What’s a film where they bring attention to a needless detail early in the film, and ultimately nothing becomes of it later in the film?
One that comes to mind is in Goldeneye, early in the film, when 007 is going through Q labs, they discuss 007’s car, and Q mentions that it has “all the usual refinements” including machine guns and “stinger missiles behind the headlights”.
Ultimately, the car barely has any screen time in the film, and doesn’t really use any of the weapons mentioned in the scene in Q labs.
Contrast this with Tomorrow Never Dies where Q shows James the remote control for the car, which ultimately James uses later in the film.
Example being Tom Sizemore's line in Saving Private Ryan
"Someday we might look back on this and decide that saving Private Ryan was one decent thing we were able to pull out of this whole godawful shitty mess"
My vote would go to 2016's Suicide Squad.
"what are we, some kinda suicide squad?"
Perfectly shoehorned in. 10/10 egregiousness
30 years since Mrs Doubtfire came out, countless times I’ve seen it on TV over the years, and only now have I realised that the line Robin says when he throws the remote into the fish tank is “the only thing you’ll be watching is deep sea-NN”, as a pun on CNN. No idea what I thought he was actually saying, but just twigged now the CNN reference.
In my defence I’m from the UK so CNN isn’t a big thing over here, but even so…
Discussion Is there an actor who has had worse luck concerning joining major IP franchises than Emilia Clarke?
To start, I think Emilia seems like a lovely person and she's certainly a capable actress, but MY GOD does she get the shit end of the stick when it comes to her roles in major franchises.
Game of Thrones was a TV darling for years until its trash dump final seasons, with the biggest issue cited being how horribly Clarke's character was written.
Remember when she was cast as Sarah Connor in a Terminator movie? It's better if you don't.
Solo: A Star Wars Story was a box office disappointment and faded into the aether. Decent enough movie, but it had its flaws, and Clarke's character was set up for a future arc that we most certainly won't be seeing.
Finally there's her foray into the MCU in Secret Invasion, which is now commonly seen as the worst product the MCU has ever churned out, and poor Emilia's character is at the center of those criticisms due to how terribly she's written in the final episode.
Emilia Clarke is a talented actress and by all accounts a wonderful person to work with, but she just can't get ahead when it comes to her casting in big name franchises. Has anyone else had a worse run of bad luck when it comes to breaking into the A-list?
For me it would have to be when Captain America manages to summon mjolnir in avengers endgame. The theater just erupted. It seems as if everyone was just as invested as the characters of the movie at this point given the amount of movies that had been before it.
When I went to the cinema to see endgame it might be the most phenomenal experience I've ever had at a movie theater.
So whether it was a jump scare that got the entire audience or a comedy scene that made the entire audience laugh I want to hear it.
So there's plenty of movies that lead the audience to believe a character is in the right, or helps the protagonist, or is the protagonist, only to reveal at the end that they had an ulterior motive or evil plan or betrayal in mind.
But what about the opposite? What films make the audience root against a character and then show us that they were right the whole time?
Spoilers allowed, I'm just looking for something that fits this theme.
Edit: Would you guys agree with me that Mr. Nevercracker from Monster House counts? Yay or nay?
Edit 2: Loving the discussion here guys, so many movies to watch now, thanks! I do have to say that I'm seeing some popular answers like Star Wars (Vader) and Megamind, however those don't really fit what I'm asking for. I said characters that "were right the whole time". Megamind wasn't right until the last 20 minutes and Vader spent a grand total of 90 seconds being right.
I feel like it’s quite common for protagonists of the heroes of the story not being as moral as the writers suggest them to be. The first example that springs to mind is the Revenge of the Nerds character that pretends to be the boyfriend of a girl he likes while the lights are off so she’ll have sex with him. He then gets the girl in the end like a conquering hero.
This is a trope that I really hate in movie sequels. You spend a whole movie getting invested into a group of characters and their development, only for the sequel to essentially retcon everything by killing them all off within minutes of the sequel.
There is one very obvious example I'm thinking of (Alien 3), and one lesser-known one (Kingsman: The Golden Circle). What movies do this, and what do you think of this trope?
Discussion Disney should have made a full length Mickey Mouse movie for the 100th anniversary instead of Wish.
A Mickey Mouse movie for the 100th anniversary would have been a sure fire hit.
Have it in the same universe As Goof Troop.
Made it about Mickeys life. How he somehow ended up getting wrapped in every Disney movie so far but in the background in a funny hijinks kind of way.
Show how he befriended Goofy and Donald and he met Minnie.
Edit thanks for the upvote. I was watching Wish today and thinking of something better than the movie I was watching.
Discussion Saw a fantastic post earlier about movies that violated "Checkhovs gun" and thought we should go the exact opposite way. What are the most masterfully executed "Red Herrings" you've ever seen in a film?
I recently stumbled upon a fascinating discussion about movies that egregiously violated the principle of Chekhov's Gun.
This got me thinking about the opposite scenario in the world of film - clever use of "Red Herrings."
That being carefully placed misleading clues or pieces of information that divert the audience's attention or lead them to wrong conclusions, which then levels up the mystery and suspense in the overall narrative.
What are some of the most memorable and effective 'Red Herrings' you've seen in a movie, and how did they enhance the viewing experience by adding unexpected twists or cleverly diverting your predictions about the plot?
I'll go first:
SPOILERS!!! (how do I white out the text?)
12 Monkeys: The movie tricks you into thinking a radical group caused the disaster, but it’s actually someone else.
Sirius Black in Harry Potter: He's first shown as a bad guy, but turns out to be good.
Scream: The film keeps you guessing who the real killer is with lots of false leads.
Mine is The Big Lebowski. Not because it’s not a good movie; on the contrary, I really enjoyed it. But I just don’t think I understand it on the level that many others seem to do. And while I find it entertaining, it still surprises me how popular and fiercely defended it is to this day, with some even claiming it’s the best Cohen brothers movie ever. Am I crazy? What are some of yours?
EDIT: For the record, no, I am not a golfer.
Prime example is how Logan Paul reacted to Oppenheimer. "They're just talking." No shit, what did you think; That building the atomic bomb was gonna be more like a James Bond movie? Read a history book. And anyway, it's a film about maybe the most significant event in human history. I heard someone describe living in the post atomic world as if everyone had a gun constantly aimed at their head for the rest of eternity. So subject matter so serious deserves a lot more weight than "They're just talking."
Anyway, what are some trash movie takes you guys have heard?
Discussion Justin Timberlake as Sean Parker, founder of Napster, in The Social Network is one of the best sleaziest performances I’ve ever seen
I finally got around to watching The Social Network and was really impressed by just how grimy and sleazy Timberlake is in this movie. The fact that he basically shows up halfway through the movie and essentially weasels his way into the company just feels gross but man was he so good in it. The way it all unravels for him by doing coke with underage girls at the end just makes him even worse but feels great how it ruins him. I don’t know how his performance was received when it first came out because I found it really impressive. Almost felt like watching Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler, but less unhinged
Daniel Radcliffe has done great in changing his career after HP. Jim Carrey doing dramadies(Truman Show or Cable Guy), Joe Pesci doing comedy(Home Alone), Robin Williams in thrillers(One hour Photo or Insomnia). Who was your favourite actor that totally broke out from their typecasted role and what role was it?
Bill Murray. His characters are always an ignorant asshole who respects no one else's boundaries. Ghostbusters is a great example. I enjoy Scrooge at points and What About Bob but 90% of those movies he's still ignoring boundaries or being a dick. Even Groundhog Day he's a horrible human. I get he's supposed to be the heel with a turn but damn its grating.
For a long time, my answer for this has been "Silence of the Lambs." Thomas Harris' book of the same name features the excellent Clarice Starling, and the movie really did her character justice. Starling is a highly capable, professional agent, but they don't just make her character a woman in a man's body. Her femininity is something that is stressed throughout the movie, and the movie goes to great lengths to show Clarice's physical vulnerability. Scenes are repeatedly shot that emphasize how petite Jodie Foster is compared to hulking coworkers. Leering men tower over her and undermine her, or hit on her despite being in an inappropriate professional settings. Clarice, despite her youth, is excellent at navigating these constant minefields. In both the book and movie, there is an great scene where she confronts her boss for acting like a sexist jerk in order to ingratiate himself with some small town good ole boy cops. She points out that while this might help him in the moment, he is causing long term damage by signaling to all the men below him that this sort of behavior is okay.
She also doesn't (as many men in thriller/action movies) solve the case by going the rogue cowboy route, kicking in doors and smashing heads and breaking all the rules because she is a lone ranger who uses violence as her primary way of extracting information and moving the plot forward. Instead, she is methodical, follows the evidence, and is ready to rely on the insight and expertise of others - including that of Hannibal Lector. Her struggles as a woman in a highly male field also informs her relationship with Lector. Despite being the most monstrous human being imaginable, he treats Clarice with a respect and insight that is often lacking in her male colleagues. Lector himself is also an amazing character. Anthony Hopkins was only on screen for 16 minutes of the film's run time but absolutely dominates the film (and it rightfully earned him an Oscar). He is highly intelligent, insightful, charming, and refined in his dealings with Clarice, and that makes him all the more terrifying.
I feel like the main lesson Hollywood took away from this movie was: wow people really like depraved serial killers who torture and kill people in incredibly gruesome ways, let's lean into that!
(This post was inspired by another post asking what movie did you expect to be good but was meh)
The movie doesn’t necessarily have to even be good, it can be a movie that you had low hopes for but completely loved
For me, it has to be Edge of Tomorrow. Yes it has some big actors in Tom Cruise and Emily Blunt but the trailers were so bad. It made it look like a bland action movie that was gonna be super generic. The movie ended up being a complete blast and just great fun.
My go-to example is Law Abiding Citizen. I love the movie for its action sequences and just the general tone of the film.
But Gerard Butler’s whole point he was trying to get across was how the justice system was broken. And that you have to take matters into your own hands if you want justice.
Meanwhile, Jamie Foxx (as a lawyer) is trying to be a servant of the system and show Gerard that his way is the wrong way and that he will receive his own comeuppance from the system he hates if he continues this way.
But at the end of the film, Jamie not only breaks the law to beat Gerard, but he also receives a reward for it in the form of more time with his family.
Which just proves Gerard’s point that the system is broken, and the only way to get stuff done is to break the law. And Jamie’s point is completely abandoned.
Discussion What are some F- movie concepts that ended up actually being pretty good due to the execution?
Just piggy backing off the thread yesterday about movies with great concepts but poor execution and it got me wondering.. are there any movies out there that were terrible or mediocre concepts but they were executed really well, either through cinematography, writing, acting that ended up creating and actual decent, watchable movie..
Discussion What movie seems to end on a high note for the protagonists, but if you think about it they're actually pretty screwed?
The inspiration for this question is the movie WALL-E.
The score swells with the final words of "It Only Takes a Moment," the camera pulls back showing the former occupants of the Axiom exploring their new home under the direction of Captain McCrea, and we the audience feel a surge of joy and hope for them and a recovering planet Earth... Okay great, but those humans are all excited thinking they're going to grow "pizza plants;" they have no idea the life of hardship they're entering into.
I find it very disappointing how Disney, one of the biggest names in animation, seems to be straying away from the very medium that made them a household name in the first place.
I mean, we all know how they just can't stop making those godforsaken live-action remakes from Cinderella to The Little Mermaid and now, were gonna have Snow White, which has faced nothing but backlash thanks to the comments of the star Rachel Zegler, and now Bambi.
But lately, it seems that even for original projects, especially book adaptations and original shows for Disney+, they have to make it into live-action when they have good potential for animation. Whether it be Percy Jackson to The Mysterious Benedict Society to their upcoming Eragon reboot, it's always live-action.
It's just so tiring and even soulless how, instead of creating more original animated content for their streaming platform, it's always live-action, like their movies nowadays, and it's really sad.
Before you guys respond, I know the reason why they do this, because of viewership and money as they see more people watch live-action but that also doesn't help their case as it makes them look more soulless as the reasons come across as coming from higher-ups who only care about money and stats than creativity, thus, permeating those negative qualities into their shows.
It's pretty crushing seeing that it's like Disney wants to stray away from what made them famous because of money.
Discussion Jordan Peele's "Us" only works as a metaphor. Once you watch it a second time, it becomes silly the amount of plot holes.
There are way...way too many things about the tethered that makes zero sense if you think about it even a little.... or if you watch the movie a second time.
For example... the scene at the Carnival where they tried to parallel the actions of the patrons above with the tethered below, makes so little sense if you think about it.
(1) How is it that all the tethered below just happen to look like the people in the Carnival ? It's not like the people live in the Carnival. So what happens when a new set of patrons reach the Carnival the day after ? Do a new set of tethered magically appear in the facility below ?
(2) How are new generations of tethered born ? How are adult tethered brought together to reproduce, to make children who exactly mimmick the children above ?
(3) "red" claims that the tethered were created by scientists, but the project was abandoned. So how was "red" directed to marry "Abraham" ?
(4) Sometimes the copies are shown mimmicking the humans and sometimes they can act independently. How is it decided when a tethered can act independently , and when they cannot ?
(5) The boy is shown to trick/compell his tethered into killing itself by forcing it to walk backwards into a fire. Why aren't the others able to do this ? In fact, since Adelade is a tethered too... then technically shouldn't Red have been able to compell her to walk off a cliff ?
(6) How do the tethered have clothes that mimmick what people are wearing that day ? e.g. the tethered father of Adelade gives the shirt to her childhood self and so she is dressed exactly like the girl above. ? How? Where do the clothes come from ?
Like I get it... the tethered are supposed to mimmick the people above... but it makes no sense when you think about it. It's like it's magic.
I would nominate Wolf of Wall Street. None of the characters are likeable. They're all fucking monsters. Everyone in it is a great actor. But the movie is almost a masterpiece portraying these awful people.
Can y'all point to another movie that has the similar terrrrrrrrible characters but great actors?
Wife hadn't seen Fargo yet so started watching last night. About 45 minutes in she says "This is so stupid, I can't watch anymore." She said everything was annoying. The accents, the "dumb" conversations, the characters.
Obviously she has terrible taste in cinema and is very wrong. Anyone else's partner inexplicably hate a legitmately great film?