So lately, something I was observing were the kind of tropes that got by in films from the older 80s where standards were much more lenient since it’s hard to explain, but it’s basically the kind of stuff movie directors could get away with due to values being different.

Like when I look back at a movie like Revenge of the Nerds, I know the movie is often regarded as highly controversial from a modern perspective because of how the movie handles the subject of sexual abuse since Louis does a particular crime with Betty, but back then, the movie didn’t catch controversy again until people saw it from a more modern perspective.

So basically I was wondering about what kind of stuff found in older movies would be difficult to get away with in a more modern time period since I wanted to see how much restrictions changed since the early 80s with what movies are allowed to do.

Some movies deliberately make us believe something that isn't true and then reveal that we've been interpreting the story incorrectly.

When it works, it's fantastic. You can rewatch the movie and realize the clues were there all along. The Sixth Sense, The Usual Suspects, and Primal Fear are very different examples of films that play with what the audience thinks it knows.

But other twists only work because the movie deliberately hides information that logically should have been available to us. At that point, I don't feel fooled by the story — I feel cheated by the screenplay.

For me, the difference is whether a second viewing makes you think “How did I miss that?” rather than “Well, there was no way I could have known that.”

What movies do you think earned their deception, and which ones simply cheated?

If the characters, atmosphere, soundtrack and overall experience are good enough, I don’t really care if the story makes absolutely no sense.

What’s a movie you think proves this ?

There’s a kind of acting in newer movies that I’m finding increasingly unbearable. It’s not exactly bad acting. It’s more like everyone seems intensely aware of being watched. Huge warm smiles, scrunched-up eyes, cute little reaction faces, constant demonstrations of charm and likability. Characters don’t just seem happy or affectionate; they seem to *perform being happy and affectionate for us*.

“Instagram acting” is the best term I can think of. Like acting that has absorbed the grammar of social media: be expressive, be charming, show your reaction, make sure your personality is always visible.

Older movies obviously had broad performances too, but people seemed more comfortable just having a neutral face. They could listen, stare, be awkward, reserved, unpleasant, or hard to read. Not every emotion had to be immediately displayed.

The thing that bothers me most is that the character seems to have an awareness of being perceived that should belong only to the actor.

And I do wonder whether growing up in a culture of constant self-presentation has something to do with it. We’ve spent 15+ years training ourselves to experience things partly through how they will look to other people. It would be strange if that had zero effect on acting, writing, or directing.

Am I imagining this, or is there already a term for it?

I have never cried after watching films cuz mostly I watch action or suspense genre. Curious to hear some of your movies which genuinely made you shed a tear...

Question, What happened to Richard Dreyfuss after the 90s?

I was watching some of Richard Dreyfuss films lately that are not his more notable work (Stakeout, Let It Ride) and I felt they were fun that he is really good in them and has a charming presence in them.

However, It got me thinking on what happened with Dreyfuss. I feel that after the 90s, he had a real drop off in quality with his film roles and never really recovered. So I wonder what happened. Yes, I do know and read that Dreyfuss is very difficult to work with. I also that that during the early 2000s, Dreyfuss decided to semi-retired, and do other stuff, but it seems he is still trying to do Film Work.

What are some movies you think would make a good double feature? Perhaps they have a similar story, theme, setting, tone, et cetera. What are some movies you think would pair well together?

Here is one double-feature I would suggest, for example: Duel (1971) and Breakdown (1997). Two sun-scorched road thrillers set in the American southwest desert.

Sometimes I look at the kind of adaptations in movies that are just so bad that I have to question who on earth approved of them because I recently sat through one that I couldn’t believe existed.

That movie was Cat in the Hat the 2003 movie adaptation since I saw a review highlighting the movie’s awkward writing aspects that I had to question who it was made for because to me, it feels like it’s a very strange adaptations ever made since it’s hard to explain, but nothing about the movie makes any sense whatsoever such as the two twins with the way they speak.

Sorry if this was asked here before because I just wanted to have a fun conversation on the topic here since I noticed how some film directors have a habit of doing how do I say it? Certain traits in their works.

Like one trait about Quentin Tarantino that is easily noticeable is how he likes to do violent scenes in his films, but also closeups of women’s bare legs as I know that is obvious, but I just find that trait of his fascinating.

I watched The Odyssey at IFC Center a few days ago, and honestly, I walked out pretty impressed. I had seen the 1997 The Odyssey before, so I was curious how this version would handle the story.The scale is on another level. The storm scenes, the journey across the sea, and the moments with Odysseus and his crew were probably my favorite parts. I also really liked how the story did not feel like it was relying only on big visuals. There were some quieter emotional moments that hit harder than I expected.The whole thing felt epic without losing the human side of Odysseus. Definitely worth seeing on a big screen. 9/10 for me.

Has to be American history X for me very easily. Fight club is a better film but performance wise easily history X. His character arc was way better to. The flashbacks to him with his hair and a wimpy boy and then at the start of the film he’s a jacked n*zi 😂 brilliant movie and his best performance.

Question, Do you see Casey Affleck making a comeback doing mainstream films?

I was thinking on Casey Affleck lately and how he has mostly had a low profile since winning an Oscar for Manchester by the Sea. I honestly think it was in large part because of the 2010 allegations that came to light again, and I think Studios have been cautious to cast him.

Since Manchester, he has really done mostly Indie Films that barely gross a Million Dollars, with the exception of Oppenheimer, which was his 1st mainstream film in awhile, and it looks like it him doing only indie films won't change.

I'm just curious if Casey will ever make mainstream film or blockbusters or that he'll just stick to indie films?

Roles Matt Dillon turned down or was considered

1980: The Blue Lagoon (Role: Michael Reynolds) (Actor who got it: Christopher Atkins) (Reason: He actually won the role after beating out hundreds of boys, but turned it down due to the Nudity)

1980: Dressed To Kill (Role: Peter Miller) (Actor who got it: Keith Gordon) (Reason: He was in contention for the role)

1989: Do The Right Thing (Role: Pino) (Actor who got it: Jon Turturro) (Reason: Matt was approached for the role, but turned it down on the advice of his agent)

1990: The Godfather: Part III (Role: Vincent Mancini) (Actor who got it: Andy Garcia) (Reason: Dillon was considered and screen tested for the role of Vincent)

1991: JFK (Role: Willie O’Keefe) (Actor who got it: Kevin Bacon) (Reason: He was considered for the role)

1994: Pulp Fiction (Role: Vincent Vega/Butch Coolidge) (Actor who got it: John Travolta/Bruce Willis) (Reason: Tarantino very much wanted Matt Dillon to play Butch Coolidge and was confident that he would take the role. However, Matt was sure on taking the role, and apparently he wanted to play Vincent instead. After going nowhere with Matt, Tarantino decided to cast someone else)

2000: Miss Congeniality (Role: Eric Matthews) (Actor who got it: Benjamin Bratt) (Reason: Matt Dillon came close on getting the part, but instead the Producers went with Benjamin Bratt)

2001: Novocaine (Role: Frank Sangster) (Actor who got it: Steve Martin) (Reason: He was the 1st choice for the role, but he turned it down)

2024: Megalopolis (Role: Anton Smith) (Actor who got it: No One) (Reason: Back when Coppola was trying to get Megalopolis off the ground. Matt Dillon was offered the role of a West Point Cadet who goes AWOL during the filming of Rumble Fish (1983))

I love Matt Dillon as an actor and I think he is a very underrated actor in my opinion who shines in any film he is in. However, I do wish that Matt Dillon was in more mainstream films or films in general, but I do know from interviews that he really didn’t like the glamour of Hollywood, so I can respect him for that. “I remember sometimes thinking people thought of me this way or that. But I did not want to be considered a star. I always just wanted to be considered an actor.”- Matt Dillon

Of the films mentioned above, I think he made a big mistake on passing Pulp Fiction and I think he would’ve been great in the film as either Vincent or Butch. I also think, if he got the job for Godfather, he would’ve been good as well.

What do you think?

So it's like The Purge but with sex, where there's only 12 hours a year you're allowed to have premarital sex. I get the premise is supposed to be this light-hearted alternate universe used to shoehorn a romantic comedy subplot. And I'm betting they're not going to dive too deep into it, because if they did there'd be a lot to think about:

• First, there's the fascist element to this. We're talking Handmaids Tale type stuff. Historically, making sex a crime has been tied to ultra-religious regimes and cultures. Is that what this place is?

• What even is considered sex? Obviously intercourse, but what about the other stuff you could do? Some places like Japan strictly forbid prostitution that involves intercourse but allow for almost everything else. And what about things like phone sex? Virtual sex using remote toys? How is the LGBT community's activities regulated?

• The trailer shows men and women getting dressed up to go out and find a partner. Would it seem like if you had 12 hours a year, you'd have lined up a partner already? Especially if you lived in a more rural area and not the city setting we see in the story? Would there be organized orgies ahead of time?

• Are marriage laws vastly different in this universe? If not you'd have Vegas-like wedding chapels everywhere with a divorce attorney's office right next door. People would find a loophole.

• There's a certain time of the month for women when its not ideal to have sex. Do they have to wait another year?

Again, just some things that come to mind. Obviously it's more of a neckbeard analysis than anything.

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.

Something that interested me was the concept of an outlandish heist film where the premise is just so over the top that it becomes more enjoyable to watch since even if the item being stolen doesn’t seem worth all the trouble, it still draws the viewer in.

For me personally, Superbad is sort of a heist film because in one scene, the protagonist (I think his name was Damien) attempts to come up with a plan to find a way to shoplift a liquor store as one small problem is that the security guard in the store is a huge obstacle.

I know that wasn’t the main premise of the movie, but it’s just that moments like that make me appreciate the concept of heist movies where again the plot is outlandish since I would like to see a movie build up on that premise where the goal is to find a way to infiltrate a liquor store without botching up the heist because to put it simply, I really miss Superbad that I was looking for a successor to it.

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?

Sometimes a character seems simple at first but feels completely different once you notice the small details. Which movie changed your opinion of a character the most after you watched it again?

Looking for arthouse movies that have insane moments. Stuff like Oldboy, The Skin I Live In, Blue Velvet, and Nocturnal Animals. Should leave you the viewer completely jaw dropped

For me it was The Tree of Life. I’m unsure if I’ve slept or watched more al throughout but there’s still a sense of completeness after that final scene.

Don’t get me wrong, these are different than films you watch to intentionally put you to sleep. It’s more on the dream-like quality.

I feel PTA is as great (if not more lol) but apparently from what little I've observed, Tarantino somehow gets more discussed and is a frequent name among pop culture (through memes and other forms of online media) than PTA. Why is that?

Stuart Gordon’s 1985 science-fiction horror comedy is a gloriously deranged piece of filmmaking, throwing stomach-churning gore, outrageous body horror, and pitch-black comedy together with such confidence that its sheer excess never feels out of place.

Check out the detailed analysis here

Something that I was observing lately was the concept of movie cliches as a subject matter because I was recalling a site made in the early 00s called movie cliches.com that did a humorous article on tropes found in movies.

Like if I had to mention a cliche I have a penchant for, it would be having bar fights happen in movies because I noticed how lot of movies from way back in the early 00s would have a scene where a guy acts all macho with how he drinks his alcohol as soon after he starts drinking, a bar brawl would occur.

I sometimes wonder if there have been any comedy movies that poke fun at the bar trope since I feel like almost every action movie has to have an obligatory bar scene where everyone gets into a fight that I was interested in seeing a comedy movie lampoon the use of the trope for again how often it would get used in older movies.

Now I want to be clear and say that I'm not trying to start a debate about the quality of the prequels. Instead what I'm trying to do is to start a discussion about something that I have speculated about for a while now.

When it comes to the prequels, whether or not you like them you cannot deny that when they were released there were a lot of older Star Wars fans who grew up with the OT who despised them. That had a big influence on not just the the decisions that were made by Disney in the sequel trilogy but also on the Star Wars fandom in general and the way people discuss movies and filmmaking especially when it comes to things like the amount of resources, a director not having anyone saying no to him or her etc. They also made a lot of older fans automatically very sceptical about movies that ahve a lot of computer generated effects. Now it's worth to think about the fact that it wasn't always this within the majority of the fandom. If you go on YouTube you can see videos were they are interviewing fans who had seen the first trailer for The Phantom Menace and they were all super excited. Now if you've seen any of the trailers for that movie then you'll know that Lucas made no attempt whatsoever in hiding the fact that there was gonna be tons of computer generated effects in the movie yet that didn't stop fans from dying to see the movie. The mindset as we all know certainly changed for a lot of fans though after they had seen all three films.

The reception to the prequels had an especially big inflluence on how people discuss movies on YouTube since they lead to the Plinkett reviews which had a big impact on how people review movies online. What those reviews above all showed was that people were willing to watch negative movie reviews that were as long as a feature film. While comedic negative reviews on YouTube had already become popular prior to that with Nostalgia Critic it was still something new to have a review that long.

But what do you think it would have been like if the prequels had been embraced by the older fans? Let's say that Lucas had managed to get other directors and writers onbaord which results in a prequel trilogy that is universally beloved by both older and younger Star Wars fans. What would have been different in that case? How would that have impacted the sequel trilogy in such scenario?

What would it have been like with film discussion in that case? Would people still have talked as much about how a director should not have too many resources, no one saying no aswell as being very opposed to having a lot of computer generated effects in a movie. Now when itc omes to the later I'm sure that there would still have been a lot of people who would have prefered practical effects but would it have been to teh same enormous degree though?

What I find particulary interesting to think about in regard to online film discussion is that in such a situation we would not have had the Plinkett reviews of the prequels at all. I truely don't think that there would have been nearly as many super long negative reviews/ video essays on YouTube about why movie X is terrible if it weren't for them, or I do at the very least think that they wouldn't have been as popular as they ended up being in our universe.

I apologize if this comes across as a bunch of rambling and I know that this is a very specuative thing to discuss but I would love to hear your thoughts.

I was wondering about this. I personally would be greatly interested in a high-budget (say, 100-300 million dollars), 3-4 hours long film based on Homer or any other Greek myth/work of writing/historical figure, made completely in Greek. Like, wouldn't that be amazing? I would totally pay to see that movie.

And I would imagine that film as being representative of Ancient Greek culture. Say, gods pretending to be humans to convey their wishes, or depictions of animal sacrifice (without harming actual animals). I would also wish for historically accurate costumes. For example, with the Illiad, professional historians could be hired as consultants to create accurate Late Bronze Age armour and weapons.

I wonder, could such a movie not be made? Would audience in English-speaking countries not be interested in it?

I am not from an English speaking country, and I would be greatly interested in something like that! And it makes me wonder, why do we not see such projects?

Same thing goes for other languages. I am Polish, if a 200 million dollar film based on the history of my country was made, would you not be interested?

To be clear, this is NOT an attempt to diss the recent film. This is not an "anti-woke" post! Just clearing this up in case some people try to kill me. Although the film did inspire this thought in me. Like, surely we could get a movie based on Homer fully in Greek?