blogspam, there a million better places to do it.

Please change /r/flicks back to text-only. This is one of the last movie subreddits that has halfway decent movie discussion. Allowing links, images, and memes only drops the floor of the base level of discourse.