If you want some fresh Star Wars content, Star Wars Visions really gives the franchise some much needed creative energy and drive and it sucks it was basically a one-time project that they’ll probably never do again

I don't understand Telugu or Hindi, but the dubbing bothered me. As I said, I saw it partially, and decided that when I gave it a proper watch I would find the original. I really hate dubs. Think of how much direction goes into getting just the right delivery from an actor. Then a dub comes along and just...bulldozes right over that.

Great movie

Judging from your downvotes, seems he's not the only person with that stance.

Cocaine Bear.

William Wyler, best-known for directing glossy romances and melodramas during Hollywood's Golden Age (Roman Holiday, Mrs. Miniver, The Heiress, Ben-Hur) took a sharp detour into horror/thriller territory with 1965's The Collector, set in gritty postwar Britain, and it's fantastic. He went back to lighter territory with his subsequent films (How To Steal A Million, Funny Girl), so The Collector really is the big outlier of the bunch.

Similarly, Michael Powell (A Matter of Life and Death, The Tales of Hoffman, The Red Shoes, The Life and Death of Col. Blimp, etc) with 1960's Peeping Tom - a film acknowledged as a masterpiece of horror and suspense now, but so utterly reviled at the time it more or less entirely killed his previously-respected career. One reviewer even compared Powell to the Marquis de Sade, which seems a bit much.

I thought it looked like a totally stupid, fun time. Exactly as it should be. Fun popcorn flick. Full on camp.

This take sucks. I'm not even going to try and be clever about it, this is just lame.

I thought the exact same. Cheers fam.

It’s so funny to see this post today. For years I was convinced that I had watched this movie. I think it came out a at a time I wasn’t really going to theaters so I don’t remember the marketing. But I have certainly seen it suggested in watchlists on streaming platforms. I knew it wasn’t Oblivion but for some reason on a rewatch of that movie last weekend I thought oh I should watch the other one too. I sat through the whole thing waiting for something to be familiar. I liked how not Tom Cruise he was to start and I always enjoy Emily Blunt. Don’t know how I missed it before or it just came out too close to other similarly themed movies for me to realize I hadn’t seen it?

Requiem for a Dream. It’s high art, but hard to watch.

Missing

>5 speeches is a lot and and giving 5 acting awards for lead and supporting waters down the value of the award.

I disagree that it "waters down the value of the award" for a couple different reasons.

1. The Oscars are self-marginalizing and self-devaluing in general. Hence our agreement that the reasoning people even show up has nothing to do with merit and everything to do with superficiality. We want to see pretty famous people get happy for being pretty and famous. That's the drive.
2. Picking single winners has also, by this logic, "devalued" the award because if you fuck up and pick someone that shouldn't have won it, you end up making the award mean less. The evidence for this POV is seen by, once again, our shared recognition that people don't tune into this thing to see movies win things based on merit.

As it stands, the acting awards are the ONLY awards anywhere near as delineated as they are already. Not only are they split into Supporting/Lead categories, they're the ONLY awards split by gender role as well. If giving more people statues for being among the five best performances of that year is dilution of the award, then the decision to make "Best Acting" into four separate trophies was already dilution.

The awards are, themselves, an advertisement (and historically, an anti-labor union measure, LOL). Their status as a legitimate designator of merit has been in question longer than we've been alive. This is not an institution known for great judgment, and it's accepted for that.

The biggest hurdle isn't a supposed devaluing of awards whose key reason for existing is superficial advertising. It's just getting over the artificial "tradition" being changed going forward.

The article title specifies that it’s The Weekend’s original idea that he then later teamed up with Shultz to direct and co-write for

That's what I'm most looking forward to, Indian dance is amazing and super athletic!

1st two seasons of Bloodline are wonderful. He’s mesmerizing.

cocaine bear. i need a laugh and movies that are “happier” lead to better theater experiences overall i feel

Haven’t the Grammy’s always operated in a genderless fashion? It would be fine.

The true problem, from a ratings/audience perspective, is that you’d be losing out on opportunities to give the famous people awards, which is largely what people are tuning in to see. Most of the awards given out on Oscar night go to people you’ve never heard of, so to lose the chance to highlight more A-listers is pretty risky, from a ratings perspective.

But in terms of the practicality of it? Of course they should do it. As Chris Rock noted in his opening monologue, during the 2016 Oscars: “it’s not track & field. There’s no reason to separate the performances based on gender.”

Todd Phillips, from The Hangover to The Joker.

Yeah, no question. I didn't even think Rogue One was that good, saying it's the best Star Wars movie is crazy talk

For me ESB is #1

If you wanna turn off your brain completely, cocaine bear. But if you wanna turn off your brain a little, missing. Both quiet enjoyable rides.

If it’s me though, I’d go watch missing. It’s more of my type of movie.

If you’ve seen Searching and liked it then absolutely go see Missing, although it’s not a pre-requisite.

Missing.

I have a suspicious people will be talking string cocaine bear.

I've noticed this about a lot of Indian films. Does anyone know why this is?