He gives a really gut-wrenching monologue in Europa Report as he's >!drifting off into space to die!<. Overall I'd say District 9 but thought that scene deserved a mention.

[deleted]

There's a lot of fun storylines going into the Oscars this year.

It probably won't improve it's dwindling popularity but it's fun for people who are movie enthusiasts.

A Clockwork Orange, kinda sorta. Fast motion is used during the orgy scene. However, they're also playing Bach in the background. In typical Kubrick fashion, he's going for a kind of black comedy feel. We've already seen how dangerous and sociopathic Alex and his droogs are. The comedy comes from juxtaposing this with them drinking milk at a futuristic milk bar, and picking up two beauties to go back to his place and have group sex to classical music.

If anything, the whole scene helps shed some light on what the inside of Alex's mind looks like, and it's clearly a crazy and disturbing place. Fast motion? Sure, bring it on. Couldn't make things any weirder.

[deleted]

3hrs is standard length for Bollywood movies lol

I've only seen Wild Tales. If the director made other good movies I am now interested in them.

Your sad little rant falls apart against the fact that RRR is genuinely great.

I would be happy; my husband would be sad.

It's really a bit staggering how comfortable people on this site are with being misogynistic

Few people are discussing this movie, because "Christian movies" - movies made, specifically, to carry a pro-Christian religious message - have a terrible track record and the creative team behind this movie has - at best - a mixed record of financial success.

I thought it was amazing, but to each their own

Haven't had a black joker yet! Coming soon no doubt.

I think they're both fantastic! I can't really say which is better.

Probably because it's an extreme niche.

For example when I look now, it's not available on any streaming platform in the UK, nor screening at any cinemas who list online. I expect similar will be true for other nations in the anglosphere, and it's presence in countries outside the anglosphere will be even smaller than it's non-existence here.

Films covering religious topics absolutely can be mainstream, but from what I am reading about this film - and there's plenty coming up on google searches, so I don't know why you'd be having difficulty finding information on it - this is primarily a faith-affirming flick and not just a movie about a religious topic; It's reach therefore will be limited to those people who are interested in such an experience, just as one might imagine a particularly soppy romcom's or an obscene horror's reach will be limited to a specific audience, too.

More to the point, why were you looking for information about a movie you've already seen?

[deleted]

> they stopped focusing on quality and their rewards are based around other things like representation and virtue signaling, instead of great movies. Instead of getting back to giving awards purely based on quality

It sure is a good thing RRR happened to be one of the best films of 2022 then, isn't it

Make it a personal drama about a futuristic "plumber" whose job it is to install and maintain the 3seashells bathroom systems.

He's lured into a web of betrayal and deception as he uncovers the unethical origins of the company who harvested these shells and developed the technology. His loved ones aren't the people he'd always thought. They'd been planted here to make sure he didn't learn too much. Kinda like Truman Show how the people in his life were they to keep him on track.

As he goes through this arc, the movie continues to tell the audience absolutely nothing about the shells or the technology itself. It's just kept off-screen or obscured by some loud noises that pop up to cover the dialogue whenever the characters are talking about it.

I don't get it. The song isn't even that good, it's repetitive, heavily autotuned, and there are far better dance numbers throughout Indian cinema.

How do I subscribe to decade+

[removed]

Nuanced question requires nuanced answer. (And the article does a pretty good job and breaking down the pros/cons.)

For me, I think it should be a long term goal to eliminate gendered categories. However, doing so recklessly would carry a lot of risks and has to be careful.

First off, there are non-binary actors. I see some other users dismissing this, and while it shouldn't be a conversation-ender it's absolutely ridiculous to just dismiss this aspect of the debate.

Has a non-binary actor ever been in contention for an Oscar before? I mean, probably, the idea of being openly non-binary is relatively new in contemporary society, so any actors who have been non-binary in the past would probably be closeted or not even be familiar with the term and just feel forced into a gender identity that didn't fit. So okay, let's get at the real question --

Has an openly non-binary actor ever been in contention for an Oscar? So far, no, but for the reasons stated above it's completely silly to pretend this isn't a possibility in the future. More and more people are openly identifying as non-binary. Denying them a proper slot at awards shows is essentially barring them from that discourse.

Can a non-binary actor simply select whichever category "best fits" them (as another user suggested)? There are so many completely obvious problems with this. For one, it would further the general belief that non-binary identities aren't "real." For another, I could see it hurting an actor's chances if voters are uncertain which category to nominate someone in. (Stanfield's supporting nod shows it isn't as simple as "choosing" a category for yourself.) In the article, a specific example is used of a Tony performer withdrawing their name from consideration as they didn't want to compromise their identity. That's not a choice we should be forcing on people -- "you want an award? Great, first you need to accept a certain dose of body dysmorphia just to be considered."

Of course, there are obvious pitfalls: the two biggest being the fear that this would limit opportunity for female nominees (because there are usually far more male roles, although the current awards season is a promising exception); and that there would be fewer acting awards altogether which is certainly a sacrifice (one which I would see as a bad thing although this isn't a given).

The latter point is easy to address: make more categories that aren't to do with gender. You can go the way of the Globes and split drama/comedy (ugh), or maybe split split performances based on a real person or previous work vs entirely original performances (interesting), or create more tiers in role-importance (e.g. best lead, best co-lead, best supporting, best brief supporting). Several awards shows also have a breakout performance category.

Can argue endlessly about which of these make sense or provide the best opportunities (I'd prefer not to split on genre lines if the Globes are any indication of how that goes down), but the point is that there are alternatives that create four non-gendered acting categories. We also desperately need a voice-acting category by the way, just saying...

Buuuut the former point, about opportunities for women, is... a real concern. And there's not an easy answer for that, since it's largely an industry problem more than an awards show problem (despite internet discourse always focusing on the awards shows' issues).

So... I'm conflicted. I'd hate to say there should be a rule that at least two genders need to be represented in each category, but that might be the easiest way. Honestly, I don't actually think we'd frequently find ourselves with 5 nominees of all the same gender (although in the 2020 show it may have happened) but the threat of 4 male nominees multiple years in a row, or all-male winners or some such, is definitely a threat and we shouldn't pretend it isn't. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine ever having 5 female nominees or all-female winners. This industry is very male-leaning...

Anyway, that was long, but since all the other comments are just "how stupid," I felt like pointing out that it's not stupid or a simple question. But Reddit likes dismissing things that aren't easy to answer, so y'know, that's to be expected.

I would not remotely care and maybe filmmakers could go back to doing decent movies with decent storylines like they used to? It's a hype thing it will eventually phase out

RIP. Great movie to see in 3d if you can. 3d black and white is a cool vibe.

The apartment cleaning scene in “Requiem For A Dream” I think is an example of using sped up playback for dramatic effect. It’s used to showcase Ellen Burstyn’s different type of addiction and how she is reacting to her diet pills.