I enjoyed American Psycho when I first watched it 11 years ago, but I took it at extreme face value. I thought I had it all worked out; “Ah I get it - this is a dark-comedy horror, and he made up the whole thing in his head. That’s why at the end his lawyer told him he dined with Paul Allen in London, and why Allens apartment was spotless when he returned to the scene. This is confirmed by Jean finding his sketches in his office, he just drew up fantasies to escape from his vapid life.” If only I knew that this interpretation was exactly not what Director Mary Harron was going for.. I interpreted Patrick Bateman as a Jekyll and Hyde straight man who used his charisma and looks to lure in the women he murdered. All and all I thought it was a straight forward thriller with bits of surreal comedy sprinkled in.

Upon rewatch however, American Psycho is an absolutely hilarious satire on yuppie America that leans more towards being a farce than a horror. Patrick Bateman isn’t the “body goals” Greek God with the enviable morning routine I thought he ha on first watch; his workout regime diet, and skincare routines, are fucking ridiculous - all rooted in his attempts to stand out from his friends and colleagues who all look and act the exact same as him.

This is where having subtitles on changed the movie for me. One of the biggest motifs of American Psycho’s dialogue is that no one listens to each other. Almost every single conversation lasts about two sentences before a new subject is brought up, and so many of the conversations make no sense to begin with. Patrick excuses himself from Detective Kimball to have “lunch with Cliff Huxtable”, the fictional protagonist from the Cosby Show. Bateman gets constantly mistaken for other named characters and vice versa, and the food items, like the characters, are wrapped up in appearances to an absurd extent (swordfish meatloaf and peanut butter soup)

Upon rewatch it is clear that Bateman did commit the murders, but those around him are too caught up in their own vanity to either notice or care; Luis’ catches Bateman in the act of loading Allen’s body into his car, but the only thing he notices is his Jean Paul Gaultier overnight bag. His lawyer says he had dinner with Paul Allen because he genuinely believes he met his “version” of Paul Allen. The realtor cleaned up Allens house so that she wouldn’t lose out on commission. I first watched this with the impression that Patrick Bateman is heartless, but on second watch it turns out the world is heartless too.

Of course we know the obvious examples of Alec Guiness (Star Wars) and Christopher Plummer (The Sound of Music)

One that's kind of interesting is Natasha Lyonne with American Pie; I'm not sure dislike is the right word but whenever it's been brought up in interviews she's always mentioned that she couldn't really relate to the movie and even turned it down at first. Even on the first movies VHS they did a behind the scenes featurette and her comment was literally to the tune of "Ehh I guess this is what high school was like but I dunno"-https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPrqu2AWtTs

Might explain why her role was reduced greatly in the second one and she just popped up for a cameo in American Reunion

Timothée Chalamet is not a bad actor. He also isn't a great actor, at least at this point in his career. He is "okay". He is young, good looking and charismatic. All that is undeniable. But none of that is "acting"

Every scene with Javier Bardem, Josh Brolin, Dave Bautista, Stellan Skarsgård, Léa Seydoux, etc was riveting, top notch film making and great acting. And then we go back to old Timothee and the the level of emotion and intensity on the screen drops considerably.

I don't even like Autsin Butler that much but he was great in this movie. I particularly loved the scene with him and Lea.

I think Tim has a bit of Gal Gadot in him, ie he is so charismatic and good looking you sort of forget that he can't really act that well. don''t get me wrong he is a far better actor than Gal, but he has a similar problem.

when Javier gets all swept up in his religious fervor...I feel that! I feel that in my soul! When Stellan S. sit on his throne and manipulates and rules, I truly believe this man is a god among men.

But Tim? I never get that depth of emotion from him. His acting is a bit flat. I never really feel...deep in my soul...anything from him. Even his rousing speeches to rally the troops were...you know..fine. They weren't terrible. But I didn't feel like going out and taking on the world after listening to him.

could drown in down votes but so be it. Still a great movie though, WAY better than the first one. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Thank you to whoever made it available.

Here is mine:

"Oh, Brother. Where Art Thou" 2000

The movie is set in "rural Mississippi" in 1937. My family just happens to be FROM that exact part of rural Mississippi. A town called Coldwater. Coldwater was in the Mississippi Delta valley, and got flooded to make the Arkabutla Lake. That part of the movie is 100% true. They moved the entire town... all 700 residents... one mile south and then flooded that part of the valley. Only thing the movie got wrong was that Ulysses said it was a hydroelectric dam. It is not. The Arkabutla Dam is a flood-control dam.

I'll start with one I keep seeing: Back to the Future

People often complain: "Why don't Marty's parents recognise him in 1985 as the guy who helped them get together in 1955?"

Seriously? Of all the possible plot holes in a movie about time travel, this is the one you pick most often?

First of all, they knew him for about a week, 30 years ago, and as far as we know, they don't have a single photograph of him

I'm 45 years old, and I already have trouble recognising some of my old classmates from 30 years ago. These are people I went to school with for YEARS, not just a week. And unlike Marty's parents, I actually have class photos I can look at

Sure, George and Lorraine would probably remember Marty for the rest of their lives. After all, he played a huge part in bringing them together. But remembering someone and remembering exactly what their face looked like 30 years later are two very different things

But here's what I think is the most important point: Who says they DON'T recognise him?

It is not unlikely that they have a better photographic memory than I have, so it is possible. But the movie never establishes that they haven't noticed the resemblance. Maybe they've talked privately about how much their son looks like that strange kid they knew back in 1955. Maybe they've even joked about it

It wouldn't add anything to the movies to bring it up in the short time Marty is back in 1985. And the sequels don't really give them any particular reason to have that conversation either

A movie not explicitly explaining something doesn't automatically make it a plot hole

So, what is your example of a commonly repeated "plot hole" that you think isn't actually one?

I just felt heavily inspired to write this post as the Master of Disguise was such a huge bomb that it prevent Dana Carvey from being able to find proper acting roles again.

Looking back at the movie, I still don’t understand why it was greenlit as the movie turned out to be the worst comedy film ever made in its time, so I sometimes wonder how such a film got made to begin with.

Not asking about the movie itself, just that specific moment where the whole screen gasped, laughed, or went silent at the exact same second. I love that feeling when a room full of strangers have the identical reaction in real time. It's one of the main things streaming can't replicate!

Mine wasthe Tobey Maguire reveal in Spider-Man: No Way Home. My whole theater erupted!What's yours?

hate to say it, but Donnie Darko.

I thought that movie and The Matrix were the deepest movies ever when I was around that age (The Matrix especially blew my mind when I was a kid). Still love them though. Even though neither movie is as "deep" as it thinks it is, they were fantastic gateways to philosophy & deeper themes for me as a youngin'

Flamin' Hot was based on a guy's claim that he invented Flamin' Hot Cheetos only for it to later come out that all of his claims were lies. Eva Longoria (the director) said "We weren't making a movie about the history of the Flamin' Hot Cheeto. We're telling the story of Richard Montañez" but the one and only reason anyone gave a shit about his story is because they thought he actually created the Flamin' Hot Cheeto lol. Biographical movies are always fictionalized to some degree but the audience goes in assuming that the premise is at least true. That would be like if you made a movie about Beethoven and then it later came out that he never wrote a single piece of music.

I also found out recently that Julie Powell (played by Amy Adams in Julie & Julia)'s marriage was nothing like we saw on screen. She apparently wrote another book detailing how she cheated on her husband numerous times and then stalked the people she had affairs with. I give this one a pass though and think that making Adams' character completely different from the real person was the correct decision. Portraying her accurately would have legitimately ruined the movie.

I must have seen this movie a hundred times at this point and it never gets old. I think it truly is the perfect storm, a unique combination of sharp writing, exceptional acting, and stylish direction. The editing is quick and precise, the cinematography is moody, the score is the perfect blend of Electronica and dark ambiance. I remember Tarantino saying that this was the best movie of the 2010s and I couldn't agree more. It's almost prescient in its exploration of the impact of social media, and the themes of fraternity and betrayal still hit hard over a decade later. I personally think it's Fincher's magnum opus, and it should've won Best Picture that year, but I'm just happy to gush about how great this movie is.

I’m not sure if it’s a shit take but it’s one of my favourite films.

Eyes Wide Shut famously took 400 days to shoot. That’s only just less than the 438 days it took to shoot all three Lord of the Rings movies. But this long shoot had some interesting consequences.

• Tom Cruise was due to star in Mission Impossible 2, so that film had to be delayed.

• Because of MI2’s delay, Dougray Scott wasn’t able to take up the role of Wolverine in the X-Men, so that film was delayed too, and the role ended up going to Hugh Jackman instead.

• Because of the delay to X-Men, Ian McKellen was able to fit Lord of the Rings into his schedule.

This throws up several questions and counter-factuals:

• Dougray Scott’s career never really took off in the way he deserved. Would Wolverine have made the difference? Hugh Jackman was obviously great in the role, but Scott would also have been a great choice.

• Would Hugh Jackman’s career have taken off anyway? Wolverine made him famous, but he’s managed not to be typecast by it.

• Would the X-Men films have been as good without Jackman, or LOTR without McKellen?

• Who would have played Gandalf? Sean Connery turned the role down before Ian McKellen was offered it, but would they have gone back to him?

Are there any other consequences of Eyes Wide Shut’s long shoot that you’re aware of?

Are there any other examples of similar behind-the-scenes problems that had interesting repercussions for actors or other films?

REally wanting to see the new Death on the Nile flick (I liked Murder on the Orient) but who is front and center of every single ad so far?

Our girl Gal Gadot. A person who looks fabulous but unfortunately cannot freaking act!

Now this is a big cast so maybe she will only have a few scenes, and that would be okay. But come on! This is a very acting heavy movie, its not a super hero flick where you can hide your poor acting skills behind short skirts and flying kicks. The acting is front and center in this type of flick

Ugh. Are there no other talented good looking actresses in Hollywood? Well at least i don't have to put up with Tim chalamet, the it boy of the day. 😂

I would like to apologize to old cinema.

I’ve always been a casual movie watcher, and I used to have this mindset of: “Why would I watch an old movie? A newer one will have better production, better casting, better everything, since these things should improve with time, right? Right?”

Well… no.

I’ve been missing out on so many masterpieces because of that dumb way of thinking. Aside from the really famous ones like The Godfather and The Shawshank Redemption, I rarely watched anything old.

Then I decided, “You know what? Let me just try.”

I watched 12 Angry Men because I never understood why it was so famous. And honestly, if you describe the movie to someone who has never seen it, they might think: “Why the hell would you watch that?”

“It's about 12 men spending the entire movie in one room, and it's a black-and-white movie from the 1950s.”

But then you actually watch it, and you realize just how insanely good it is.

Since then, I’ve been watching almost nothing but older movies. I watched Stand by Me recently, and it genuinely feels like I’ve discovered a whole new side of cinema that I somehow ignored for years.

Now it’s the newer movies that I’m putting on the side.

So, for anyone who has had a similar experience: what are some hidden old gems I should watch?

And in general, what do you guys prefer: old movies, new movies, or a mix of both?

I just found the whole concept so funny. Action movie baddies almost always assume they can get a leg up on the hero or outsmart them even when all logic says otherwise. I genuinely loved the idea of a bad guy that not only didn't want to be there but knew he was fucked from the start.

He really felt like less of a bad guy and more like some poor sap stuck in a dead-end job he didn't care about since he had no personal vendetta against Wick. He just couldn't let him go scot-free because it would have made him look bad in front of his men and his son.

I'm pretty sure every fan of action movies has joked before about how bad guys always seem to be in denial of how strong the hero is and never seem to learn despite how many of their comrades or henchmen die in battle which is what made this character so unique and funny. There was a scene in Batman: The Animated Series that used a similar idea and made for one of the show's funniest moments.

His example probably isn't the most extreme but TJ Miller's rise and fall was pretty wild to witness in real time. He was the funniest cast member in one of the funniest shows on television (Silicon Valley), played a side character in the most successful R-rated film of all time (Deadpool 1 & 2), got to work with Steven Spielberg, etc. And all within just a few years.

But then he assaulted an uber driver, called in a fake bomb threat, got accused of sexual misconduct, and pretty much burned every bridge in Hollywood by being a total dick to work with. Without spoiling anything, the way his character was written off Silicon Valley is one of the most unceremonious things I've ever seen and gave me the feeling that everyone behind the camera couldn't stand the guy. Compare that to Steve Carell's exit from The Office where they basically spent an entire season thanking him for being on the show.

I really think he could have had a good career had he simply been pleasant to be around because despite all of his faults, he is a very funny guy. It's like he wanted to be the new Chevy Chase but decided to fast forward through Chevy's peak years and go straight to the end of his career when no one wants to work with him.

This could be commonly used plot points/tropes, illogical stuff, anything that instantly ruins a film for you.

I have a couple, but a big one I’ve noticed since I started watching more murder mystery movies and TV shows is the excessive use of rat poison as a subtle way to kill a character. In the real world, rat poison only works because rodents don’t have a gag reflex and thus can’t vomit up the poison. In a human, while still dangerous, it cannot instantly kill and would most likely induce vomiting or bleeding at worst (and that’s only the more deadly kind). Yet in movies and TV it’s treated like cyanide.

Another trope that’s been done to death and instantly takes me out of a story is a “big misunderstanding” or “liar revealed” plot line. Basically, it’s when a film’s entire plot hinges on a character lying about themself or another person hearing something they said out of context, and creating a big lie to cover their ass. The whole movie you’re just waiting for the lie to eventually be revealed, and it’s just so done to death. You know the others character is gonna do a dramatic “you LIED to me!!” speech, the lead is gonna have to redeem themself, etc., it’s just not that interesting.

EDIT: forgot to add this one, but I hate when women in a period piece are wearing their hair down and flowing even in a time period where women of their stature would exclusively wear their hair up or covered in some way. Tells me the costume team cared more about making the actress “pretty” than historical accuracy.

Needless to say, that was a pretty glaring omission and I don’t think anyone would have cared about the movie had he mentioned that many of the health issues he experienced in the movie were likely because of his years of alcoholism. Not saying eating a shitload of McDonald’s for a month wouldn’t be unhealthy too but Spurlock led us all to believe his diet was squeaky clean prior to the experiment.

The guy’s whole career (which is now over it seems) was basically based on a lie

Everything from Shawn of The Dead to Baby Driver is incredibly distinctive: filled with visual gags and an impeccable use of music. I had fun watching The Running Man, but it barely registers as an Edgar Wright movie. If I hadn’t read the credits or seen the marketing, I would in fact guess David Leitch directed this. What’s frustrating is that there are two moments in the film which evoke Edgar Wright’s signature style - one scene in which bullets are in sync with the sound of the music, and another in which Glen Powell’s face movies in the direction of the TV behind him. These moments remind us that Edgar Wright is still willing and able to indulge in his signature style, but for some reason, he decided not to. Here is my review of the film: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=WZulA36AdGU.

What did everyone else think about the film? And what motivated Edgar to pursue his signature style?

Do you agree with this? I thought this subreddit would be a better space for discussion of this: https://deadline.com/2023/03/roger-deakins-oscars-best-cinematography-not-nominated-breaking-baz-1235286295/.

Honestly, at this point in the cultural zeitgeist I feel like it’s even more impressive to garner a statement like this from Deakins than an Oscar nomination. Obviously though, it’s always easier to go on-paper rather than more extraneous materials. What are your thoughts?

If I had to describe it in one word, "weird" would definitely be it. I realize it's a comic book movie but the screenplay seemed to abruptly change directions whenever it felt like it, which seemed to be every few minutes. I honestly don't even know where to begin because there was so much going on in the movie and it didn't mesh well together at all.

I think what bothers me the most about it is that Diana's lasso of truth can now apparently do literally anything the plot demands in any scenario. I'm pretty sure in the first one, it just tied people up and could make them tell the truth. Now it can split and attack multiple targets, grab bullets, latch onto missiles and planes, attach to lightning bolts, give people visions of the past, and be used to connect to another magic user to send messages to all 4 billion people (population at the time) on the planet. It's ridiculous.

Diana can also apparently turn things invisible, something that was never mentioned before and was never mentioned afterward. And was only apparently useful in one brief scene.

I shit you not, it's constantly throwing these curveballs at you for the entire 2 hour and 30 minute runtime. Chris Pine shows up because he Quantum Leaped into some guy's body. Maxwell Lord goes from being a seemingly normal (albeit greedy and corrupt) businessman to a genie that decides he wants to be president.

I honestly had no idea what I was watching. I don't think I could sit down and explain the plot to another person in a way that would make any kind of sense.

My picks:

Fight Club (1999)

American Beauty (1999)

American Psycho (2000)