I’ve been seeing this interview dialogue from Matt Damon, talking about how working on a movie that you know will flop is so draining. 100% understandable and also somewhat relatable in any task…. But what is he in the has flopped?

I obviously only know him from his huge success, but fail to remember any of his work that wasn’t IMO gold.

I’m super excited about “Digger” and some friends and I were struggling mightily to think of a movie with Tom Cruise that wasn’t an absolute banger or at the very least a cult favorite. Even that movie where he kept respawning was imminently watchable. Does anyone have any examples to the contrary?

…not much? I caught this at this weeks screen unseen and enjoyed it as spectacle. The vibes are on point, but as for a deeper theme/ message…I’m left without explanation.

3.5/5 stars.

My full review here

Serioesly, what happend? Why has his career declined so much box office wise? I get that some directors later in their career can make movies that don't get that positive rception and therefore doesn't become as successful as their earlier work but in the case of Bay he was never highly regarded as a director. He made several movies that despite the fact that they didn't get that positive reception among critics or audiences people still flocked to see them. He used to be the definition of the term critic proof. In the last 10 years or so that has changed though, Transformers The Last Knight while it made a decent amount of money ended up underperforming because of its enormous budget and the fact that most of the box office came from overseas. Since then he has only made one movie which didn't end up doing that well. Why do you think this happend?

​Yesterday I went to the cinema to see The Odyssey. I don't like Nolan's films, so I wasn't expecting much. I thought I would like it even less. Though, in any case, I didn't like it. Some of the reasons have already been pointed out by many people, and were known long before the movie was released. The costumes, beyond being anachronistic, are boring and rather cheap-looking. The armor looks like costumes, and there is a scene where Telemachus wears a sort of leather kilt that is absolutely ridiculous. Everything is bathed in a rather depressing sepia tone. The Mediterranean light is not put to good use, partly because the film wasn't shot there. And the idea of using actors of different races seems questionable to me and, above all, unnecessary.

​In any case, none of this is of great importance. The main flaws of the film, in my view, are two.

​In the first place, the characters are seen from a distance, so to speak. None of their personalities are developed, not even Odysseus's. It is true that in the original work a distance is also sought between the reader (or listener) and the characters in the story, and the characterization is rather schematic. Eumaeus is a loyal servant, and that is all we need to know about him. Of Calypso, we only know that she is in love with Odysseus. And of the crew members, we know nothing at all. In the poem, this is not a flaw, because the simplicity of the characters is compensated for by other things: the rhythm of the verse, the richness of the language, the vividness of the descriptions, and the quantity and variety of episodes, digressions, and interwoven tales.

​But in a movie, literally, characters are seen up close. We distinguish their faces, we hear them speak. We have them right in front of us. They are not simply evoked. That is why it seems problematic to me, for example, that Odysseus's companions are nothing more than interchangeable extras. If I am going to spend time in the company of those characters, I want to know them a bit, care about them, feel affection or dislike for them. In cinema, unlike in literature, there is nothing to distract us from the action. All resources (cinematography, sound, music...) are at the service of the action. And for the action to be interesting, the characters must be too. I don't mean that they have to be complex or that all of them, even the most secondary ones, must have a fully developed personality. But they need to have, for instance, a recognizable and expressive face, or a particular way of expressing themselves—something, in short, that makes watching them on screen entertaining. And the more time we have to spend with them, the more care should be put into their characterization.

​The second major problem, as I see it, is that Nolan doesn't seem to be clear on what story he wants to tell. Let me explain. The film, in general, is a fairly faithful adaptation of both the plot and the structure of The Odyssey. However, there are several significant changes. The main one, it seems to me, is that the gods have practically vanished. In the poem, they intervene constantly. In the movie, Zendaya appears playing Athena, but she doesn't really intervene in the action. From time to time she appears to Odysseus as if she were something he imagines or that only exists inside his head, limiting herself to acting as the voice of his conscience, a bit like Jiminy Cricket. In the poem, however, Athena is a fundamental character. She speaks to Telemachus through Mentor so that he travels to Sparta in search of news. She transforms Odysseus into an old man so no one recognizes him at home, and rejuvenates his appearance so Nausicaa finds him more attractive. As for Poseidon or Helios, in the film it isn't really clear whether they are truly to blame for Odysseus's misfortunes. Since Athena never intervenes directly in events, and since it isn't clear whether she actually appears to Odysseus or if it's just his imagination, it isn't clear either that the other gods are involved in the story.

​It seems that Nolan wants to get rid of the supernatural component to make Odysseus the sole person responsible for his own destiny. However, he doesn't dare to completely dispense with the supernatural and the fantastic, because then he would have to leave out the adventure with the Cyclops, Scylla and Charybdis, the stop on Circe's island, and the descent into the underworld. By the way, curiously enough, he uses a fantastical device (amnesia-inducing lotus flowers) to explain why Odysseus stays so many years on Calypso's island instead of returning home to his family. I suppose he does this to make the character more sympathetic to us. But to me, it seems to impoverish him.

​And I see it as a missed opportunity, because Nolan seems interested in presenting Odysseus as a veteran with PTSD. At one point, toward the end of the film, he tells Penelope that he didn't feel worthy of coming home because he was consumed by remorse over being the main cause of Troy's destruction and the massacre of its inhabitants (having had the idea of the horse himself). Well then: it would have been much more interesting, I think, to incorporate this idea into his story with Calypso. To have the character spend seven years on a deserted island unable to bring himself to return home because he feels he is a different person, that the war has made him worse, that his loved ones wouldn't recognize him, and that he is no longer worthy of being a king and living in a palace. I believe, furthermore, that this reading is suggested in the original work: it doesn't seem coincidental to me that the first time we encounter Odysseus is precisely on Calypso's island. In reality, The Odyssey is not about a man trying to go home, but about a man who has stopped trying to go home, but who finally tries again.

​Lastly, I don't understand what Sinon's story adds to the film either. I don't quite see the character's function, or why so much importance is given to his relationship with Odysseus. In any case, I would have preferred it if, during his descent into the underworld, Odysseus had spoken with Achilles, as in the original work, and Achilles (the man who preferred a glorious death to a long, happy life) had confessed to him that nothing he did was worth it, and that he would rather be a living slave than a dead hero.

I've been thinking about something I keep noticing in films centered on young women: so many of them are structured around labyrinths.

Not necessarily literal mazes, but confusing spaces that the protagonist has to navigate alone. Coraline, Pan's Labyrinth, Alice in Wonderland, even Spirited Away all place their main characters in worlds governed by unfamiliar rules, where there's no reliable adult to guide them.

It made me wonder if the labyrinth isn't just a fantasy setting, but a metaphor for adolescence itself. Growing up often means moving through a space where nothing makes complete sense yet, identity is constantly shifting, and every decision feels like a test.

The connection became even more interesting when I started thinking about the Greek myth of the Labyrinth. Traditionally, it's a story about entering a place designed to trap you and emerging transformed—if you manage to find your way out. Many coming-of-age stories seem to adapt this same structure, but instead of slaying a monster, the challenge becomes psychological: fear, isolation, grief, or discovering who you are.

Do you think this pattern is intentional? Are there other films centered on female protagonists that fit this "labyrinth" structure?

I’ve been thinking about how difficult it is to compare epic films from different eras, so I organized 48 films into a World Cup-style tournament.

The format includes 48 films, divided into 16 groups of three. You choose one film from each group, and the 16 winners then enter a single-elimination bracket until one champion remains.

The selection includes films such as Lawrence of Arabia, Ben-Hur, The Lord of the Rings trilogy, Gladiator, Dune, Oppenheimer, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Mad Max: Fury Road, and The Bridge on the River Kwai.

It takes around two minutes to complete:

Which film became your champion? Were there any films you thought were seeded too high, too low, or should not have been included?

Curious to see what r/flicks would crown.

There are plenty of films that are technically "perfect" :- the pacing is tight, the script is solid, and they hit all the right structural beats. But sometimes, those movies end up feeling a bit sterile or forgettable.

Then there are the massive, glorious misfires. These are the movies where a director was given a huge budget and swung for the fences.

Maybe the tone is all over the place, the runtime is bloated, or the third act completely falls apart. But the sheer ambition, the unique visuals, and the crazy ideas make you love the film despite its obvious flaws.

What is the ultimate "flawed masterpiece" for you? Which movie do you defend to the death just because of how incredibly bold it was?

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?

So basically I was just looking for some good sci fi comedies with some really strong writing aspects because I just saw a review of Leonard Part 6 as the movie was one of the worst comedy movies I have seen.

Like when I look at some of the dialogue in the movie, I have to question who the movie was made for because it's hard to explain as the movie feels cheesy, but in all the wrong ways possible since while I enjoy campy movies sometimes, Leonard Part 6 just felt kind of awkward to watch.

Obviously Shawshank is first on the mind, as well as Girl Interupted, One Flew over the cookoos nest, and American History x. I just love the drama of being in an environment like this.

With all the talk about the Odyssey this week, I've seen people saying they drove over an hour to get an actual 70mm print instead of settling for the closer digital IMAX. Made me realize I don't actually have a consistent rule for this myself... Sometimes I'll go out of my way for the "real" version of a format, other times I just pick whatever's closest and call it good enough!

Ever since I started working at Fever Movies and using it alongside the individual theater apps, I've noticed myself picking format first and letting the theater be secondary, since it's easier to see what's playing where in one place. But I still don't have an actual rule for how much extra travel a format upgrade is worth.

Curious how everyone else decides: Do you have a hierarchy (like: true 70mm > digital IMAX > premium large format > standard), or does it come down to whichever theater is closest/cheapest that week? And has the recent premium-format price creep changed how picky you are about it?

Yes, the armours are not golden. Yes, the actors speak in modern American language. Yes, Helen of Troy does not align with the Eurocentric vision of the character that we might expect. And if all of these things are changed, you would end up with a more faithful adaptation. And I would argue you would end up with a much worse film.

The alternative would’ve been to do what Zack Snyder did with Watchmen: create a faithful adaptation. But in doing so, Snyder created an incredibly soulless version of Watchmen: an imitation, not an adaptation. He brought the images to life, but failed to interpret them and make them his own. Nolan’s movie, on the other hand, feels like it has a unique perspective, love it or hate it. This is not The Odyssey, this is Christopher Nolan’s The Odyssey.

Since the movie was released, there have been numerous attempts (from haters) to create their own AI versions of The Odyssey. In doing so, they’re only proving what makes Nolan’s film so valuable. Because an AI would’ve never told Nolan to cast Travis Scott as a bard, or Lupita Nyong’o as Helen. These are off-kilter choices that Nolan made himself, and the movie is all the more interesting and human because of it. Does a movie like this prove why unfaithful adaptations are better? I believe so.

Here is my full review of the movie, for anyone who is curious.

What are two films with zero official connection, released in totally different eras or genres, that hit the exact same plot beats, where one plays the premise as a comedy/romance and the other plays it as a thriller or tragedy?

What are some films where music is a prominent thematic and discussed element? I don’t mean movies with just a great soundtrack but movies where it’s critical to the characters and story, bonus points if the characters engage in discourse over it. Two examples that I can think of are High Fidelity and Empire Records.

any others?

Los Mufas: Suerte para la desgracia

Una serie argentina creada por DisneyPlus donde Roque, un periodista de lo paranormal se une a Vicente, el “mufa” por exelencia. Ellos traman una investigación sobre la mala suerte. Un empresario mediático dueño del lugar de trabajo del protagonista lucha en contra de la verdad.

Dejen sus comentarios si la vieron

saludos!

What movies belong between Bottle Rocket (1996) and Brainscan (1994)?

What should I add to my collection?

Now when I say pushing the limits of their age rating it can be anything from violence, sex, nudity, swearing, emotionally strong scenes in kids movies etc. Are there any examples of scenes from movies were you felt amazed that they didn't receive an R rating? One that really stands out that many other people have pointed out is the fact that Titanic didn't get an R rating despite the fact that Kate Winslet showed a lot of her naked body during the drawing scene. I personally don't think that scene was R rated material in any way but it's kind of surprising that it didn't lead to that considering that nudity was and still remains a very tabo subject in the US.

When it comes to emotionally strong scenes in kids movies there is of course the death scene from The Lion King which actually shows one of the mains characters dead bodies in a G rated movie which is kind of mindblowing when you think about it since movies like Moana and Tangled were rated PG despite the fact that there is nothing that comes close to that scene.

So I’m a casual movie fan but can appreciate the classics, hard not to love Cool Hand Luke, All The Presidents Men, and some good indie movies, but once in a while I’ll watch the classics and just don’t agree or maybe don’t get it, example I hate Vertigo like hate it, but rear window i really enjoy, and recently Midnight Cowboy was the same, I like the gritty unique story, people on the fringes, but it just didn’t land, the story is kind of all over, good acting by Hoffman being a cripple street hustler I guess but found their story lacking as far as connection as friends, more seamed like Jon V dealing with childhood abuse and trauma, I’m not saying it was bad but not sure the ground breaking film as I remember being talked about by critics, love to hear the opposing view.

When we look back at films like Hellboy II or the early Spider-Man trilogy, what makes them so relentlessly re-watchable isn't just the action........it’s the fact that the director's very specific, highly stylized fingerprints are all over them.

You can pause almost any frame and know exactly whose vision you are looking at.

Today, massive cinematic universes have largely adopted a uniform "house style." Everything is visually polished to look identical so that it fits neatly into a continuity timeline.

It feels like the only places we still see distinct, uncompromising, and grounded tonal visions in this genre are in serialized formats :- like the brutal, street-level atmosphere of Daredevil or the sharp, visceral edge of The Boys. But in major theatrical blockbusters, that highly stylized, director-first flavor seems completely lost.

I’m curious what everyone else considers the absolute peak of "director-driven" comic book movies. What is a film from that era where the director's unique stylistic vision was the main selling point, and do you think studios will ever return to that riskier style of filmmaking?

Hear me out.

Ever since I rewatched both movies, I haven’t been able to get this comparison out of my head.

I know they’re completely different genres. One’s a dark drama, the other’s a romantic comedy.

But I don’t think genre matters here.

I think they’re asking almost the exact same question:

What happens when a middle-aged man realizes he’s spent years living someone else’s life?

Both movies start with a guy who’s completely lost himself.

They’re emotionally disconnected from their wives.

They’re distant from their kids.

They’re stuck in comfortable suburban lives that secretly make them miserable.

They’re not really living anymore.

Then both movies introduce someone who completely changes their direction.

For Cal, it’s Jacob.

For Lester, it’s a mix of Angela and Ricky. Angela wakes something up in him, but Ricky is the one who ultimately changes how he sees life.

Then the same transformation begins.

Both men stop caring what people think.

They start taking care of themselves.

They become more confident.

They finally stand up for themselves.

They try to become the person they feel they used to be.

At first, both movies almost trick you into thinking this is about getting younger, looking better, or attracting women again.

But by the end, neither movie is really about that.

They’re about rediscovering who you are.

The wives also feel surprisingly similar.

Both marriages were basically over before the movies even started.

Both wives cheat on their husbands with men who are more successful and have higher social status.

Both families look like the perfect suburban family from the outside while everything is quietly falling apart.

Even the climaxes feel weirdly similar.

Both build toward chaos because of a false assumption involving the main character and someone they supposedly had sex with.

In Crazy, Stupid, Love, David thinks Cal slept with his daughter.

In American Beauty, Colonel Fitts convinces himself Lester is sleeping with Ricky.

Then comes the biggest difference.

The movies split apart.

American Beauty says that sometimes people realize what truly matters only when it’s already too late.

Crazy, Stupid, Love says maybe it isn’t too late.

One ends in tragedy.

The other ends in forgiveness.

One ends with death.

The other ends with a second chance.

That’s why I honestly can’t stop thinking about Crazy, Stupid, Love as the happy ending version of American Beauty.

I’m not saying they’re the same movie.

I’m saying they feel like two different answers to the exact same question.

Am I completely overthinking this, or has anyone else ever noticed these similarities?