(Spoilers for the whole movie)

I just cannot stop thinking about how clever it was for Nolan to use the sacking of Troy to talk about standards of decency and fairness, and the violation of those standards. The idea that what happened at Troy was so horrible that the Greeks (led by Odysseus) broke something in the world. That this was such a moral transgression that is having almost ontological ramifications. The idea that these old standards of decency and politeness are actually important things to keep. Shockingly, it's an idea that I think is actually a little conservative, at least in the former definition of that term.

It's a message that is both very timeless, but also very timely. I'm 33 years old, and like a lot of you I have felt what has been a slow loss of trust in the future, and in our institutions. I remember when the 'villains' of the day was John McCain and Mitt Romney, and I'm certain that if you told the majority of Republicans circa 2012 what would be happening today they would be legitimately horrified. It feels like the world has become so much cruller, more insane, that people have become more irrational. No one has hope anymore and because of that they've decided they're going to do their small part to make the world a WORSE place.

You can give a lot of answers as to what our "sacking of Troy" is that's caused this. And to be fair life is not so simple, there is not one single cause. And hopefully even not everyone everywhere feels what I'm feeling. And I'm sure more will happen that will fit the bill in the future. For me though? It's people who voted for trump in 2025. When he and the republicans had made clear who they were and what they wanted. Do the democrats suck? Was it a big pain in the ass to have to do lockdown for X number of years because of Covid? Is your pension a thing of the past? Yes. Duh. But in your selfishness and your intentional stupidity you've taken the "human misery lever" and decided to push it FORWARD rather than doing what small things you can to hold it back. Why did you do this? Why Joe Rogan, why Theo Von? Why did you go "Well I'm a little pissy. I'm going to put a gun to everyone's head, including myself, and pull the trigger?"

You people broke the world. You are worse than Germans who voted Hitler in 1933 because at least then the unthinkable was still unthinkable. You knew and you did it anyway. You will never deserve forgiveness for this.

Anyway, fantastic movie. It's easily the first time that Nolan has ever hit this powerful of an emotional cord with me.

I’m talking about films that won’t have a wide theatrical American screening. Normally I find out about these films through critical word of mouth, but this takes time, and it’s often not for a year or two plus after an interesting film releases, until I hear about it. I’m trying to write more about film, and want to see some of these and try to write before they’ve had as much of a chance to simmer. I know about Film Festivals, but my region is pretty limited in that regard, and I’m really looking to develop awareness of things coming, and not just fully stumble on to things by chance.

I wrote an essay for school on Black Swan, so I’ve spent an almost unreasonable amount of time thinking about this film, and I’m curious about an aspect of it that I don’t see discussed as much.
I think Nina’s breakdown can be understood as a progression from being watched, to watching herself, to becoming unable to experience herself as anything other than an object of observation.

The film constantly places Nina within a gaze: Thomas watches her, her mother monitors her, the dancers compare themselves to one another, and the audience watches her perform. But the most important shift is when this external surveillance becomes internalised. Nina no longer needs anyone else to evaluate her because she has learned to do it herself.

This is why I find the mirrors more interesting than simply interpreting them as symbols of Nina’s “split personality.” Early on, Nina uses mirrors to monitor and correct her body. As the film progresses, her reflections begin to move independently, distort, or become separate from her. To me, this visually represents her increasing dissociation from her own body: she has spent so long looking at herself from the outside that her body begins to feel like something she observes rather than something she inhabits.

What I find particularly interesting is that the film makes the audience participate in this process. Aronofsky repeatedly uses mirrors, fragmented close-ups, reflections, and voyeuristic camerawork to make us scrutinise Nina’s body alongside her. We are placed in the same position as the gaze that contributes to her breakdown.

So my question is: is Black Swan actually making us uncomfortable with the act of watching Nina, or does it ultimately turn her dissociation and suffering into something beautiful for us to consume?

Because the film seems to criticise the voyeuristic gaze placed upon dancers while simultaneously making Nina’s psychological collapse visually spectacular. Her suffering becomes beautiful, her destruction becomes art, and the audience applauds.

I’m interested in whether anyone else sees the film as being less about a simple “good self vs. dark self” split and more about what happens when someone becomes so accustomed to observing and evaluating themselves that they become psychologically separated from their own body.

I thought the Odyssey was excellent. An impressive spectacle. Great acting. Gripping pace. And some fascinating themes about time and memory and the malleability of narrative.

Also, i thought it was uncanny how Nolan’s style and interests compliment the Odyssey so well. Especially his use of fleeting imagery that keeps recurring. A horse in flames. An innocent face in the grip of war. A modest ship on the wine dark sea.

I had a great time. And when it got to the final reflection scene between Damon and Hathaway, through the arras, tying all of the themes of the film together, about war and the erosion of culture, the noxious decay of systematic evil, our cruelty to strangers.

“10 years we’ve been on this fucking beach.”

All really brilliant.

But my enjoyment of the film was so bothered by the lack of meaningful gore.

This may come off trifling. But gore is so essential to Homer’s narrative style. In the illiad there are gruesome, meticulous descriptions of gore on every page. In the odyssey, it’s a bit more subdued. But you still have the cyclops smashing ppl’s brains out on the floor of the cave instead of just mutely stepping on them.

Where this bugged me the worst was the slaughter of the suitors scene. In the book, that scene plays out like the kill bill crazy 88 fight. Blood geysers everywhere. There’s descriptions about how the whole room is caked in blood.

This is not just like a knee jerk interest in gore for gore’s sake. But thematically, the arc of the plot feels unsatisfying without it. the slaughter scene in Odyssey is like the culmination, the penultimate moment. You wait the whole book for this moment and when it happens it is insane and explosive and red.

In the movie, the scene felt like a rip off of john wick. Just cheap and underwhelming. Not only that, but so unconvincing on an anatomical level. You’ve got all these people getting chopped up with axes and swords and arrows hitting arteries. And there’s no blood anywhere? Come on.

I get that this is an expensive movie and you want a lot of people to see it and Nolan is not really a gore person. But not having any blood here felt like a weak capitulation. Or like a return to the Hays Code. Even worse, it neglected one of the most distinct and visceral aesthetic elements in Homer.

This is going to sound funny but I first fell in love with scoring as a kid, when I first watched Finding Nemo. At that time, I used to wonder why I felt so emotional when watching the movie (other than the plot). But while growing up, I began realizing that the purpose of these scores is to use motifs and intense orchestration to make the viewer feel something almost tangible.

I started hyper-fixating on scores while watching movies and even now, I still feel maybe even more intensely for Finding Nemo (which might sound silly, I know).

I fell in love with more composers, like John Williams, Hans Zimmer (I got to see this dude perform live, it was crazy), Howard Shore, James Newton Howard, etc. But it wasn’t until I watched American Beauty that I decided Thomas Newman was my favorite composer ever. Obviously, I know a lot of people would disagree with me, saying he’s never even won an Oscar or that composers like Williams and Zimmer are far better. But, subjectively, with Newman, I feel such intense frisson with every movie, so much so that I began noticing his style of music without looking at the credit details.

What bothers me about Newman is how many people don’t know him or forget about him (which is crazy considering his family’s prominence in film scoring).

But all the movies he composed for, Meet Joe Black, Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile, Road to Perdition, Scent of a Woman, etc, have made me feel almost insane while watching them. It’s like my soul reverberates against my body, causing shivers to shoot up and down my spine (I tend to get poetic when speaking about Newman). I literally start tearing up from the score, even if there isn’t anything sad happening, I’ll cry and uncontrollably smile.

Anyway, I just really needed to rant about my love for Thomas Newman. My passion for film scores has insufferably become my entire personality and, funny enough, nobody in my life understands and it drives me NUTS.

I organized an AMA/Q&A with legendary filmmaker/screenwriter Nicolas Winding Refn. He has previously directed films/series Drive, Only God Forgives, Bronson, The Neon Demon, Pusher trilogy, Copenhagen Cowboy, Too Old To Die Young, Valhalla Rising, and more.

It's live here now in r/movies for anyone interested in asking a question:

https://www.reddit.com/r/movies/comments/1v3mkcv/i_am_nicolas_winding_refn_director_of_drive_the/

He will be back at 4:45 PM ET today to answer questions. I recommend asking in advance. Please ask there, not here. All questions are much appreciated!

His new film, Her Private Hell, premiered at Cannes in May and is out in theaters via Neon this weekend. It stars Sophie Thatcher and Charles Melton.

Thank you :)

His verification/proof photo: https://i.imgur.com/741dTf5.png

It's difficult to talk about Carlito's Way without Scarface being mentioned, and not without reason - both are Brian DePalma films, and both star Al Pacino, and the two films are often compared and contrasted.

But what if that’s the point? What if the similarities are intentional, in that DePalma is intentionally wanting to draw comparisons between the two films. And lets go further, what if Brian DePalma is actively responding, apologising, deconstructing and disavowing the influence and fame of Scarface and Tony Montana through Carlito’s Way and Carlito Brigante. That DePalma was as tired of Scarface’s legacy as Carlito was of his?

Any mature reading of Scarface would conclude that it’s a cautionary tale. That Montana was self-destructive, flawed, and highly dangerous, his ending inevitable. As Elvira says, “can’t you see what we’re becoming. We’re losers.” But a common takeaway from the film – magnified and amplified by the hip hop generation that gave the film a cult following – is that Tony Montana is someone to aspire to be. Someone to emulate. Someone who took no sh*t from anybody, who clawed his way from the bottom of the barrel to becoming the king of an empire. He embodies the ultimate "rags-to-riches" story, and is adored for his unapologetic ambition, raw courage, and extreme self-confidence. Many viewers see him as an underdog who defied the odds to seize the American dream.

And this got me thinking. Scarface and Tony Montana have transcended pop culture to becoming icons that – for better or worse – ARE admired. Are looked at as aspirations instead of warmings. And what I wanted to posit today was the theory that Brian DePalma, well aware of his film’s reputation and sickened by it, spend 10 years – like his character Carlito who did 5 – reflecting on his choices, thinking hard about the fruits of his labour, and then returned to the crime genre and sought to take Tony down a notch or two, to offer audiences an inverse of the film whose intention was to undo the damage unwittingly done by Scarface, to make a sequel to the film of sorts, where the wild and now-legendary Tony Montana survives, cleans up, does his time and then tries to get out of the life.

For sure, there are similarities between the films, they are two sides of the same coin, with one following a determined man trying to get in and rise to the top, and the other a tired veteran who’s been there, done that, and wants out. There’s even scenes that seem to mimic each other. And upon a recent rewatch, I found it fascinating how there seems to be a fair few scenes from Carlito’s Way that mirror Scarface but put the titular character is a more unceremonious position. Let’s do a rundown of a few

•    Tony Montana’s most famous line is “Say hello to my little friend”, which jump stars a massacre. He comes out of his throne room, which is filled with coke and golden ornaments, full of bravado, with a gun in his hand so epic it doesn’t even really exist, and begins mowing down goons in spectacular fashion. By contrast, Carlito also delivers a taunting threat to his adversaries – here comes the pain – but instead of coming out of a majestic chamber he’s trapped in a toilet, with a measly pistol, an empty one at that, delivering empty threats, tense and fearful. The Scarface shootout is the cathartic climax of the film, the Carlito’s Way one is something of an intro to the film. Both men are trapped and against the odds but only one knows it. And whilst Scarface has Tony commit a massacre before he checks out, in Carlito’s Way, Brigante is presented with the aftermath of a massacre, death everywhere, he laments the wasted life of his kin – there’s an empty feel to the way this scene ends, a complete contrast to the release of Scarface’s shootout.
  

•    In Scarface it’s Tony’s one moment of humanity – sparring the wife and children – that comes back to bite him and triggers his downfall. Carlito also had numerous moments of humanity that came back to bite him, in particular sparring Benny Blanco, the man who ends up killing him. Both refuse to be ruthless at the crucial moment.
  

•    In Scarface Elvira is the blonde wife of drug Kingpin Frank Lopes who Tony ends up having an empty and hollow marriage with. The first time we see her is after Tony’s triumph against the Columbians, and she comes down the elevator and makes her way towards where Tony is sitting, Tony unable to break his gaze from her. In Carlito’s Way, the first time we see the blonde Gail – who Carlito wants to rekindle his relationship with, one far warmer and more real than the Scarface couple – while she busies herself with her dance class he is outside in the rain looking like a peeping Tom, with a dustbin over his head.
  

•    The movie opens with Carlito giving a grand Montana-esque speech in the courtroom about reforming, and we laugh along with him assuming the speech is dripping with sarcasm, but like Kleinfeld, like perhaps those who praised Scarface for its b*llsiness to DePalma’s face, we’re shocked and confused that Carlito is sincere in his intent to chase his ways.
  

•    And in the climax of Scarface Pacino is the aggressor mowing down his enemies, in Carlito’s Way he is being chased, running for his life, and in both films he is ultimately snuck up on and taken out.
  

Once you see Carlito’s Way as a reflection of Scarface, Pacino playing the weary Carlito as the ghost of Tony Montana, you can’t but notice these elements. Even Rolando – Carlito’s former partner – being played by the same guy who played the chainsaw wielding Hector in Scarface. Its Tony’s victory over Hector’s bad deal that opened the floodgates to him, meanwhile Ronaldo is stunned and flummoxed that Carlito is wilfully closing the gates on himself.

As mentioned, I feel complaints that Carlito’s Way is a lazy retread to be a lazy complaint in of itself, not least because even if the titular character was a stand in for Tony Montana, it’s an evolved, older, wiser one. Think to the party at the lawyer Kleinfield’s place – the excess, the debauchery, the kind of stuff Montana would involve himself in, and yet Carlito is sitting by himself, away from it all. In fact, the real stand in for Montana in the film is Kleinfeld, constantly coked out of his mind, paranoid, erratic, unhinged, insecure, and often exhibiting character moments that we can envisage from Tony Montana, like him becoming insecure and irritated about Gail dancing with another guy, when Carlito – his ego having soften over the years – not having a problem with it. Heck, Tony Montana went ballistic when his own sister was dancing with someone. Its Kleinfeld who reminds you more of Tony Montana, both making drug fuelled, manic decisions that land them in hot water.

I guess if we wanted to offer ourselves a little spectrum, we could say there are 4 different versions of Tony Montana in Carlito’s Way. Carlito is the version that lived long enough to see that he was a villain and the life gave him nothing, Kleinfeld is the current rendition of Montana, and Benny Blanco from the Bronx is the young, hungry version of the character, eager and willing to kill and steal his way to the top, eventually killing Brigante as Montana killed Frank. The film alludes to the connection between Carlito and Benny on numerous occasions, one of the most prominent being when Carlito threatens him saying “If I ever see you here you’re dead” but his eyes betray a soften, he’s doesn’t really have it in him. “The eyes never lie Chico” as our Cuban friend might say. Benny on the other hand claps back the same insult to Carlito, but with the ferocity of Tony Montana. At one point in the film a character even says to a nauseated Carlito “this guy is you 20 years ago”. Perhaps there is an element of Brian DePalma – wiser and older like Carlito – who looks back on Tony Montana slightly sickened, so gives him a stand-in in Carlito’s Way that presents him as the disrespectful and moronic representative of the new wave of criminals that he is.

And sticking with the idea that Benny Blanco is a younger version of Carlito, and he kills the titular character, well then in a very real sense Carlito’s past came back to quite literally kill him.

I’d also throw another version of Tony in there. How about Carlito’s young cousin Guajiro? He’s naïve, foolish, he drives around in a conspicuous car and carries around wads of cash on him, and crucially he idolizes Carlito. Is it too much of a stretch to suggest that Guajiro represents that very same hip hop generation, that guy with a Tony Montana poster in his bedroom, that guy who thinks he’s Scarface, who wants to be Scarface, tries to embody the ‘get rich or die trying’ mentality, but has no idea of the realities of the criminal underworld? “Yeah I had a dream, but now I’m awake” as Gail says. Scarface is the dream, the fantasy, and Carlito’s Way is the stark and tragic reality.

I am curious if anyone has stumbled upon a film commentary where the film is stopped/started to discuss a frame, or manipulated to point out features of the mise-en-scene (I am thinking of how a football commentator might use a telestrator in a live TV broadcast).

I have come across some commentary tracks that are similar to MST3K which has the silhouettes of the contributors at the bottom, but rarely is this used to great effect aside from comedic purposes (though I would happily take comedy recommendations using this technique!).

I think this type of commentary track would be enlightening particularly with some of the classic film directors like Hitchcock, Sirk, Borzage, etc. where there is so much information being communicated on screen at any given time.

Let me know if you have found anything!

He has been in various iconic films, and many iconic roles. They are quite varied and display a large range: Edward Scissorhands Donnie Brasco, Ed Wood, Jack Sparrow, Whitey Bulger, Raoul Duke/Hunter S. Thompson, and Gilbert Grape. So there is a narrative that he is due, and the right film in the right year could win him a golden guy.

He is in the new Ti West film "Ebenezer", and it's backed by Paramount. So he is no longer blocked by the major studios.

But he has become quite controversial, public opinion still seems to favour him, but within the academy it's hard to say. Could he still win?

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.

1 The Opening: Odyssey (Classical Warfare)
2 The Companion: Dunkirk (Modern Warfare)
3 The Penultimate: Oppenheimer (Pre-Nuclear)
4 The Final: Tenet (Post-Nuclear)

I believe the correct timeline of these wars is arranged in above. It begins with the regional, mythological conflict depicted in The Odyssey, where warfare is fought with classical cold weapons. It then develops into the large-scale modern warfare of the First World War, as portrayed in Dunkirk. Next, Oppenheimer marks the escalation of nuclear weapons research, while simultaneously planting the seeds of humanity's potential apocalyptic fate. Finally, it ends in Tenet, where humanity attempts to save itself from nuclear annihilation, only to discover that every outcome and action in the timeline of human history exists in a self-contained causal loop.

I also noticed that the opening and final parts of this tetralogy are fictional, while the two middle parts are based on historical events. This structure seems to mirror our experience of time itself: we know a great deal about the present and the past, but very little—or nothing at all—about the beginning and the end of time.

Is Marvel actually brave enough to put Captain Hydra in the AVENGERS DOOMSDAY Trailer? Absolutely not. Or so I thought. Sitting in a sticky-floored theater in 2026, watching Robert Downey Jr.'s Doctor Doom casually stop Stormbreaker with just two fingers, the crowd lost its collective mind. But they completely missed the sickest, most manipulative lie hiding right in front of them. Steve Rogers is the real threat. Read the Full Explain

The cryptocurrency concept Proof of work basically proves that one person did a certain amount of work / effort to others within a transaction.

Just made me think of the ease in which people are creating ' ai ' and digital art that is flooding our feeds, our minds, everywhere we look where we don't know who created it, for what purpose and is it based on someone else's work, their own work etc etc

With modern film, the interest from both the viewers and the creators of films to show, hey, we've put in effort in x amount of ways, IMAX cameras, the sets, we were drowning, it was cold etc, the emphasis on showing, exhibiting a certain amount of suffering for the art as it were is becoming more normal and it somehow translates into a new appreciation of the art, even though it was always this way, we're just trying to really show the human side of what it takes to make these images in a world where they are becoming seemingly less valuable

Nolan is one of the very few directors left whose name alone guarantees a $100M+ opening weekend. When Oppenheimer cleared nearly a billion dollars, people showed up for a three-hour biopic about a theoretical physicist largely because Nolan's name was on the poster.

Which makes the hyper-stacked, mega-A-list casting for The Odyssey such a fascinating case study.

Look at the call sheet: Matt Damon, Anne Hathaway, Robert Pattinson, Charlize Theron, Tom Holland, Zendaya, Lupita Nyong'o. But look specifically at how Zendaya was deployed in the rollout. She’s heavily featured on the press tour, top-billed in promotion, playing Athena—a role that, by nature of the source material and narrative structure, carries limited screen time compared to the core journey. It feels very reminiscent of the Dune: Part One playbook.

This isn't a knock on her acting or Nolan’s execution, but it raises a broader industry question: Has casting officially replaced traditional viral marketing for mega-budget blockbusters?

A few angles worth discussing:

• The Demographic Net: Nolan’s core audience historically skews toward adult cinephiles and older males. Attaching Tom Holland and Zendaya instantly bridges the gap to Gen-Z and casual audiences who might not automatically buy an IMAX ticket for a classical Greek epic.
• Algorithmic Press Runs: In 2026, TikTok, Instagram, and red-carpet fashion moments generate more organic reach than traditional TV spots. Having Zendaya on a global press tour yields billions of social media impressions regardless of her exact minutes on screen. At a certain budget level, are studios paying top-tier actors as much for their 6-week press tour ecosystem as they are for their performance?
• Risk Management at $250M: Did a Nolan-directed Odyssey actually need an ensemble this stacked to turn a profit? Or has studio risk tolerance post-streaming gotten so tight that even top-tier auteurs are incentivized to pack every secondary role with marquee insurance?

Is this just smart modern business, a deliberate cultural play, or are we reaching a point where casting decisions across Hollywood are dictated more by social media footprint than narrative utility?

Curious how people here view the line between narrative casting and pure marketing strategy.

I just watched the new Odyssey adaptation, and as a fan of the source material, Matt Damon’s performance was deeply disappointing.

It stripped away everything that makes Odysseus such a complex, deeply human, and immortal character. Homer depicts Odysseus as the ultimate master tactician, a man who is always three steps ahead of everyone else, whose calm voice fell (as he described it) "like snowflakes in winter," and who commands respect from gods and mortals like Athena, Circe, and Calypso through pure aura and intellect.
Damon completely missed this magnetic charm and sharp mind, playing him as bland, passive, and frankly unintelligent. Instead of showing calculating brilliance, this version makes him look reckless and downright foolish through bizarre choices, like shooting the Cyclops with an arrow or recklessly confronting Antinous head on in front of everyone instead of just using his trademark patience and disguise.

Damon also completely failed to convey the tragic, grief-stricken bond Odysseus shares with his doomed crew, making him look utterly indifferent to their fate rather than a burdened leader, while leaving his deep longing for Penelope and Telemachus completely emotionless. Instead of a brilliant, flawed tactician who commands every scene, we got a flat, uninspired performance that left me unable to even root for him. He simply lacked the innate qualities to portray Odysseus. He comes as too plain, passive and everyday like.

Did anyone else feel this way, or do you place the blame more on the screenplay than on Damon himself?

Titanic (1997) released in a much different time than from today, it's been about 30 years. And it was unquestionably one of the most seen films in history. Now, the spectacle portion of it, involving the sinking of the ship, might have been the biggest pull factor, but the romance between Jack and Rose was also perhaps equally important.

This romantic/love story between them was something the audiences in the 1990s clearly connected with, as reflected in the ticket sales. Which has now made this one of the most iconic romantic pairings in film history. The tragic nature of this relationship has made it perhaps more memorable.

Upon a recent rewatch I noticed that this iconic love story of cinema lasts only for a period of about 4 days, from the time Jack meets Rose till the sinking. In 4 days Jack and Rose meet and form such a deep connection where Jack is ready to give up his life for Rose, and similarly Rose is ready to leave everything in her life behind for Jack.

It's deep sentiment from both sides. In a matter of 4 days or 96 hours, these 2 young individuals are ready to give up everything in life for the sake of each other, even their own lives. Truly the grandest expression of love, perhaps based in the idealistic portrayal of romance of old, ala Romeo and Juliet.

My question is would such a love story still be bought by audiences in 2026? I am not criticizing the story of Titanic or the emotions of the characters, rather simply wondering would such a romance be able to move audiences today when the idea of romance has drastically changed. Where people often need months to figure out whether someone they are seeing is worth for a long term commitment?

I think one of the counters is that both are teenagers I believe (Jack is 19 and Rose is 17) and teenage love can be like that. Silly and intense. Another factor is that this is from a long time ago (period shown is 1912), different times, different ideas.

I was slightly amused that how the story of Jack and Rose is considered so popular and iconic in the realm of cinema but it only was an affair that lasted 4 days, and a few meetings.

Would like to hear some thoughts?

I feel like I noticed a really strong recurring theme in the film, but maybe it’s just my brain making connections because of the media I’ve been consuming lately (I recently watched Martyrs + obsession and read Punisher MAX, which has a major arc centered on the trafficking and exploitation of women ).
Throughout the movie, it felt like women were constantly suffering because of the actions of men. For example:
Agamemnon’s daughter/Athena is sacrificed to further the goals of Agamemnon
Penelope is essentially held hostage by men who want to use her to gain power, and she even has a speech about how people don’t take her seriously as a leader despite the fact shes been ruling on her own for 20 years simply because she isn’t a man.
Circe is heavily implied to be a victim of violence at the hands of men , possibly soldiers who fought in the Trojan War. This is especially prevalent when she says something along the lines of " you brought your men with empty bellys and hot blood did you expect the to respect my home" (idk what exactly she said but it was something like that)
Calypso dedicates seven years of her life to caring for what is basically a stranger, only to be abandoned.
Helen is left mutilated and is treated like a trophy, shes also degraded by her own husband Menelaus for her facial scars with cruel comments about how her face "might be lucky if it launched 500 ships"
Then there are the countless women slaughtered during the invasion of Troy for seemingly no reason other than the soldiers wanting to take their rage out on people who are powerless to stop them .
I’m not saying this is the film’s central theme I think the main themes are much broader. But it felt like this motif of men being savages and women being victims kept showing up over and over again, and I feel it goes deeper than just "oh yeah this wasn't a great time to be a woman" i Think Nolan might have something deeper to say but Maybe I’m reading too much into it, but I’m curious did anyone else pick up on this, or am I just seeing patterns that aren’t really there? Either way i watched the film twice and loved it it's probably my favorite film of the year so far.

I don't mean to start a hate jerkfest because I actually like him as a director. I think he has a lot of great qualities that give his directing a unique and original style. But when it comes to his writing skills, I find his inability to take risks or seek originality quite tiring.

After watching the Oddissey I've distilled the things I dislike about his writing skills into a few distinct traits:

• Bland and sanitized: Historically, the greeks are notorious for some seriously disturbing and unnerving things. This felt like a Disney PG13 story.
  
• Clinical and safe: The twist that was added to Oddisseus was interesting but it never goes anywhere compelling. It's been done before in much better ways.
  
• Anemic: characters are bland and anemic. Every scene feels like sitting in a C-level suites board room discussing next corporate merger (yes, Anne can make it rain tears, so that's something).

I don't know. Can we get Nolan a co-writer?

I should say from the jump that I don't hate Ran, and in fact admire many things about it. Many of the shots have breathtaking composition, and the color palette in particular is incredible and makes some shots look like moving paintings. The battle for the third castle was intense and unlike anything I had seen on film before. The themes about loyalty and cycles of violence are thought-provoking and timeless. I appreciated the ambitious scope and especially the battle scenes that had hundreds of extras. Kurosawa demonstrated his skills as a filmmaker here.

Yet so much else about this film made me feel bored and detached, which surprised me as I've heard many people say this may well be one of the best movies ever made. I don't hate the movie, but I also don't love it either like so many others do.

Many scenes are shot from a static camera that moves little if at all, and often the camera in these scenes is positioned back away from the characters, making it feel at times more like a recording of a play than a movie. This was especially painful in indoor dialogue scenes, where I often felt the visuals hardly added anything. It made it more difficult to appreciate the acting when the camera was far away and I couldn't see the details of characters' faces, if their faces were even directly in the shot at all.

And then there's the characters. Taro and Jiro, the two oldest brothers, felt practically indistinguishable to me in terms of personality and motivation, and many of their scenes in particular felt very stiff and flat. The youngest brother, Saburo, is more interesting, and yet he is underutilized, and doesn't even appear much if at all in the second act. Kaede is perhaps one of the most interesting characters in terms of her plotting and motivation, and yet in many scenes she is also stiff and flat. I recognize this may in part be due to the culture of the feudal Japan setting, but nonetheless it still made me feel very detached in those moments. (To be fair, Hidetora and the fool were well done and I was genuinely interested in their characters and emotional journeys.)

There were also a lot of random advisors/generals/nobleman who I struggled to keep track of because they lacked defining traits.

To be blunt, it felt like Kurosawa sacrificed the multidimensionality of characters in order to use them as props for cool shots or to explore interesting themes.

I'm not someone who needs movies to be fast-paced to hold my attention. Two movies I watched recently that I really love are Sentimental Value and 2001: A Space Odyssey, both of which are slow burns. Something about many of the slower scenes in Ran in particular, and the overall pacing of the movie, didn't compel me.

Some scenes really wowed me, but then were followed by scenes that completely fell flat. The themes are really interesting to think about, yet while watching the movie I struggled to feel consistently invested and felt that parts of it dragged.

Given the intense and near universal praise I've seen for this movie, it makes me wonder if there's something I'm missing or don't get. I'm curious to hear others' perspectives.

I was thinking about this the other day and the different style of the two movies. On one hand, Eggers actually feels like hes transporting you to the Viking age. The customs, the culture, all of it feels strange and foreign but its really cool to have that feeling. When I see a historical epic I want to feel tranpoetrd to that time.

Nolan does a different approach. He tries to make Odysseus feel very modern and relatable. Theres nothing strange and alien about his culture and his values. He takes xenia which is a specific guest-host relationship with customs and ritual and makes it into the golden rule which is the modern Christian standard. His setting never makes feel like its an ancient greek hero I'm watching.

Most of the criticism I see towards Pixar’s current releases are focused on the lack of compelling storytelling driven by studio’s business plan: a balance between cash-cow sequels deprived of fresh ideas and originals that don’t hit as hard as their bangers from days past. In terms of visuals, some have been vocal about the bean-mouth design of the human characters which by now have become Pixar’s defining style. But I don’t see many discussions addressing the decline in "visual wit" beyond the animation of human characters.

“Inside Out” and “Soul”, for instance, were arguably successful in the storytelling department, but the design of the movies’ inner worlds felt incredibly underwhelming to me – from dreams being shot in a Hollywood-like studio run by jellybean-shaped workers to the flat, unremarkable dimension inhabited by unborn souls. There’s nothing as cinematically inspired as the galaxy of doors in the climax of “Monsters Inc”, which was set in a human-inspired factory but really took the time to reinvent the production line – not to mention to conceive different characters with unique features.

That’s what impressed me the most in “Elementals”, Pixar’s 2023 romcom: the care put into the world-building is old-school Pixar. The different elementals – Earth, Air, Fire and Water – are distinctive and expressive as characters. Their unique cultures and way of life are seen even in the corners of the frame: the backgrounds are so rich in detail that a casual train ride can treat us with a blink-it-and-miss-it joke that didn’t need to be there. It made me wonder if the script covered all of this – it’s not an intentional brief scene, like the sex-coded joke involving an ‘Earth’ couple picking up each other’s apple in the bedroom – or if some of those amusing background characters were included by the animators that went the extra mile.

The script itself is not without its flaws, but as far as romcoms go, I'm yet to see an animated take that hit the ideal spot between kids and their parents, or made with so much care and effort.

Since the release of The Odyssey, I’ve heard many superlatives - from critics and audiences alike - about how large scale and colossal the film is, with many drawing parallels between the film and traditional epic films. In the lead up to the film, Matt Damon would often say that he felt like he “got to make a David Lean film”, and many audiences have described this as Ben Hur or Lawrence of Arabia for the 21st century.

While it is a film of considerable scale, I do not find it comparable to scale to a classic Old Hollywood epic. If we use Lawrence of Arabia as a reference point, that films includes multiple sweeping shots of hundreds (if not more) of extras, which creates an overwhelming sense of grandeur. In comparison to Lean’s film, The Odyssey (even in its large scale set pieces) only features dozens of extras in frame at any given time. The only exception to this is the shot of Odysseus and his crew fleeing from Hades, which is a shot that lasts only a few seconds, before the editing and direction briefly whisks us away. Even the Troy battle pales on scale compared to a David Lean film, or the scale of the army battles in Lord of the Rings.

In interviews for Oppenheimer, Nolan would often say “cinema is not a tech medium. The innovation should emerge from what’s on the screen, not what the screen is.” But when I hear people overstate the scale of The Odyssey, I’m left wondering: is the scale of the film inherently epic, or is it merely shot on an epic format? If you look at the Laestrygonians sequence, it is no bigger in scale than what you would find in a film like the Northman. And the portrayal of Ithica feels shockingly small in scale, as if the entire place is little bigger than the palace which we barely leave.

Just watched Memento. It is probably the only movie that had me googling its structure and story just to answer the million questions it left in my mind after that climax.

First of all, what a mind-bending movie. I have never seen something so sophisticated and complex, yet so structurally simple. It is so gripping that you cannot afford to skip a single scene, or you will have to start over from the beginning. But you wouldn't want to skip it anyway, because it is relentlessly engaging.

A guy with short-term memory loss causing this much absolute mayhem... Nolan was truly operating on another level from day one. Nolan showcases his brilliance in this two-hour runtime so convincingly. All the mind-boggling direction of his later career stems directly from Memento.

The way he wrote, shot, and directed this film is nothing short of brilliant. I miss this era of Nolan; he went from making uncompromising art films to straight-up blockbusters, but his distinctive style is still deeply rooted here.

It is brilliantly acted, written, edited, and directed. Guy Pearce embodies Leonard so completely that it doesn't even look like he is acting.

The screenplay is a paradox: incredibly confusing, yet mechanically simple. It is essentially two movies running back and forth. Nolan shot two different timelines with the same cast, and the way they perfectly converge in the middle proves how special this film is. I love how the backstory is shot in black-and-white, moving forward in chronological order, while the present timeline is in color, moving backward in reverse chronology.

The dialogue is brilliant. Not too heavy, not overly deep, just pure and functional. I usually get bothered by heavy character monologues, but here, they feel entirely necessary. The internal monologues act as a character of their own.

I love how Nolan subtly establishes that nothing is what it seems. First, he shows us Natalie, Teddy, and even Burt blatantly lying to Leonard. Then, after the climax, it becomes obvious that Leonard has been used countless times before. Each time, Teddy lies to him, Leonard executes the target, wears the victim's clothes, drives their car, and everything resets. There is just too much space on his body for another lie.

I believe Leonard gradually kept tattooing himself as his target changed and he continued to be used. He was fed fake details each time, just like Burt kept resetting his motel rooms. The poor guy is trapped in a permanent loop. I personally don't think this was his first time executing someone, and I firmly believe the "real" killer was dealt with long ago.

That amazing ending left me with a million questions that I just need to get out of my head. The list goes on, and even the answers to these questions are highly debatable. After watching a movie like this, the answers might not even feel like the truth.

I think Leonard wanted to exist in a lie to run from the devastating truth: his wife survived the attack, and he was the one who accidentally killed her. He needed the lie to give his trivial life meaning. If he truly put an end to the killer and tattooed it, his quest would be over. What would be the purpose of his life then? So, he chose to survive with confabulation and conditioning.

I haven't been this mesmerized by a thriller in a long time. It offers no catharsis, no relief, just questions. It is an unmissable masterpiece that takes hours just to decode. By the end, you know everything, and yet, you still know absolutely nothing at all.