Video Hot

Besides Interstellar

It'll be interesting to see if she gets much work now that she doesn't have that look anymore.

I hear the dvd one has more special features and the colors are not as saturated and are closer to the original, is this true? I know in music, when things are digitally remastered, they can lose depth, I never really thought about that happening with film (I know the dvd is considered digitally remastered but its supposedly not as over done as the bluray) anyway for those of you who have seen both, which one is better?

Just curious. I know that concessions is the bulk of theatre revenue and that box office is only a small portion. But yesterday I saw a movie and noted that there were 10 minutes of commercials even before the trailers started. These commercials are probably the only video ads now-a-days that still have an entirely captive audience.

So has advertising become a major part of the movie theatre business plan?

I'm trying to explain to my brother why they are bad. I've told him everything from the horrible writing, destroying the originals feel (space epic tragedy turned buddy slap stick teenage attitude film) and the horrible CGI. Could someone give me an in depth summary of why these thing are bad?

I'm not saying you can't enjoy the movies. In fact, being a kid who saw these in theaters I enjoy them but I acknowledge there bad.

I'm new to reddit, so if this is not appropriate for this subreddit, let me know (hopefully with a suggestion for a suitable other subreddit).

I'm going to post two word clues, guess the movie. When you post the answer, also post another two word clue of your own!

1. Jewish abortion


2. Receptionist fetish


3. Prematurely Adult


4. Candycanes denied


5. Adolescent canid


6. Sexy pie


7. Canine tango


8. Diminutive floatation


9. Everyone's him


10. Butter bum

Just got done watching As above, so below. And now I can't stop thinking that a to be raider movie done in this style would just be beyond fantastic. Anyone agree?

Their never was a discussion thread so let's make one.

I recently watched it for the 2nd time ever, and wow. I sat in silence and awe for 15 minutes. I don't see this movie discussed too much, so what are everyone's thoughts on it?

Woooaaaahhh, what a journey! I had chills down my spine the entire time just anticipating what was going to happen. I didn't want it to end! Very, very good movie and had a pretty solid payoff. It had quite a few flaws here and there but overall I REALLY enjoyed it. I also thought the emphasis on faith/evidence was very well done too. Definitely worth a watch if you haven't seen it and love sci-fi/mystery shit! Jodie Foster killed it and Matthew McConaughey was excellent (as always).

EDIT: words

So a friend of mine felt it was incorrect for Shingen to say "God's mistake" about mutants because it was too christian for a Japanese man (Shingen is very unlikely to be christian). I don't know if this is the case. Were there any other places where the film was very accurate or inaccurate?

Yes, we all know Star Wars VII, and Avengers 2 and whatnot are coming out, but let's those ignore those for a moment.

What non-sequel/prequel movies are you excited for? I'll accept remakes.

I myself am really looking forward to Gus Van Sant's A Sea of Trees and Quentin Tarantino's The Hateful Eight, among others.

Ok so spoilers ahed so if you have not seen the movie. STOP. READING. NOW.

So .. this movie still has me thinking on the paradox and the timelines it sets... but what I do not understand it: When Jane was becoming John, how did she not notice she came to look exactly like the dude she fell in love with?

My confessions are that I :

• Have not seen any star war movies


• Have not seen any Indiana Jones movies except for crystal skull


• Dislike the Dark Knight rises and Frozen.

I was kind of shocked at how few real space shots there were. I felt like we were mostly inside the ships or we had shots where cameras were mounted on the sides of the ships, which blocks out most of the action.

So.. watching Terminator 1 and 2 on scifi channel. I am totally realizing that the government and police response to everything is idiotic beyond words and how they haven't realized they aren't dealing with normal people is baffling.

In the first Terminator, after the second or third Sarah Conner is killed, you would think that ANY police force would be quick to realize that they would have to get the rest of them on protective watch automatically. Sure it would do nothing thanks to the Terminator being unstoppable. But still, just one example of how incompetent the police are in this series.

But another huge example is at the police station where she tells her story. Even though even I would not believe the future thing, I would have to believe her when Reese did in fact protect her because back in the club there are countless eye witnesses who can clearly make out who did the actual shooting to begin with. Reese would still be in trouble and stuff for no identification, but a lot less since Sarah would have been able to clearly defend him in court thanks to other eyewitnesses.

Then comes the police shooting scene in which COUNTLESS bullets hit the T-800 to the point where any eyewitness left could honestly tell you that the Terminator was obviously not a human being, even if he did have armor on. Then there are pictures in T2 which clearly show that the dude is bulky in muscles and not in actual armor so this would help with said claims.

Then comes the ending with the cyberdyne building. I am sorry but the truth is that the police should have found the damn Terminator within seconds and the fact that they had to go in there to get Kyles body is just flat out incompetent police work beyond words. If Sarah told anyone what happened and since it would take just a single look to see! Even then there would be DNA evidence to prove that she did indeed do all those things! How in fucks name did the company manage to hide the evidence within an hour of it happening!? I mean... come on!

The comes T2 in which it become evident that the police force has just gone full blown insane. A police officer dies right at the beginning and a guy steals a police car! Within 6 hours that car would be found out that it had been stolen. Then comes the fact that the T-1000 would probably leave Mercury everywhere and thus the police car alone proves that something fucking weird happened.

Then comes the mall fight scene and it honestly proves 100% that the police officers needed to realize that they weren't dealing with normal people. So... a guy who went on a killing spree over 10 years ago who hasn't been seen since has showed back up again and has not aged in the slightest!? All the while he and a police officer THROW each other through cement walls and get right back up afterwards! All with eyewitnesses! cameras! And eye witnesses out the ass along with a police officer no one in the city should know who it is! This is screaming weirdness to the point where the FBI or even the secret service would start looking into things!

Then comes the mental facility which had evidence and the best eyewitness. That being the psychologist seeing the T-1000s body go through a bar and have his head explode and heal RIGHT IN FRONT OF HIM! All the while there are camera's all over the place and it caught him on screen as well! Having the eye witnesses look at said pictures and video's would have been 100% of weirdness going on. Then there there is the elevator with stabs everywhere which the psychologist guy would have been able to prove that the dude had claw arms! Also the fact that some guy stabbed John's foster parents with what seem to be swords as well. Also there is DNA evidence in the elevator with Sarah's blood which PROVES and I mean PROVES that her insane story was correct in terms of what seem to be machines going after her.

At this point the police should be ashamed with how moronic they are and realize these are not normal human beings in the slightest sense.

Then comes later in the movie with the Dyson family and the wife 100% can attest to all of this insanity after seeing the terminator hand. The truth is that the investigators would HAVE to assume this is the truth due to all past evidence saying that these guys aren't human whatsoever and no matter what, Ms Dyson would have been interviewed constantly because of her husband basically being a terrorist overnight. People WOULD listen to her story and the fact that there are bullet holes all over the place and if the Terminator did so, he probably left a skin flab of his hand somewhere in there as well.

Then comes the Cyberdyne building as well, The T-800 flat out going against the entire Swat Team and even after over half of his body is metallic and still going from all the gunshots, anyone with even a slightly good look could honestly tell you the dude was not human even slightly. Even carrying a Minigun and shooting it the way he did is physically impossible for human beings to do which lends even more credence to the evidence of weirdness.

Then comes the fact that at the end at the... metal mill place that there is DNA evidence everywhere from Sarah being shot that there was a chase in there and if the T-1000 leaves Mercury or something in places that it shows that something insane happened no matter what.

Then there is the fact that the T-800's skin suit probably has left DNA everywhere as well. What kind I have no idea but it should leave a bunch of traces everywhere since all they did was leave him be and only actually cover his wounds once throughout the movie. (In which that same location would prove a lot of valuable DNA evidence that all three of them were running away from something.

In all honesty, the police and the government in this series is BEYOND moronic. Especially by the end of 2. There is countless amounts of DNA and physical evidence, a crapton of eyewitnesses both civilian and medical workers and even other police officers, and if John and Sarah were captured later on they could tell the cops everything that happened and have actual proof thanks to DNA/physical evidence of it happening and even have the psychologist guy even agree along with the other police officers and it should be pretty damn obvious that something inhuman happened.

But again, this is my theory... probably has more holes in it than the T-800 at the tend of T2.

Why would you name your child Coop Cooper????

But... then I wake up.

I've always been fascinated by the idea that once a film is shown to an audience, the filmmaker no longer "owns" the message of the movie, but rather the audience takes over with its own interpretations and beliefs in the themes and meanings. The views of this matter in Hollywood seem to be split. For example, The Wachowskis refused to do press junkets for the Matrix films because they wanted the "films to speak for themselves" and felt that by explaining their intent it would devalue the importance of the audience's interpetration. Then on the other side of the coin there's George Lucas who "can't let sleeping dogs lie" as Spielberg said. His retooling of the Star Wars films has been indicative of this. Spielberg himself seems to have changed his views and said he regrets having updated ET because the film was "no longer his" after the theatrical release.

So is the movie yours once you see it? Or does the filmmaker's vision trump your own opinions?

I would like to get the opinions from a broad range of viewers, and I will also be asking this question of r/filmmakers. Thanks very much!

Really, just anything that could have been done with practical effects but wasn't (some blood splatter effects fall into this category), or anything that was changed from one media to another (ie. in the first Pokemon movie, certain background effects were changed from hand drawn in the Japanese version to CGI in the American version).

Is anyone else unimpressed? I was really hoping the teaser would get me excited for the movie, but alas I am not. I felt like it was just bullet points of things in the movie ending on what looks to be Darth Jesus. How does everyone else feel?

• "Oscar-Baity"

Whatever that means Appy polly loggies for shitty title

Any thoughts??

Been out of the loop lately

In Alien Director's Cut, Ripley comes across a hive with Dallas and Brett hung up. In Aliens the marines come across the same hive like formation leading to the burial chamber, but when asked what it is, Ripley replies that she doesn't know.

Is this because her encounter with this area isn't in the theatrial cut of Alien? Or she doesn't remember because of hypersleep?

As the wreckage burns, we see what is apparently The Terminator climb out of the cab on fire, he walks a number of paces before falling to the ground and burning down to what appears to be a human skeleton. Subsequently the Endoskeleton rises from the wreckage a few moments later.

Now as far as i know, Terminators don't have skeletons on top of endoskeletons. Perhaps the endo busted out of the human skin, but if this was the case it seems unlikely the crispy oak would be going for a one last midnight stroll. Most probably a goof, but it seems a pretty big oversight!

Please discuss.

Considered* fuck.

I saw the first one in the theater and I thought I remembered it doing quite well in the box office. Why havent the sequels come out yet? Surely there is a huge market for this.

We all know and love Jek Porkins from 1977's Star Wars. It was a sad moment when his X-wing went down during the assault on the first Death Star. But what about his legacy? This post and its subsequent comments are meant to bring to the attention of J.J. Abrams and his producers, if they are not already aware, that we as fans require closure regarding the Porkins legacy. Even a simple check-in with his next of kin will suffice.

I invite anyone who so wishes to take this moment to voice their support and share some personal memories of Porkins.

Regrettably, I believe the DP Daniel Mindel has been a bit too heavy handed and it takes me out of the Star Wars universe: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0591053/

So I have this idea, and if it does have a name I"m sorry, where it doesn't matter how well known and successful certain actors are, you can only see them as their character in an early role. With Aston Kutcher, it doesn't matter what he does, he's always going to be Kelso from That 70's Show to me.

Other examples could be (my personal opinion) Keanu Reeves: Ted "Theodore" Logan. Christopher Mintz-Plasse; Mclovin. Jake Gyllenhaal: The Bubble Boy. Matthew Mcconaughey: Wooderson.

Why does Hollywood keep optioning these god awful movies?

I feel like he is in everything these days....

I was thinking about How to Train Your Dragon 2 when I remembered seeing it in cinemas and being in awe of the remarkable cinematography. In fact both films had wonderful cinematography, production design, costume design and - of course - great soundtracks.

Anyway, this made me remember something that popped into my head earlier in the year (and I think maybe read somewhere else but I'm not sure). Will an animated movie ever get a technical award nomination such as one for Best Cinematography? With CGI heavy films like Avatar, Life of Pi, and Gravity taking the gold in recent years I find it difficult to make an argument against animated films receiving at least some recognition. Heck, when films like Avatar win Best Production Design and Gravity is nominated it makes me wonder why animated films are never even considered for a nomination.

I know there is a stigma among those in the Academy against animation, but to me it would be warranted especially for films like the How to Train Your Dragons, Wall-E, or even Rango from a couple of years ago where the technical aspects are so remarkable.

Anyway, what do you all think? Will it ever happen? Should it happen?

Just saw Snowpiercer, pretty enjoyable if very weird. I was just wondering why seemingly several reviews I've read take great pains not to reveal that Ed Harris is the person who plays Wilford. For example, Peter Sobczynski's review on Roger Ebert's site contains this warning: "(Again, if you have any sense of surprise, do not look up the identity of the person playing Wilford.)"

I'm just wondering why reviewers were so cagey with mentioning this fact about the movie. Does it have something do with Ed Harris specifically? I thought maybe it was because Wilford functions a tiny bit like Harris' character in The Truman Show? But I know that's a huge stretch. Am I missing something here?

Both the original and prequel trilogies reflected contemporary concerns about politics, power, and abuse. What contemporary issues do you think the new Star Wars movies might comment on?

Since the rumour emerged that John Boyega's character would be a Stormtrooper (which has now been seemingly confirmed by the trailer) we've all assumed that he's a 'baddie' who becomes a 'goodie'. Great idea, and an original one for the saga, but what if its not so straight forward? What if Boyega's character is actually a way for the audience to sympathise with the "Empire" (or whatever they're calling themselves nowadays), and what if, over the course if the new trilogy, the Alliance and the new Empire actually join forces to defeat a greater foe?

Maybe we start off the trilogy with an uneasy armistice between the two sides, one that's been in place since the defeat of the Emperor, and then the old conflicts flare up again for some reason, and we get the usual battles between X-Wings and TIE Fighters, but then a new enemy emerges (a Sith army for example) and Leia manages to forge an alliance with an old Imperial officer who is now leading what's left of the Empire (Sidow's character, perhaps?) to fight the new forces of the dark side.

It would be a juxtaposition to the prequels where the Clones start off as "goodies" and go bad (in a manner if speaking). And after all, we've already seen the Rebellion beat the Empire, do we really need it to happen again? Maybe this time the battle is even bigger.

Who wouldn't want to root for Stormtroopers for a change?

I just finished watching The Talented Mr. Ripley (1999), and it was so well done. The casting was superb, the story well adapted, and the character development was everything I could hope it to be.

Movies of recent don't really have that effect anymore.

I still don't understand why it was so underrated, it had a really strong cast and its full of dystopian goodness. Still one of the best best entries in to the cyberpunk sub-genre. The cinematography and direction is energetic; the pacing is excellent, building up as the story layers reveal themselves; and performances are generally solid, save a few bum line deliveries that could have done with a few more takes. Oh and 'While The Earth Sleeps' by Peter Gabriel & Deep Forest is pretty awesome too and fits the feel of the movie perfectly.

I'm finding 5 minute clips on youtube and the like, wondering if theirs something longer that focuses on the technical aspect. How they were better and why, what they did that was innovative.

Which is better? It's Fincher so im leaning towards DC but what does r/movies like better?

Hi I know there are some video game spin-off movies or retellings of video game stories as animated (drawn or 3d) movies. Is there any kind of listing of all of those movies? I know there are 2 animated Resident Evil Movies, a Halo Legends "movie"(more like some short-movies cut together), Dantes Inferno, some old Street Fighter animes ... but I guess there tons of them ?

What movie or movies had scenes that were just jam packed with tension that you were sitting on the edge of your seat? links to the scene would be nice.

Will the 2000's and 2010's and beyond be known or thought of in the future as a movie remake era? Watching the trailer for PAN made me wonder when the recycling will ever stop.

For instance the 80's and 90's had a common movie series theme to it.

I like Clerks the best. The writing is so good. The jokes, funny situations are all so unique. Every fricking scene is hilarious. There wasn't one bad or boring moment in it. Beautifully paced. I feel that a lot of modern comedies have been influenced by it. I would give this a solid 9/10.

Clerks 2 was decent, but there were scenes that felt dragged. Brian O'Halloran (Dante) and Jeff Anderson (Randal) had a great chemistry on screen in Clerks but it was Jeff who delivered in both films. I felt Brian couldn't bring back his character convincingly. I loved the opening scene, but somewhere along the middle it started slowing down. Randal's scenes were a relief. The Star Wars - LOTR arguments in particular. I think its fair to give it a 6.5 or 7 on 10.

Randal is AWESOME^{AwesomeAwesomeAwesomeAwesome} .

I wanted to finally watch star wars, but the more i looked into it the harder it got. I can't seem to find 1-6 unaltered versions anywhere. Any info on the matter would be very helpful.

(BTW I have chosen 451236.)

Great movie, but I feel like Matthew McConaughey won an oscar for not being as bland as he was in previous roles. He was competent, but not brilliant. I think this is an example of presentational performance versus performance. For me, the stand-out was Jared Leto. He was absolutely incredible. He should have got something. Matthew was great, but replaceable. It never pushed the limitations of the main role. Hugh Grant or Matt Damon or Carrot Top could have played that role and got an oscar, which seemed to have been awarded mainly because of the social insecurities of a post 80s America.

TL:DR, Amazing movie. Undeserved Oscar.

For the prequels I watched all the trailers, read all the forums, analyzed every frame grab and screenshot, read magazines that had anything Star Wars-related on the cover...you know the drill. For Episode VII I want to take the reverse tactic: remain as virginal as possible, and let my first experience with the characters and story be whatever shows up on the big screen when the lights go down at the premiere more than a year from now. Anyone else planning to go this route? Is it even possible, given the sheer amount of Star Wars media that's going to be flooding the internet in the coming year?

I hope people dont start freaking out on me here because i know how touchy the fans are but as an avid movie goer, i love studying complex films and depth and all that, i just dont understand the love for Star Wars or Star Trek, both series to me are full of cliches, bad characters, terrible dialog, predictable twists, bad acting at times(Hayden), etc.

Im not saying i dont like Star Wars or Trek, theyre cool action romps, but theyre nothing more then that to me, why do people hold them as being THE BEST scifis?

Is it just a nostalgia thing? or do people see things i dont see? or am i just "spoiled" in terms of movies because we've gotten better since the 70-80's?

Wouldn't that be very cliche and predictable? Not to mention it has already been done. Why do fans want this to happen so bad? Wouldn't that defeat the idea of trying to avoid monster movie tropes like in JP3? I personally want a new way of ending the movie. Thoughts?

The movie has some really great laughs. OK it's the same story as the first movie, but it takes it to much more darker places. Like Chow dying from cocaine, monkey drug mule, talk of pedophilia ..."Show him your balls". Even the theme music...

I quite enjoyed the movie. If the first movie was not made, this would've been top 10 comedies ever made.

What do you think?

I am seeing Interstellar for the second time today. What small details or hidden elements should I look for?

(Ex. I have heard that you can see the first ship on the water planet crashing when Cooper and Co first enter the atmosphere...I want to see if it is legit)

What is the the message?

Soundtrack is amazing BTW

I feel like watching some movies with a plot like someone gets thrown in with other trainees etc. and end up climbing on top. I've seen Divergent, Harry Potter GoF, and only a few more. Any recommendations?

Why did they have to go to the water planet first?

What happened to Anne Hathaway after they found Matthew MacConaghey?

Do they know for a fact that she hibernated or is it in an estimation?

Regardless, it ends with Matthew getting into a space ship and flying away. If it is so easy why didn't anyone else save Anne earlier?

Officially official

What do you think about the quality? Do you prefer 35mm? Does digital make your life easier?

I don't know what to think of it really. Just a few thoughts

When the black dude ( idk his name) first appeared on the screen at the start, it looked like a fake trailer Imo.

The new lightsaber was kind of dumb and it seemed forced.

the millenium falcon is as glorious as ever.

The narrator's voice was so sexy though

Overall, I wanted a bit more but it will do for now. Still excited for this movie

I'm not sure if anyone here has seen it but coming across it on Netflix the other day it was pretty nostalgic. It still holds up well to this day. Also does anyone know what happened to Charlie Ray? I know Josh Hutchherson is doing well but Charlie disappeared after a good performance.

No action-comedies allowed! Just straight up actioners that actually made you laugh more than once! For me its True Lies, Total Recall, Commando, Cobra (that pizza cutting scene!), Die Hard franchise, The Long Kiss Goodnight and most recently Guardians of the Galaxy(this could very well be a comedy though).

The soundtrack is goes with the movie.

Why do nightclub scenes in films seem so cheesy? It would be a popular backdrop for a satirical film but people avoid it. Have you seen any good ones? That portray it better than most. Just saying this out of experience. I'd love to know how people have got them right

It's just not available anywhere and the first showtime is on Dec 12th. I'm in Chicago BTW.

For me it's probably A Bridge Too Far or Black Hawk Down. I'll try one of those later maybe.

What are some watchable Florida set movies. You know, those that are instantly recognizable as Florida set flicks. I'm thinking location/overall fell and usually appropriate music aswell(tropical/cuban..). I've seen Out of Time/Miami Blues/Scarface/Miami Vice .. Chef might not be entirely set there but it surely qualifies! also. Bad Boys/Pain and Gain..and even series like Dexter and most obvious Miami Vice. What are some others?

All this talk about the Star Wars teaser coming out soon and heaps of others I've seen today, I'm interested to see others that have made your blood run cold in anticipation

I wonder how they come up with those lines in movies like Avatar, GOTG, Thor: The Dark World (alien language) etc etc... How big is the effort they procure to come up with a believable language ?

Investigated a bit actually, most of the time there are reccurent words that seem to match the subtitled english ones, so there is at least some work put into it.

I need to find a shot from a film noir where the femme fatale emerges from the shadows. There is one in particular that I am thinking of but I can't place which film it is from.

I sated in the other thread that I thought the dark knight was the boring one of the trilogy mostly because of the dry Harvey Dent plot with all the politics while begins and rises are great action films the dark knight seemed more like a political spy thriller rather than a straight up action movie like the other 2 and may have been why i found it boring. Anyone else agree?

Personally, while I'm sure it'll be some great acting, I'm not excited to go see Wild. Anyone else?

Saw Mockingjay yesterday. Although the Hunger Games book series was...okay, I guess, I have thoroughly enjoyed the movie series thus far. I think it has something to do with the way the books were written as opposed to the movies. There is only so much a book in first person narrative can describe, but the HG movies detail what is occurring in other parts of Panem - outside of Katniss' (often whiny) little circle. Or maybe it's just Jennifer Lawrence. I don't know. Anyhow, it made me curious if any other movies out there were actually better than the books they were based on. Discuss!

Courtesy of the magic of Netflix, I finally got the opportunity to see The Quick and the Dead with Sharon Stone, Gene Hackman, and Russel Crowe. I did not know going into my first viewing that the movie was directed by Sam Raimi, but that fact became immediately obvious once I saw his signatures all over the reel.

For instance, when Sharon Stone's character enters the town hosting the gunfighters competition she comes upon a rude barkeep who says something unsavory toward her. Stone retaliates by kicking the stool that the bartender stood atop from under his feet. Now, Raimi's influence was detectable in the way that he shot this interaction. You'll forgive me if I lack the proper cinematic vocabulary to describe it, but the camera seemed to segment the flow of the scene by taking extremely close and focused shots of the action. There was a zoom in to Stone's boot as it made contact with the stool, another zoom to the barkeep losing his balance, yet another zoom to his arm as he dropped a few glasses, and finally the sequence came back together as a whole and we simply saw the barkeep fall to the floor.

I've seen Raimi do this before in Evil Dead 2, the Evil Dead remake, Drag Me To Hell, and a few other ventures. Is there a name for this technique?

I also notice that Raimi likes to do similar zooms on a character's facial expressions.

All of that is a prelude to me asking: are there other director signatures that you can highlight for me? Things you spot that immediately identify a particular director's presence or hand at work?

Any ideas? I was thinking Lord of the Rings but I already watched them this year. Also thinking Matrix but I didn't like the third one.

(I'm into action-adventure and Disney movies)

Ooo Pirates of the Caribbean marathon sounds promising too!

My buddy just showed me movie trailer, I haven't seen this yet and I'm planning on checking it out.

So I'm about to see the 3rd movie of the Hunger Games without having seen the first or second part.

Will it spoil the first and 2nd part alot, or can I just easily go for it and watch it? I'm about to go with friends which I will probably never see again in a month, so I'm contemplating whether it's worth it to see the movie and spoil the first and 2nd part, or if it won't spoil anything at all.

hello /movies/ i didnt know there was an after credit scene in HG3, can anybody tell me what append in it ?

( i leave theater before ... )

Did anyone notice how similar the theme of the two movie were? They both focus on how news portrays the crime to serve their ratings. They both have a psychopath who is using the way news is to serve their own purpose. Don't get me wrong the two movies are two completely different experiences while watching them, but after seeing both movies end, I felt the same way. I felt like the ending to the both movies was shown as this ending to a typical american story when what we were shown was something completely different. Whether it is damsel in distress returning to her husband who has finally learned to love her or a struggling young man starting his own "successful video news business", and getting the girl on the way.

http://ift.tt/1vo34p8

and a direct link to the video from him:

http://ift.tt/11w3C1s

Saw that the original version was posted here arelady, but while it was good it was not the epic version of the movie.

I see ripples when the punches connect. Did they really make RDJ hit the guy? Or was that additional CGI work as I suspect?

Watching the trailer for "Jurassic World" all I could think is what the hell is it with sticking kids in these movies. I know all little boys love dinosaurs but do we have to stick them in the movies?

Warning, contains spoilers !!!

I just saw Predestination and I really wonder if I got the plot right? Please do not read further if you're planning on seeing the movie!

So, the movie starts with Ethan Hawke talking to John - "The Unmarried Mother". (S)he shares his story about how she used to be a woman (Jane). Some space travel story is thrown into the mix. Basically, as a young woman (raised as an orphan) she meets a man who impregnates her, but leaves her after a one night stand. During birth, the complications result in a sex change. So she becomes John. In the hospital, her baby was stolen.

So far, so good. A bit weird, but I can still follow. But then comes the reveals:

• Time travelling Ethan Hawke was the one who stole Jane's baby! I don't know why.


• The baby was dropped off at an orphanage. So the baby IS actually Jane from the orphanage? How is that even possible? Her baby is herself from the future?


• When Ethan Hawk returns in time with John, John has a one night stand with Jane. So she has sex with herself as a man? Very weird.

To summarize: John and Jane, basically the same person, have sex and produce a baby that is actually Jane. REALLY??

Please tell me I completely misunderstood the plot.

First, please pardon me for my English, I'm not an English native speaker.

So finally I decided to watch Calvary, which I put on my wishlist for half a year but for some reason totally forgot about it until I went to imdb yesterday. Being a fan of McDonagh brothers' works, I had high hope for this movie and I'm happy to say that Calvary didn't disappoint me at all. However, unlike In Bruges and Seven Psychopaths, I don't think I'll watch this masterpiece again.

The story of father James was such a tragedy. He spent his life and time to delight people, help them escape from sin, yet his death didn't change anything. The people in the town (except the writer and the French widow) were still arrogant and vicious just like before. Nobody gave a flying fuck while the church was buried in fire, and after father James' death, everything remained the same. But their behaviour didn't irritate me as much as Jack's motive.

The reason why he killed father James doesn't make sense at all, but the problem is, it DOES make sense to him. A priest ruined an innocent kid's life, and that innocent kid ruined another innocent's life. Maybe from our perspective (and father James'), that isn't fair at all, but with Jack, that is totally understandable. For example, father James cried when he found his dog killed, but Jack (and maybe neither do the audience) just simply didn't care. When he asked father James if he cried when he heard about priests rape kids or not, he said no. Why ? It's because people who suffered from a tragedy knew it better than anyone else. If my dog died or was captured or killed, I would cry so much, but other people wouldn't, because they didn't attach to my dog at all.

This is why I feel so depressing after watching Calvary. Father James was a good person, he deserved a good life, his daughter just came back to him, he deserved to be able to stay with her longer, and it's so unfair for a good man to be taken his life away. I felt conflicted. I didn't know what to expect when his daughter met Jack. Maybe she would forgive him ? I think so, but in my opinion, he didn't deserve forgiveness at all. An act of crime is still an act of crime, killing a good person isn't karma. His action didn't change anything at all, and that made father James' death a waste. He died because of nothing, his daughter lost the final person who cares about her. It might be fair for one man, but just a tragedy to another man.

I don't know what to think right now. I love Calvary, but I also don't want to watch it again. I don't want to think about innocent people harmed for nothing, I don't want to think about forgiveness, I don't want to think about karma or fairness at all.

Pretty much that. I'm looking for good animation movies but I've seen Cars 1, Cars 2, Planes 1 (Need to watch planes 2), HTTYD1, HTTYD2, The Lego Movie and while non animation, Guardians of the Galaxy was still awesome.

Ok, so I remember watching this movie when I was younger and I have forgotten the name.

What I remember of the plot however, is that there is a woman who is shy and quiet who works in this store, maybe a candy store or flower store. Anyways, some dude on a motorcycle comes in one day and starts to court her... she's super shy and doesn't open up very fast. The go riding on his motorcycle and I think they go swimming in a public bath. She eventually falls in love with this dude towards the end and changes into a not shy person who is all about this guy.

Well at the end they drive into a field... I think they have sex and then he murders her and then rides off... end credits.

Help please.

Prometheus does not get enough respect for being an amazing portrayal of a possible reality. (And overall cool awesome film) Beaming microscopic life to unfold into a space faring race is actually a good (god :o lol) idea. Although im not sure I could handle the responsibility of such a course of events...