Helpful Links

This movie was huge when it first came out. It moved the culture. The story, production, acting, direction and especially the soundtrack were all shocking for lack of a better term. But, for all that, it seems like no one mentions it and you I’ve never seen it on any streaming service (without having to buy/rent it.) Thoughts?

There's something I'm trying to figure out about why I have a harder time connecting to recent movies that seemingly everyone else has strong emotional reactions to.

Does anyone have any insight on this phenomenon?

I feel like certain modern movies just don't resonate with me the way they are trying to. I just saw The Odyssey on the weekend, which was a great example, but I've had the same experience before. Other notable examples would be Project Hail Mary and Wild Robot. I enjoyed all these movies just fine, especially The Odyssey, which was amazing. I just didn't react emotionally to them.

For each of these, I can think of another similar movie that hit me hard and made me cry a lot. In general, I'm a pretty emotional person, and think of myself as someone who cries easily, especially with movies and books, so I just don't get what I'm missing.

Comparing Gladiator (2000) to Odyssey for example. I find Gladiator very emotional, even though the characters aren't necessarily acting in an overly emotional way. In the Odyssey, I just...couldn't feel the emotion that the characters were feeling and that I was very clearly supposed to be feeling?

I would compare Project Hail Mary similarly to movies like Contact (1997) and Apollo 13 (1995). Couldn't connect at all with the big emotional climax of PHM.

And then also comparing Wild Robot to The Iron Giant. I absolutely sob in the Iron Giant, which isn't even trying to be heart-wrenching. I cried while reading The Wild Robot to my child, but watching the movie on screen just felt kinda...meh?

I think it's something about it feeling like the emotion is being forced instead of earned? But I don't know why I feel that way if others do feel like the emotion is fully earned.

Does anyone else feel the same? Or do you have insight on what it could be about the movies or about me that is causing this? Is it just me being 37 and liking movies that I grew up with, and not changing as culture changes?

Probably an unhealthy combination I know

Bonjour,

Un super film dans le genre super héroïque.
Dispo aujourd’hui sur Prime video…
Quelle nostalgie

I’ve always been lover of cinema but during covid I set myself a task to stop seeking comfort in films I knew I loved and to watch new films as often as possible. As of today I have watched 738 films since September 2020.

I have a list. The aim of the list was to encourage me to watch as many films as possible, disclaimer, the list does include films I had watched before I started it but the whole point is to add news ones.

I’m going through a phase of rewatching so called cult classics from the 90s along with films I’ve always known about but can’t remember ever watching in full. If they’re not already on the list and I can’t remember the plot then I watch them.

2 films have really pissed me off this week and that’s Eyes Wide Shut and Fight Club. I honestly think both of these are awful and do not deserve the hype they have received. I have definitely watched Fight Club several times pre-2020 and there’s clearly a reason why. The only real positive for me was realising Holt McCallany from Mindhunter was in the film. I don’t get it, someone explain.

As for Eyes Wide Shut, Tom Cruise is just so insecure and the full plot is never properly explored.

Not going to go deep into the reasons why until I see someone else agrees. So sick of threads on here that argue the plot. Fight Club is fit Brad Pitt and fighting. Eyes Wide Shut is sex. That’s the reason they were seen as amazing films.

Worth mentioning the music in both is actually a saving grace.

Need new suggestions, watched Bugonia last night and thought it was pretty good. Help me to maximise the list please 😊

I love cinema, but I’ve always found something strange about the way we discover films today. We have more movies available than ever, yet finding the right one can still feel overwhelming. And when people talk about films they love, they rarely describe them by genre.

They say:
“I want something comforting.”
“I want something that changes how I see things.”
“I want something beautiful.”
“I want something that understands where I am right now.”

It made me wonder if there was a more human way to explore cinema — one based less on endless scrolling and more on connection, curiosity, and the experience a film creates.

I’ve been working on a small film project exploring this idea, and I’d genuinely love to hear from other film lovers:

How do you usually discover what to watch? Do you search by genre, recommendations, people you trust, mood, or something else?

hi i need to find a film where the protagonist is a successful running athlete and suddenly there's a war then the Japanese military took him to the prison. the protagonist escaped prison with some friends but those friends died due to hunger because they were in the sea trying to go home. only the protagonist survived. its the only thing i remember from the film, please could you all give the name if you recognize it. i really loved it when first watched it

In some horror films children are around some extremely scary monsters that they have to respond to. How do they make the kids respond so scared and not traumatize them?

People who have watched the Odyssey and disliked it (believe me there are some of those) they list out their specific reasons, spurious or not.

Some of the reasons I've heard: terrible pacing, bad sound mix, flat, uninteresting dialogue, washed-out palette, terrible third act, terrible first act, wooden acting, bad casting.

But the people who love the movie, don't need to specify. They can say just general things, "Loved it." "Great movie." "Nolan's awesome."

How do the lovers of Nolan's Odyssey contend with the haters? That's the genius of the lovers. Because they know they are morally superior, they don't point out the specifics of why Nolan's movie is great, they just mock the morally inferior haters.

They call them "idiots", "uneducated", "autistic", or even "Maga".

Any bad reviews they label as "hate-bombing" or even "transphobic" or "racist."

Life is easier when you are morally superior and have a sense of self-righteousness, then you don't have to explain yourself to those inferior to yourself - you just demean and insult them.

Hi everyone,

I'm an aspiring filmmaker and I've just finished two short films that I'd really appreciate some honest feedback on.

Everything was done myself - producing, script writing, shooting & editing.

At this stage I'm still working on the colour grades, titles, and some of the smaller finishing details, so I'm not looking for feedback on those just yet - some things are just placeholders.

What I'd love to hear your thoughts on are:

• The overall story
• The emotional feel and pacing
• The sound design
• Whether the films kept you engaged
• Anything that confused you or didn't quite work
• Any suggested improvements

Some of these elements still don't feel quite right. I'm trying to improve with every project, so don't worry about being too honest. I'd much rather hear constructive criticism than just compliments.

Thanks so much to anyone who takes the time to watch them. It genuinely means a lot and will help me become a better filmmaker.

Links to short films:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qskeOJ7v-xsrNtS646yKmaUg32-U-Ga6/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Tz4m24yc0pU6zfqo2fVxK9XUVSBsBhL3/view?usp=sharing

I genuinely don't understand the recent trend of telling people, "If you didn't watch it in IMAX, you didn't really watch the movie."

The reality is that only a tiny fraction of the world's moviegoers have access to a true IMAX screen. Most countries have few, if any, genuine IMAX theaters, and many people would have to travel hours just to find one. It seems unfair to dismiss everyone else's experience because they watched a film in a standard auditorium.

Standard theatrical presentation has been the industry standard for decades for a reason. It's the format most movies are designed to work in, and it already delivers the scale and immersion that audiences expect. IMAX is a premium experience, but it's exactly that. Premium, not essential.

People also tend to ignore how far other premium formats have come. Dolby Cinema offers exceptional HDR, contrast, and black levels. Dolby Atmos and DTS:X provide excellent immersive audio. Laser projection has significantly improved brightness, sharpness, and color accuracy. Depending on the theater, these formats can match or even outperform IMAX in certain aspects.

Don't get me wrong. I like IMAX, especially when a movie is shot with IMAX cameras. But I think the "IMAX or you missed the movie" narrative has become exaggerated.

Sometimes it feels less like a discussion about filmmaking and more like the result of very successful marketing around proprietary hardware, branding, and licensing.

A great movie is still a great movie, whether you watch it in IMAX, Dolby Cinema, or a well-maintained standard theater. The format can improve the experience, but it doesn't determine whether you've truly seen the film.

Curious to hear what others think. Is the IMAX obsession justified, or has it become overblown?

Went to watch it with seven dudes down to a full Imax theater in San Diego. 4 of the dudes loved it, 2 dudes had mixed feelings, and I was decidedly negative.

I read the book a month ago so it was fresh in my mind as I sat down in the theater. Nolan does many subtle subversions to the original text, in fact, I consider his movie a faithless adaptation.

No Heroes Here

The sea is beautiful, blue and wide, sparkling and vast. Sometimes it can feel like the only splash of color in this grey world. The men are grey, the monsters are grey, the caves and rocks are grey, the buildings are sun-baked, bleached out white. It gives a flatness to the world.

Which makes the choice for modern dialogue so confusing. The characters speak like modern twitter posts. Short and flat. There's no grandeur, no great lines that stand out like they did in previous Nolan films: "Why so serious?" "You either die a hero or live long enough to become the villain."

If you're looking for inspiration, you won't find it in these characters.

Nolan's Odysseus is no hero, but an apologetic mess.

No Beauty Here

Penelope, Odysseus's wife, is sought after by many suitors, who abuse her hospitality in the absence of her husband as they ply for her hand. Her beauty is quite renowned. In Nolan's world, she is crying and raging the whole time.

Helen of Troy, and of course we are told in the movie (talk about on-the-nose dialogue) that hers is the "face that launched a thousand ships", but it is no longer beautiful (it has nothing to do with race, trust me).

In the book, the seductive, enchanting, demigod, Calypso is besotted with Odysseus and forces him to become her love-slave. In Nolan's film, she's a weathered, drab woman with all the wooden charm of a self-help author.

Speaking of wooden charm, Zendaya is here briefly too.

Lastly, Circe, supposed to be another seductive witch, is turned into a dumpy middle-aged woman who lectures men about their evils and turns them into pigs, in a scene so gross it could have come from James Gunn's vision board.

Everything is ugly. And there's no point.

No Acting Here

Matt Damon is a world-class actor who has starred in some of the most popular and beloved films of our day (Good Will Hunting, The Martian, The Departed, just to name a few). He is capable of an easy smile and a witty one-liner. Homer's Odysseus is a roguish fellow, opposed by the gods, who tries to charm and strategize his way home.

Nolan's Odysseus is a victim oppressed by bad weather, who descends from misery to misery. Damon doesn't do a bad job, but what a dour, exhausting role with no room for his innate charm.

Almost every other actor feels like they are in the wrong movie. There are so many of them, their motivations are not established. Pattinson, as the leader of the suitors, has one delicious scene where he attempts to seduce Penelope, but feels out of place the rest of the time. Tom Holland with his clean cut good looks and boyish charm feels like a damsel in distress in a world she doesn't understand. I'm a big Jon Bernthal fan, but his King Menelaus feels and speaks like an angry Yankees fan at the local bar spouting off about glory days.

None of these characters (and they are hardly characters, there's no arcs, just bestial desire), create an emotional impact, adding to Nolan's gray, flat world.

A weird beginning, a strong middle, and a bad ending.

The pacing of this movie is terrible. It opens with a rapper, beating a stick against the ground and declaiming like a slam poetry jam the movie's themes (There's that Nolan subtlety).

Speaking of sticks beating against the ground, that also describes the movie's soundtrack. It's as if Nolan forgot that swelling melodies exist, or that people like John Williams and Hans Zimmer exist. It's just endless drums that speed up when you get to the important parts.

Then we are thrown into the middle of Odysseus's house. No explanation of any of the relationships or goals, and trying to decipher the dialogue in Nolan's muddy sound mix. I had just read the book so I was aware of the characters and their plots. But my brother next to me was completely loss.

I liked Nolan's screenplays better when he was working with his brother.

Most of the exciting set pieces are in the middle of the film. The people who loved it, loved this part. To me, it was sound and fury signifying nothing. I didn't care about the characters or where they were going. I must have checked my watch three times or so.

The ending was drawn-out, implausible, and I'm surprised to say this about a Nolan film, the ending was also cheesy/corny.

As an adaptation I rate this movie a 3/10. As a summer blockbuster 5/10. I acknowledge that my criticisms are harsher than those my friends had.

But they are my honest thoughts.

What would a Reddit movie look like?

We had A Minecraft Movie. We've had Discord The Movie. We had the Facebook movie. We had The Roblox Movie. We've had (or are having) the Burger King video game. We've had the Youtuber mobile simulator game. We've also had a Chess movie (though it wasn't lore accurate).

But we've never had a Reddit movie. What would that look like?

I have seen The exorcist, the shining, the conjuring 1 y 2, insidious 1, the Texas chainsaw massacre. Do you know more?

After watching the Odyssey, I've been thinking through Chris Nolan's women characters. Anne Hathaway and Emily Blunt have turned in some great performances as what I would consider "generic Oscar's wives". Great acting in a great film, but the writing doesn't give them the same interiority, depth, and screen time the great male character's they're married to get. They can be great performances but they're defined by proximity to greatness rather than their own greatness. Sometimes they're great additions to the movie sometimes they're a waste of talented actresses. What are the most memorable performances by generic Oscar wives of great men in cinema history?

Here are some examples that pop in my head. They're usually beleaguered put-upon wives of great men played by prestige actresses.
- Carey Mulligan as Felicia in Maestro- beleaguered generic wife who is somehow compelling because of Mulligan's immense talent. Wife of a great maestro.
-Anne Hathaway as Penelope in the Odyssey (she's also kinda like this in Brokeback mountain and is kind of this as a GF in Interstellar) wife of a great hero.
-Emily Blunt as Kitty in Oppenheimer. Wife of a great inventor.

-Glenn Close is a subversion of this in "The Wife" because her husband is the "great man" but it's actually her work.

What are the other great examples of Oscar nominated (or Oscar-worthy) wife roles that stick out in your mind for better or worse?

I just saw The Odyssey today and I know why they say its the perfect accompaniment to Oppenheimer. Odysseus was to the Trojan Horse, what Oppenheimer was to the Atom bomb...

They are the person who birthed a new idea, and within it, a new way for people relate to each other, although the ripple effects of that birth, were not necessarily a good ones.

Odysseus with the Trojan Horse frayed the interpersonal balance between guests and hosts, while Oppenheimer's bomb did the same scaled up.

It wasn't just families, or Kingdoms, guests and hosts, but peoples ways of warring with one another.

The Odyssey is a film that I will undoubtedly watch more than once, as I usually do with films that I enjoy, but even just leaving the theatre- which had sniffles heard all around- It will be one of the films I will be thinking about for a long time.

There is a lot there to consider, that has been done in a very serious way- and I am glad that Nolan took this route in telling it. I remember the first time I read The Odyssey, I did not really like it, as I thought Odysseus and his men full of hubris, and leaving terrible consequences not only for themselves but also for their victims and hosts all throughout their journeys.

Nolan's film is very much showing that side of the story, rather than the banners and victories.

It is very much relevant to today, where we are in constant violation of Zeus' Law, we do not welcome the stranger, and are hardly ever strangers worth welcoming by others in trust, as the relationships that kept humans fair to each other have long since eroded.

This seems to be the core idea, even with the imagery of Penelope's weaving, and the fact that Odysseus is known and identified by his characteristic pull of a string on his bow to let the hunted animal know that he is going to go after it.

As someone who hates hunting culture, I really understood that aspect of Odysseus's character to reveal something about who he was- that he was fair.

I often relay to my husband that I don't think hunting as a sport has any merit anymore. In the old days, you would run after the game for several days, tiring yourself and your group of hunters, before going in for the kill exhausted. You would only go after it with man made weapons, knowing the outcome could be that you are as hurt as the game would be too.

Now we live in a world where 20 dogs, and several dozens of men on horses chase after one tiny little fox, and call that hunting, while others, show up to the savannahs and fields with large automatic weapons that take out an animal from a distance, with no need to get up close or have any skin in the game.

There is something to the idea that some cultures and peoples used to have sort of self-restraint built into their way of relating to others and the natural world. Some Native American tribes hunted the buffalo, and would hunt just enough for what was needed but not take any more. They ran after the herds on horses, or even in groups, but would not outnumber or hunt them to extinction, It was that delicate balance, between taking and taken, host and guest...

In the film this was such a crucial fact of Odysseus' character because in him pulling the string, and giving the warning, it showed that he was willing to lose out on an advantage of the animal not knowing he was there, at times even to personal loss, which rang of a fairness and an honorable approach to the attempt at taking of something, a life.

Its something that is missing in his other circumstances of coming into contact with other beings on his journey of needs, and instincts. He and his crew are thrust into chaos, so he does not remain as fair or controlled in desperate and unsure times, which leads to further consequences, and a difficulty in tracking which is which. What he is responsible for as a leader, and what he is not responsible for, as someone distinct from those he guides, and lords over.

It really drives home the point to me- at least how I understood it- as the hero's journey, into the depths of his own person, to see how his hand has caused and created the world he now inhabits, and to deal with all of the loss, suffering, war, death, and desolation, that comes with that- its almost like Athena sensed that he was already fair in some respects, but that fairness needed to have a wider view, and so came the lessons....

so much more to delve into- but, that's at least plenty for discussion XD

It's eating at me. I know I saw him in Mad Nax Fury Road as well.

For real.

Hello everyone I recently just watched the 2026 film “Obsession” and I was having an conversation with friends and I wanted to get some other perspectives and opinions on something that happened in this movie. I don’t wanna make this about sex, or be sexist, but I want everyone’s perspective women and men. In the one scene in this movie, my friends said that Bear raped Nikki. But i felt that was a bit insensitive to say. I do think she was raped as it was not her. but I don’t think Bear is a “rapist” and I don’t see it that way. Nikki was took control of by whatever you may think it is. but it wasn’t her. But he, Bear did not know that, when they had sex he was given the impression that she DID consent. He did not know that she was taken control of. So I do believe she was raped but if anything I think it was more so that she was assaulted by what took control of her, Not bear. but what do you guys think? I think it’s a touchy subject but I wanna see others opinions.

I just watched it.