Its that time of year, I was re-watching Elf, and have a totally different take on the final scenes where Walter Hobbs (the father) has a change of heart and quits his job on Christmas Eve.

The movie shows Walter’s boss as the bad guy making the team work on Christmas Eve. I mean, Christmas Eve IS generally a work day. But the whole reason they are there in the first place is because Walter signed off on a book that was missing pages (he even signed the proofs of the blank pages!) which is ruining the company’s reputation. I’m sure the big boss doesn’t want to be dealing with these shenanigans on Christmas Eve, but Walter gets him to fly into NYC to hear his pitch, which he actually didn’t prepare for at all. And then, after all of that, the whole team sitting around the table at Walter’s doing, missing their own Christmases, and he stands up, says “up yours” and leaves the room. Incredible! What a narcissist, right until the end.

It’s supposed to show his change of heart, but he managed to find a way to ruin everyone else’s holidays while skipping out a few minutes early to spend time with his family. I feel bad for the boss and the coworkers, only silver lining I guess is they don’t have to work with this jerk anymore.

It is a tired, tired statement, and maybe at some point it was true, but in 2026 if you can't find anything good to see at the theater, it's a you problem. Every week, there is at least one great film to see, and when you look at the lineup from this year to the last, it is full of ambitious, unique projects that are doing something new. Today I saw The Invite, which is a great adult comedy/drama, and half an hour later I saw a post about how no one is making adult movies anymore. It's just absurd.

I know certain folks will never stop complaining, and I try to make my peace, but I would really encourage anyone who feels this way to actively seek out new films. You may be pleasantly surprised!

I’ll start: Christmas Vacation. Literally every single character is vile beyond my worst imagining and every year I pray for the unrated cut where they activate the Event Horizon’s gravity drive and all die gruesomely. Thus is my hatred for this absolute piece of crap, appropriately filled with human garbage like Chevy Chase and Randy Quaid.

First 1 hour is really good, intense and in pace. Second half protagonist dies kinda off-screen. We dont follow the money anymore. Sheriff story goes to nowhere and i think if it gets cut down from the movie entirely, movie wouldnt lose anything. At the end for a reason someone crashes Anton his car randomly?

Its score is 8.2/10 on IMDB. What didnt i understand of this movie? Am i so wrong?

Ive decided to give this film a watch as ive read its one of the best movies ever. I just had to watch it after all the good praise it has. I just cant see what so special here, its not even a case of a movie aging bad. It was incredibly slow and nothing really happens for most of the film, plagued by long winded scenes of nothing happening. Felt like the movie was trying to be smarter than it actually was. The script was 2 pages long and the rest padding. The movie was to ambitious for what it really was.

There can be so many interpretations while none of them being right at the same time. As a film it completely failed and doesnt deserve the praise it gets. This film feels its geared more for a nitch audience thats likes looking into things to a microscopic level so they can argue amongst themselves on how they’re view on the movie is right and the others wrong. In a casual viewing sense this movie makes no sense and its shit. If you can skip the first 30 minutes and not miss anything them you failed somewhere.

I recently watched Nope (2022) and was quite intrigued/excited to see what it was about. I had a general idea about flying saucers, mystery and perhaps some Jordon Peele-esque allusions to things like filmmaking/sci-fi tropes/etc.

This film made no sense, and almost all of the elements are undercooked and half-baked in my sure-to-be-flamed opinion ;)

Let's start with the obvious flaws:

1. D. Kaluuya - acting was catatonic and truly uninspired. I like this dude, but I wouldn't call this a high point for him AT ALL. His arc in this story also made no sense and "random" is what I would describe his impact. For some reason lots of people give him the benefit of the doubt here but I'm not seeing it. Could possibly be replaced by pretty much any comparable actor in this role.

2. Steven Yeun's character - probably the most intriguing part of the story, made no sense. And this comes from a Twin Peaks fan who often looks for underlying meaning to subtle plot points and general mood that probably goes nowhere but up a butthole lol. There was lots of slow-zooms and mysterious camera angles but ultimately his arc didn't accomplish anything except be a red herring? Maybe I'm missing something but my general feeling is there were cuts made to his side of the story and it messed up the meaning. Anyone agree? I truly like Yeun as an actor but this just wasn't it.

3. The monkey scenes. I mean, this piqued my curiosity throughout, and I was begging for it to come back round and imbue the film with a underlying message of....something...anything...I'm truly confused about what Peele thought he was communicating here with these vignettes? Once again, maybe I'm missing something so if someone can help, that would be appreciated.

4. The ending: To me, a good ending has to have some level of threat or risk involved. The good guys have to overcome or not overcome a challenge and this leads to a satisfying conclusion (for me personally). However, like other not-so-good films I've seen, this "threat" is never really present, and the "good guys" kind of accomplish...something...just in the nick of time? Before what?

5. That saucer: now I know this is a personal subjective thing, but for some reason, the flying cowboy hat with a butthole never truly landed for me...Maybe he was trying to say something about filmmakers being up their own butts? Truly baffling stuff. It kinda ruined my immersion and I think a more traditional saucer would actually have helped since the overt mixing tropes and allusions kind of muddled an already muddled story.

Sorry for the long ramble, I'm truly looking for some discussion around these points in good faith. I realise lots of people liked this film but I wouldn't give this anything higher than The Matrix Resurrections, which was also a truly confusing journey from a filmmaker probably overstretching themselves. Also if I need to censor anything in the post please let me know - trying to be vague as possible for those who haven't seen it.

AY REDDIT I'M SKWEEZY JIBBS. YOU MAY KNOW ME FROM YOUTUBE, TIKTOK, FACEBOOK, AND INSTAGRAM.

I MADE A MOVIE AND I'M TOURIN AROUND THE USA WITH IT! TO CELEBRATE, I'M HERE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS.

• DIRECTED BY Michael Ward

• PRODUCED BY David Allen Cress, Tim Savage, Kevin Sullivan

• WRITTEN BY Tim Savage

• STARRING Tim Savage, Adam Pasi, Abigail Killmeier

• WEBSITE: https://skweezymovie.com/

• TRAILER: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PRFMmdsxB7g

• SYNOPSIS: Amateur internet personality Skweezy Jibbs attempts to make his dream movie despite having zero resources or ability. His mother's interference leads him to question his identity.

• MY TIKTOK, YOUTUBE, IG, and FACEBOOK.

AMA REDDIT! BACK AT 4 PM ET TODAY (THURSDAY 8/27) TO ANSWER YA'LL QUESTIONS

I recently have gone back through the years to trace my steps and fully watch some of the films that I was exposed to.

This one, Kids, was shown to us in high school (I think I was 14 or 15), or at least the first 30 minutes or so in conjunction with a subject about sex or drugs.... can't remember. After watching the whole thing over a decade and a half later, I am now convinced that that teacher was smoking pot because there is absolutely nothing of pedagogical use in this trash, and worse, it could have led many of us down a delinquent path.

The story in short:

In inner city NY, a boy named Telly is going around the neighbourhood deflowering virgins as a hobby, while in his downtime drinking, talking in the most raw disgusting way about girls possible, and causing trouble across the neighbourhood with his equally awful friends.

Plot Twist: Telly is HIV positive (he is likely unaware) and when one of his previous victims finds out after getting a positive test, she travels through the city to find him and let him know.

Why this movie is awful:

I could just say everything but that would be cheap.

-Zero plot development by the end. You could just shut it off at 40 minutes and you wouldn't have missed anything, other than more showcase of how awful the characters are.

-Disgusting main characters. Not a single character has anything likeable about them. The way they act, the way they talk, is repellent from start to finish, and there never seems to be any consequence to anything, bolstering the nonchalant nihilism motivating the writers.

-The naturalistic storytelling is matched with a lack of any clear message other than: the world is going to hell, no one can do anything about it, so that's it. Given however the predicament the protagonist is in, we could at least have seen some come-uppance of some kind, but no.

-AIDS, dugs, alcohol abuse, race relations, homophobia, rape, teenage delinquancy.... all these subjects seem to be here to shock the US public and little else. There are plenty of triggers for the audience throughout the entire movie, but no clear message. The movie seems to be trolling the viewer, and little else.

-We see this serial triggering of reactions from several elements: -the sexual dialogue by Telly, then the boys, then intermixed with the dialogue by the girls, the fight scene in the park with the racial undertones (as the black guy is knocked out, brutalised and spat on), the verbal attack on the homosexual couple, robbing of an Asian store with verbal abuse to distract the owner, rape, the concept of HIV being spread to virgin girls.

This way beyond simple triggering by depicting decadent lives of inner city delinquency. It is a package to provoke the audience wherever possible. This is the bread and butter of this trashy movie.

-Girls at 13 can be pretty naive, but I have trouble believing they are as naive as the main characters in the film are depicted. The teenage girls of the movie are little more than dolls, on their way to be victims, and act as such.

Basically fewer and fewer people will remember this movie and for good reason. It has nothing other than shock value, and the most vile dialogue you will ever hear in a movie.

I went into it with an open mind. The above is what I came out of it with. It is a shock fest with a nihilistic message and ultimately no larger statement to make.

I contrast this with Christiane F. – Wir Kinder vom Bahnhof Zoo which is the polar opposite of this, and with no less awful content, but with an actual message, based on an actual story.

I rate: 5 out of 100

EDIT: Several of the comments seem to claim I hated the movie because it wasn't a happy story or because it's subject matter may be disturbing, or there is some moral objection here. No. The issue is that these elements are all the movie has going for it, and ultimately does nothing with any of them. (The movie I compared it to above should however make clear that the content isn't the issue)

Despicable characters alone do not a great movie make. Edgy subject matter and shock value don't either. It seems to me that many believe the provocation and shocking depiction of the characters and juvenile life alone in and of themselves qualify the film as a form of naturalistic art. I do not. It is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it.

(Though one might wonder for those same people, if shock and disgusting subject matter is all that is needed, whether if the director himself drove over and unleashed a dump on their front porch, whether they might dissect the remains for objective value as it can't just be what it is at face value, surely)

For me, it's a void piece.

EDIT 2: I am reading all of the comments disagreeing with me. I respect those that take a different view and am trying to see where they are coming from, even though I feel quite secure in my judgement of the film.

EDIT 3: Many users have commented that this movie was not that exaggerated compared to their experience in similar areas and circumstances to what they grew up in. I respect that. However it does not completely detract from the point that the movie has little to say based on that experience, as I outlined above. The film is a movie, not a documentary, and shies away from making any larger statement beyond just a fictional depiction (albeit based on factual wider circumstances). I have been told at least 20 times I have missed the point of the movie, but the problem is that the point is not clear, or at least may only be visible to certain people, for those that hold a mirror to themselves and see something. Such being the case, I accept the limits to my own comprehension. However, from a general perspective I think the point is still muddled.

I can't for the life of me understand why people liked this movie. I thought it sucked.

Much like the original film, it was two hours of pure US navy propaganda, with air-cowboys saving the world in their super reckless yet lovable way, yet again. Ugh. Same tired tropes as the first film, same obnoxious & overconfident characters, same exact story formula, same insane Tom Cruise stunts, same overall piece of crap.

Am I completely wrong? Is it actually a good bit of cinema? Am I just being unfair?

it's definitely great 100% but I don't get why it's crowned so much in pop culture. I'm 20 so it could be because I can't relate much if that make sense

I even said this once on instagram and got called monkey and a bunch of other racial slurs for questioning why it's iconic, people love this movie like their mom lol

the interview, kickass and hot tub time machines were more of my speed back then

Yesterday, the mods of /r/movies voted unanimously to join /r/IAmA and /r/science in going private in protest to the actions of the Reddit admins. Today we voted unanimously to end our protest and bring the subreddit back. We thank you for your patience and understanding.

Much has been said by many people about the coordinated black-out across Reddit. Our participation was directly related to Victoria's key position at Reddit, not just coordinating of AMAs but also as the only admin that responded regularly to our concerns and needs as moderators.

Our sole goal with this subreddit is to provide a forum for the discussion of movies and the motion picture industry. Unfortunately we cannot do that without a supportive infrastructure in place. Victoria's dismissal was effectively a dismissal of that infrastructure. As such, we recognized the need to draw attention to the issue.

We do not consider the issues caused by Victoria's departure to be resolved, but we also do not consider a repeated blackout of /r/movies to be useful in resolving them. We are working with the Admins and the moderators of other subreddits to bridge the gap; in the interim, we are returning the subreddit to normal.

For those of us who joined us in /r/flicks yesterday, thanks for checking out the sub. We encourage you to say subscribed, as we view /r/flicks as a safe "back room" further from the default mentality. And for everyone: thanks for your patience and understanding. If we didn't think this was necessary to ensure the quality of the sub moving forward, we wouldn't have done it.

• the mods

Don’t get me wrong as a thriller it felt really engaging and well done but my problem lies more with its theming. My impression is that they wanted to make a movie showing how vigilantism isn’t justified and that the dad character went too far. Personally I felt the dad was justified considering the guy he tortured was complacent in what happened and actively chose not to talk but that is besides the point.

My problem with the ending is that while they’re trying to show this message that vigilantism is wrong the main detective is so incompetent that they actually never would have found out who the actual kidnapper was and saved the second girl if not for the fact that the dad figured it all out by torturing the guy and spooking the real kidnapper. It feels pretty counterproductive to show how vigilantism is bad only then to have that same vigilante be the only reason his daughter is saved and the kidnapper is stopped. In fact I’d go as far as saying the main detective was terrible throughout the movie considering he screws up at literally only step and fails to solve the case until it’s handed to him on a silver platter. Regardless of how you felt about the themes it felt pretty undeniable that they delivered it very poorly with how the conflict is resolved

Most people always bring up the fridge scene and say it's not "realistic"...even though many things in the other movies are also not realistic. Surviving from a plane, mountain slope and waterfall in just a raft without a parachute in Temple of Doom is "so realistic".

And the old movies focus on the religious/biblical artifacts. So, bringing Aliens into the picture made it bad for most people...even though the aliens were worshipped as gods. Still technically biblical.

And people also complain about how the movie looks. Like why is the movie so bright and with a white tint? It's because they wanted to copy the way they made movies in that era, which is pretty clever actually, but no one liked it.

And everyone hates Shia Lebouf and I have no idea why. I did read about that he copied an already existing script word for word and that's why people hate him. I guess you can hate him as a person, but as an actor and the movies that he has been in have been good films. I Robot, Constantine, the Transformers trilogy, Fury, I thought were all pretty good. And him starring in these movies did not ruin the films, unlike how most people think that that is the case.

Everyone's excuses are pretty dumb. I think they just hate just because they want to. Just like what happened before the Morbius movie came out. Everyone made memes of it because they "knew" that it would fail. The movie wasn't that bad, but everyone memed the shit out of it.

This is my favorite Indiana Jones movie, and I will always defend this movie.

But what do you think? Do you love it or hate it?

I just watched Mountainhead and honestly, it is the worst movie I have seen in 2025. The pacing is slow, the characters are shallow, and the plot feels like it is trying to be deep without actually saying anything. It pretends to be artistic, but it is just boring and confusing.

The plot to kill Jeff is where I completely gave up. It is supposed to be serious and emotional, but it was so cringe I actually laughed out loud. It felt like a bad parody, and then somehow Jeff survives anyway, which makes everything leading up to it completely pointless.

The mountain does not mean anything, the visions go nowhere, and the entire journey adds up to absolutely nothing. They build up all this mystery for two hours and give you zero answers. It is just vague scenes, random symbolism, and a bunch of nonsense dressed up to seem important.

The whole movie is a complete waste of time. It tries to look smart, but it is hollow from start to finish. In a year full of great films, Mountainhead stands out as a total failure.

I dont know why pulp fiction is this untouchable work in tarantino's discography everybody i talk with has it at number 1 automatically . Okay i have 3 reasons why . 1 . All the scenes in django are fantastic with no exeptions but on the other hand theres some scenes on pulp fiction that are annoying like the first scene of the couple at mcdonalds . 2 . The music in django is far better and fitting . 3. The story of django was told in far more intresting way .