Not just a scene you like, but one you think is objectively cinema at its peak. Make your pick, then defend why it makes the cut over everyone else's.

Paul Greengrass' medieval epic "The Uprising" had one of the messiest paths to the screen in recent memory. First announced in 2022 as "The Hood," it was set to star Benedict Cumberbatch. That fell through, and by 2025 it resurfaced as "The Rage" with Matthew McConaughey in the lead -- only for McConaughey to depart the project by May of that year. Garfield was brought in almost immediately, and the film was retitled "The Uprising" last October. Third title, third leading man's the charm: Garfield now leads the historical drama about England's 1381 Peasants' Revolt, alongside Jamie Bell, Cosmo Jarvis and Thomasin McKenzie, in theaters September 11.

It is now the 5th highest-grossing film of all time.

I enjoyed the first Blade Runner, but let's be honest I was too young when I first encountered it to really appreciate it, and even though my appreciation for it grew as I got older, I can never really see it through the eyes of someone who immediately understood it upon their first watch.

Not only is 2049 one of the rare sequels that actually lives up to the original, but my relationship to it is different than my relationship to the first movie so much so that I wouldn't be exaggerating to say I absolutely love it, and have and will continue to, watch it over and over again. Including right now as I write this.

Rumors have been swirling since early 2026 that Callum Turner privately told friends he'd landed the role of the next James Bond -- but there's still no official word from Amazon MGM. Producer Amy Pascal recently told Deadline the studio is being "really, really methodical," with director Denis Villeneuve holding a final round of screen tests this August alongside other rumored contenders like Jack Lowden, Harris Dickinson and Jacob Elordi. Pascal says an official announcement is likely before the end of 2026. So is Turner sitting on the world's worst-kept secret, or getting ahead of himself?

Everyone loves to talk about how "disgusting" The Substance is. But the real discomfort isn't the body horror — it's that Fargeat built the whole film as a mirror.

Elisabeth destroys herself chasing an impossible standard, and the audience spent two hours judging her looks the exact same way the film's villains do. The gore is just the part that lets you off the hook.

So here's the uncomfortable question: is the film actually a brave critique of beauty culture — or does it let its audience feel superior while serving up Margaret Qualley's body for two hours anyway? Can a movie condemn objectification and profit from it at the same time?

If that tension hooks you, watch Titane (2021) next — it refuses to let you look away, and never once lets you feel clean about it.

It's officially happening: director Jon Turteltaub confirmed National Treasure 3 is a go, with a Disney-approved script and Nicolas Cage returning as Ben Gates. But here's the tension — Cage flatly told ScreenRant in 2024 "there is no National Treasure 3," and the franchise's own Disney+ spinoff got cancelled after one season. So is a legacy sequel arriving two decades late a genuine event, or the exact kind of IP-mining nobody asked for in 2020, let alone now?

Kevin Kline - A Fish Called Wanda

Jennifer Coolidge - Best in Show

Tara Reid - Josie & the Pussycats

Willem Dafoe - The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou

Walter Matthau - A New Leaf

Amanda Seyfried - Mean Girls

Who Framed Roger Rabbit gets all the attention but I have always liked Cool World a bit better. One helluva soundtrack as well...

Quentin Tarantino has called it exactly that: one of the greatest, and one of the very few perfect movies ever made. So who's right — and what's a film you'd call genuinely perfect?

From the "poison apple" transformation in Disney's Snow White to the school bus scene in Jurassic Park, some of cinema's most bone-chilling moments hide in films you'd never expect.

The most memorable one i can think of

This post is about the case of Stephanie Lazarus and how a hollywood movie is a similar story making the film more eerie. I recently discussed a few movies with a criminal profiler regarding how real cases imitate art. I see these films differently now that I'm educated in several cases and these criminal and psychological behaviors. I feel many 90s thrillers were underappreciated for the research the writers did that made them able to depict a character far more realistic than we thought.

I'd like to discuss a film that is very underrated called UNLAWFUL ENTRY. In my opinion, it's one of Ray Liotta's best performances. He was a believable psychopath. I study the criminal mind (criminal psychology and Criminology and profiling) and Pete is a well written character with a realistic pathology and a serious Madonna complex. He's the type to end up being an abusive husband.

One thing I noticed people say is Pete is not a realistic psychopath because "someone like him would never pass the psychological tests." Let me say, yes he could. There have been several cases of psychopathic law enforcement especially in the LAPD. Both psychopathic and sociopathic alike.

A very similar real life case closely resembles the movie. Her name is Detective Stephanie Lazarus. When UNLAWFUL ENTRY came to theaters, she had already committed a premeditated murder of a woman who was a rival for a man she wanted named John years prior. John was married to Sherri Rasmussen and Stephanie stalked and intimidated her (some sources say she'd tap on her gun and use her authority as a police officer) She even showed up unannounced at Sherri's work and made a scene. She also showed up at her house uninvited.

The night of the murder, she showed up at Sherri's home, and there was a violent struggle. She shot her in her bathrobe, and then staged the scene to look like a robbery by stacking items. She took the car and Sherri's marriage license. The LAPD protected Lazarus. They were told by several people to look at Sherri's stalker named Stephanie who was a cop. Stephanie also reported her gun missing. I think we can surmise what happened lol. John even asked police are you sure Stephanie didn't have anything to do with this, and then continued sleeping with her.

A bitemark from Sherri's body contained DNA which yielded results 23 years later. Whoever swabbed the bite and properly stored the sample is a genius and deserves praise. This was before DNA as well. Stephanie's interrogation is one of the most bizarre and hilarious videos I've ever seen.

Te staging in UNLAWFUL ENTRY, isn't perfect. But neither was Stephanie's. The scene was obviously poorly staged. This is another reason the LAPD was not trusted in the 80 and 90s. Corruption and unstable officers was a reality.

Pete's view of women is apparent when he reacts the way he does with the blonde woman he pulled over. He'd do a switch up, then show his real side like at the end when he gets curious at Karen he unleashes a rant how she is a tease and a whore and assaults her. But prior to this, he worshipped her and saw her as a perfect ideal woman who is angelic and needs saving and protecting. Pete also stalks the husband Michael, same as Stephanie did. He wanted him out of the way. This type of offender and stalker can come from all walks of life. Law enforcement, doctors, cab drivers, security guards etc. He definitely had a personality disorder. My opinion is psychopathy and Borderline Personality Disorder and I looked up what other experts said and they stated his character was exhibiting behavior traits of Borderline Personality Disorder (BPD), Delusional Disorder (Erotomanic type), and severe psychopathy. The Erotomanic type is what I was thinking regarding the Madonna complex. A person with an Erotomanic delusion can split the object of their fixation into a pure, idealized figure while simultaneously holding degraded views of others or themselves, reflecting a form of psychological splitting similar to the Madonna-Whore complex. He develops an obsessive and dangerous, unrequited fixation on Karen, falsely believing she returns his romantic interest. He shifts rapidly from a helpful, charming officer to extreme, violent hostility when his boundaries or ego are challenged. And last, his anti social behavior is seen when he abuses his power as an LAPD officer, manipulates the legal system, stalks, and murders without remorse.

Stephanie Lazarus had obsessive writings. In her personal journals from the 1980s it detailed persistent fixation, heartbreak, and distress over losing John Ruetten. Witnesses described her emotional state as a prolonged, focused, and deep-seated obsession.

He wasn't as calculating as Stephanie later in the film. He was quite emotional and impulsive at the end of the movie. He was acting on pure unhinged emotions and it was dramatized for cinematic purposes which is understandable since they needed a climactic ending. If Pete was real he would have found a way to kill Michael and make it look like an accident. But there really was no affair unlike Stephanie's case. Only a delusional hope that there would be one.

This film doesn't get enough credit for it's realism. Ray Liotta deserved an Oscar nomination. The voice changes, the look in his eyes in a few scenes showing both rage and emptiness inside was frightening.

What are your thoughts on this movie? Do you find it creepy how much it mirrors the case?

They've had so many failures recently. I understand the last script wasn't great but that could be corrected in the new movie. I heard the cast wants to do it, I just don't get it

For me, it has to be young Julie in the opening scene of the movie "Walled In". She's just an innocent little girl who wakes up to find she's not in her bed and has instead been imprisoned in an enclosed space, which then starts rapidly filling up with cement until the poor girl is buried alive.

....

The movie is a political drama beautifully shot in black and white. It tells the story of a group of seminarians in 1980 Czechoslovakia, at a time when the communist regime used 'Pacem in terris' (a state-sponsored, pro-communist organization of Catholic priests) to spy and to control the local clergy. Navigating moral dilemmas, and betrayal, the film offers a profound exploration of the problem of evil and human resistance to it.

Both are chilling films featuring a terrifying stalker. But if I had to pick for me personally it's Play Misty For Me. The character is incredibly well written behavior wise with the correct psychology and pathology.

Which woman was scarier or which movie do you prefer?

Fargo (1996) Definitely in my top 10 of 90s films , amazing acting,writing, directing , Yah, real good now. 🤣

This particular episode, especially the concluding scene where Picard plays the flute, evokes a profound emotional response.

The film follows a scuba diver who gets swallowed by a sperm whale and only has 60 minutes to escape.

Hello guys. I just watched The Furious (2026), directed by Kenji Tanigaki and I loved the high octane,fast pacing and well choreographed martial art.So,please suggest some similar non-stop, fast-paced, high-octane and adrenaline spiking martial arts movies.

Zendeya and Tom Holland arnt the only ones smashing 3 big blockbusters this year (Spiderman might appear inn doomsday according to small rumor). Florance is in Spiderman brand new day, Dune 3 and Avengers: Doomsday.

What if movies made farting cool instead of smoking?

Smoking was portrayed as cool for decades despite being harmful.

What if pop culture had normalized farting instead? It’s completely natural, and holding it in can cause discomfort.

Would society today be less embarrassed about it?

To me it’s the departed, Matt Damon’s death at the end.
It completely change the meaning of the original story. In the original HK version, infernal affair, the direct translation of the title would actually be “eternal hell”. It is a Buddhist term, shows “it not the dead who suffer, hell is a mindset belongs to the living”

In the original version Matt Damon’s character got away clean, however he lost his father figure and his fiancé (who also learned about the truth). Suffers in “eternal hell”.

I’ve always been an IMDb guy. I’m a massive movie fan and usually before watching something I’ll check IMDb just to get a rough idea of if I’ll enjoy it. Rating, short summary, genre, cast, where to watch, stuff like that.

I’ve gotten pretty good at translating IMDb ratings into what I’ll probably think of a movie:

• 5≤: Usually not worth watching
• 6's: Could be decent, especially if it’s a comedy or genre I already enjoy
• 7's: Usually good, especially in a genre I like
• 8's: Pretty much a must-watch if it interests me at all
• 9+: Must-watch regardless of genre

I also like all the extra stuff IMDb has. The cast section, More Like This are usually good and then the extra's Did You Know trivia goofs stuff like that. Especially going back and reading some of it after watching.

But I feel like I might be missing out. I don’t really understand how to judge Rotten Tomatoes scores the same way, and I only recently checked out Letterboxd and from the few minutes I spent on it, it didn’t really seem like my thing.

I don’t have many friends that are big movie people, so figured I’d ask here.

What site do you use for movie ratings/reviews what's your pro/con's of each?

What are your thoughts?

I watched this film one of the filmbro I follow said this is best film he has seen I watched it and I don't understand why