A good movie is a good movie, whether it’s a deep indie darling or a big-budget blockbuster. An exceptional art film tends to linger in your mind much longer than a great commercial hit, though I suppose those blockbusters have their place. On the flip side, a mediocre Hollywood flick is still easy enough to sit through, whereas a mediocre art film usually ends up being nothing more than pretentious nonsense.
Well, there's truth to be found in both directions, really. Let's just say that Serenity was essentially born from the spirit of the Firefly series. It’s finally happening—the Ash vs Evil Dead series is coming after that whole Evil Dead trilogy. If a show or a movie manages to build up a solid enough fanbase, it’s only natural that people start looking toward the horizon and thinking about producing something similar down the road.
I honestly don't get why everyone gets so worked up over these superhero movies, especially the recent ones. They churn out three or four of them a year, and if you aren't interested, you just don't go. Based on some of the box office numbers, you'd think there’s a new SH flick hitting theaters every single week.
Personally, I'm fine with it. I watch probably around 300 films a year spanning every genre imaginable, so it doesn't bother me one bit if ten of those happen to be big-budget superhero spectacles. Take musicals, for instance—I can't stand them, so I don't watch them. Should I feel obligated to trash La La Land just because critics were raving about it when I actually find the whole genre unbearable? No, I haven't seen it, and that's that. As far as I'm concerned, they could make fifty of those a year and it wouldn't affect me. I actually enjoy superhero movies; they usually have a decent narrative, there's a sense of continuity, the characters are generally well-developed, the visuals are stunning, the acting is top-tier, and the soundtracks are often great... It works for me. If I had to choose, I'd rather sit through a solid thriller, but every once in a while, I'll pick a SH movie.
Jessica Gonzalez said:Looking further down the road, I guess the very concept of what a movie actually is might start to change. These kinds of action-heavy spectacles could eventually turn into interactive experiences where the audience gets to participate in the story, or maybe even see VR headsets becoming a standard part of the theater experience. It feels like things might move closer to the world of video games and drift a bit further away from traditional filmmaking.
It won't happen; just like 3D faded away, VR will likely follow suit. It's fun to experiment with new tech, but a movie will always be a movie, and it'll stick around for a long time. Sure, theaters might host all sorts of experimental stuff, but nothing is going to replace the simple pleasure of sitting on your couch and turning on a regular 2D film without any bells and whistles. Even if we eventually reach a level of technology like the holodecks in Star Trek, film as a medium will still remain the gold standard of entertainment. It's like books. Movies didn't ruin reading, and new technology isn't going to ruin movies either.
I wouldn't just limit myself to the big blockbusters and typical Hollywood films; at the end of the day, that's all about the bottom line and figuring out how to give an audience something they'll actually pay top dollar for. If the marketing hits the right notes and you've got a premise that grabs people—even if the movie itself is just decent or loaded with heavy CGI—you're going to make your money. If I were you, I’d suggest branching out and checking out some other cinema. Spaniards, Englishmen, Argentinians, Australians, Koreans, and folks from all over have produced some truly great work that I personally enjoy watching. Most of them seem more interested in staying grounded in reality, placing the weight on atmosphere and sharp dialogue rather than relying on flashy special effects.
silentridge3 said:If I read that "Top 10 Most Watched Movies of the Year" list correctly—though I honestly can't remember where I saw it—every single one of them is some kind of fantasy or sci-fi epic.
Most of those viewership numbers usually refer to the box office. I don't get out to the theater very often myself, but when I do, it’s typically with my kids to catch an animated flick. To them, it’s quite the big event, so I don't see much point in denying them that experience. When I actually head out for my own sake, I tend to go for the loud, high-spectacle blockbusters because I want to see those big visual effects on a massive screen. As for a solid drama or a tense thriller, I'd much rather just settle in at home where it's quiet and enjoy it in peace. That’s exactly why studios pump out those kinds of movies; they know they can pull a crowd into the theater, and honestly, the massive box office numbers speak for themselves. I mean, I sat through one myself and... Paterson I'd rather just stay home than deal with the hassle of going to the theater; honestly, sitting on my own couch sounds much better. The Fast and the Furious
As for the rest of the movies, I think plenty of good ones come out that fit your idea of being "realistic," and even if they aren't exactly smashing box office hits, people still went out of their way to see them. Just thinking back quickly to some from last year:
Moonlight Manchester by the Sea Hell or High Water Elle Hunt for the Wilderpeople Nocturnal Animals Lion Sully Daniel Blake
It’s all just the same hyped-up stuff, really. I’ve sat through every single one of them, and if I recall correctly, there isn't even a flying person or an alien or a fantasy creature in sight—just a whole lot of heavy drama. These are the kind of titles that seem to clutter up every "best of the year" list you find online. They might not be the absolute biggest blockbusters out there, but they’re definitely overrated, and honestly, you could find plenty of other movies like them if you actually bothered to look beyond this specific group. Personally, I wish there were more thrillers on the list, but I guess we'll just have to see if a decent one manages to sneak in there somewhere.
I honestly don't see the point. The content of a movie should define its genre, and I fail to see any sense in introducing some label that doesn't actually describe what’s happening on screen. If we went by that logic, a film about climbing Mount Everest, a serial killer thriller, a drama about searching for a lost family member, and a high-speed car chase would all fall under the exact same category. There are still plenty of mainstream films like the ones you're describing, so I really don't see the need for such a special genre.
Sure, superhero movies have been huge lately; there's a massive audience of comic book fans out there who want to see them. Those films are usually well-made, feature great actors, and are just visually engaging. Then you've got good historical films, which I personally find to be among the most interesting things to watch. There's also a lot of fantasy out there because modern technology makes building those worlds look incredibly convincing, and people clearly love watching it. Dramas have been pretty solid recently too; there are some truly beautiful films coming out. What seems to have slipped in quality are crime dramas and thrillers, which often drift away from their roots and turn into pure action movies, losing their edge in the process.
Every era has its own way of making movies, and personally, I find myself missing more serious thrillers and gritty crime stories, but it is what it is. I'm happy to sit down for a good movie regardless of the genre, just keep me away from musicals. 😛
Creating a special genre specifically for films set in "modern times" feels pointless to me. Not everyone spends 90% of their life staring at a smartphone—that's mostly a younger demographic, and movies aren't exactly their primary focus anyway. We're still making plenty of excellent films that don't feel disconnected from the world we live in, so I really don't see the necessity for a genre like that.
I’m not sure, but those movies used to kill me, though now they just feel terrible. When I first discovered the genre, it felt like a total breath of fresh air, something genuinely new. But once those big hits landed, the market got flooded with cheap, low-effort parodies—just bad movies riding the coattails of the original jokes. I’ve tried sitting through some of the newer stuff, but I just can't do it; it's honestly painful. The worst part is how they’ve managed to sour the classics for me too, making them hard to revisit. I actually stumbled upon a movie recently that I hadn't seen in ages, and I thought I’d have a good laugh, but I couldn't even get past the ten-minute mark. I think it might have starred Charlie Sheen and his brother, but whatever it was, the spark just isn't there anymore. It’s a shame because there were some great ones, but every single gag feels like it's been recycled a hundred times by now, which makes it pretty tough to enjoy anything again.
Pretty boring movie. It’s visually stunning, I'll give it that, but everything else just falls flat. There are way too many "scary" scenes for kids to handle, yet the rest of it is far too mindless for anyone looking for something actually serious. I honestly can't tell who the target audience was supposed to be, which makes it impossible to recommend. I spent most of the runtime checking the clock every ten minutes just to see how much longer I had to sit through this.
I started watching this thing, but I ended up turning it off after about twenty minutes. It just wasn't really my thing—pretty dull and hard to stay engaged with.
It’s a great movie, one I find myself bringing up quite often when people debate what kind of sci-fi script our future might actually follow. Everyone tends to jump straight to Terminator and things of that nature, but to me, this film feels much closer to the reality we've already started stepping into. I watched it about ten years ago right when it hit theaters, and looking back, a lot of what happens has already begun to drift toward exactly what the film predicted.
Both actors are top-tier, and honestly, Edward Norton is one of my absolute favorites. I don’t really care much about the whole Academy Award chase or collecting trophies; I just want to see Norton land another truly great role. It feels a bit pointless trying to pit them against each other since they’re both incredible in their own right and aren't really competing for the same space. If someone could somehow manage to cast Norton, Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, and Michael Shannon all in a single movie, that would be the ultimate win.
It was an entertaining watch. I’m not usually a fan of Sandler—honestly, most of his movies drive me up the wall—but this one actually works. The cast is a bit of a wild mix, which you wouldn't expect, but they somehow pull it off perfectly.
Just a fun little way to kill some time. Don't go in expecting a masterpiece, but it’s a pretty solid flick.
A few actors who passed on roles they probably should've taken:
John Travolta turned down playing Forrest Gump, and after he passed, the role was rejected by both Bill Murray and Chevy Chase.
Matthew Broderick reportedly said no to the role of Walter White in Breaking Bad.
Hugh Jackman passed on being James Bond in Casino Royale because he didn't want a part like that to define his entire career, though apparently, he might actually consider playing Bond these days.
Michelle Pfeiffer declined roles in Silence of the Lambs, Basic Instinct, and Pretty Woman.
Will Smith turned down a part in The Matrix because he felt the role wouldn't quite suit him, opting instead to film Wild Wild West.
Tom Selleck passed on playing Indiana Jones.
Sean Connery turned down the chance to play Gandalf in LOTR.
Burt Reynolds said no to playing Han Solo in Star Wars.
Kevin Costner passed on The Shawshank Redemption and went with Waterworld instead.
I really enjoyed this one. Honestly, it might be the best performance Al Pacino has delivered in years; I’d already assumed his work was just going to keep getting better and better. It’s a fun watch, too—it actually has a solid story and manages to touch on some real-world events without feeling forced.
Honestly, I’m pretty disappointed with this one. It was just a mountain of overacting, a total drag, filled with endless waiting for something to actually happen and way too much unnecessary sentimentality.
It felt like watching some mediocre drama starring high school theater kids. There’s basically nothing happening in the movie; the only "exciting" part was when the river shifted slightly, and even then, barely. Once again, they stretched the plot thin just to squeeze out more profit, which is always a bad sign. If I had to rename it, I'd call it "Melodrama and Overacting Without a Plot." You could sum up the entire story in three sentences. It’s a letdown. I’ll probably move on to the next movie since I usually enjoy seeing how things wrap up, but this didn't leave any impression on me—honestly, you could have condensed everything interesting into a single hour.
I actually drifted off twice during the film, which I guess says enough.
He isn't exactly an underground secret anymore, though I still feel like most people haven't really wrapped their heads around him yet. I've been following his career since the very beginning, and I've always found him pretty fascinating—mostly because he's got that whole former pro athlete vibe going on, plus he actually dabbled in singing too.
