Guy Ritchie's King Arthur.

I bought into the reviews saying it sucked and didn't give it a chance in theaters.

Saw it on Netflix and loved every minute.

Sucks we won't get any of the sequels now, I really wanted to see Merlin in that world.

Context is key.

If we are in the official discussion thread and the movie is currently out, all bets are off.

If we are in just about any other thread, spoiler tags should be applied.

Old movies with incredibly famous spoilers (Citizen Kane, Planet of the Apes) are a grey area IMO.

But spoilers should never be in the title, and after that it's context and judgement.

Wait, Heart of Darkness.. isn't a rousing jungle adventure?

As time goes on, it has become much harder to write convincing horror stories.

In 1930, the creak of Dracula's coffin slowly opening was pure nightmare fuel.

Now, it's a punchline.

Anything set after the 90's you have to get very creative to eliminate cell phones and the internet from your group of victims.

There's always no service, or low battery, because otherwise you could easily call the police or an Uber.

No one can run in a straight line without tripping so the lumbering juggernaut with a chainsaw/machete can catch up.

The key is to make these obstacle feel natural instead of contrived.

Most of these supernatural creatures we see in movies wouldn't actually be a threat in real life, at least not for long.

Which is why all the vampire/werewolf movies where they expend a shit ton of effort to stay hidden are actually well justified.

The movie isn't about what it's literally about.

It's an allegory for the Irish Civil War broadly, and more about how absurdly these kinds of conflicts start.

It's a heightened reality, just like McDonough other films.

Even allowing for all that, I don't see how the characters are unbelievable.

I've had friends that I eventually realized were holding me back and cut them loose.

It's a bit harder to do on a small secluded island with one pub, so the resentment and anger on both sides just keeps building until it boils over.

That each character's actions and reactions are irrational and emotional is the point.

One of my dad's favorite movies was Cross of Iron which features a particularly memorable nazi character.

We used to see everything in theaters but somehow he missed out on Inglorious Basterds.

I told him the nazi in this made that one look like a walrus.

I watched his face during the opening scene. At the moment >!when Hans Landa drops his smiling facade and reveals the stone faced killer beneath!< he lit up like a Christmas tree.

When he >!starts speaking in fluent Italian after the infamous bonjourno!< he lost it again, just as I expected.

One of the rare times I got to introduce a movie to him that I knew he would really love.

And she upends the stuffy aristocracy with her nonconformist attitudes!

I feel like this was an example of trying to stretch one good idea into a whole movie, and not having enough material to justify it.

The whole thing of putting on the glasses and the messages about conformity and all that, it's great stuff.

But then what? Body Snatchers already did this, better, just a couple years previously.

As far as the main character, he is a pretty standard Carpenter hero, which is to say he is a walking deconstruction of masculinity, much like Snake Plissken or Jack Burton.

Tastes have changed quite a bit since the late 70's, and things that used to be considered wacky hijinks are now seen in a different light.

But I don't think Carpenter ever intended for Roddy to be viewed as a conventional hero.

I like the one where a poor working class girl meets the heir to some random European monarchy and teaches him the true meaning of Christmas.

Dumb and Dumber

I was allowed to see this movie in theaters when I was a child and to this day was still the most I have ever laughed in a theater.

Would love to go into it again with no knowledge as I could perform the entire thing from memory at this point.

Even stories set hundreds of years in the future!

It actually makes a kernel of sense, French used to be the language of diplomacy and any educated person would have spoken it.

How do you communicate that to a modern audience?

(Classically trained British actor enters the room)

That bastard is long but so good.

Phenomenal phrasing there. I'm ☠️

These are two of my favorite movies.

I only got thinking about this because of a recent thread about prologues, and remembered how those two nagged at me over the years.

Wrath of Khan is actually a great example though.

It is possible to enjoy movies and discuss patterns and mistakes at the same time, especially when it is an unusual trope.

That's more of a causality loop, what I was looking for grope. example of a hero being in a place they would never be in order to make the plot happen.

Looks like I have successfully stumped Reddit and discovered a new trope.

The book is excellent, and thinks through a lot of the various plot holes that would come from this type of story.

The fact that it went through all the trouble, just for the movie to completely ignore it was very frustrating.

John Goodman's exterminator in this is legendary.

I didn't know this!

It was pretty blatant that they stole the Escape from Earth concept and only slightly retooled it.

Although I did still enjoy the movie.

Where were you on the night of September 27th?

>!It was coupon night and I was trampolining your wife.!<

The opening scene of Schindler's List, when he goes to the restaurant.

He starts out just as this man alone at a table, unknown to all, and by the end of the night he is the center of attention and everyone is eating out of the palm of his hand.

It is a masterful little scene, how he manipulates everything just right.

Ah the 90's.

I remember when this was on HBO amd saw it as a >10 little kid. So it was right up my alley.

I wish we could have gotten a few more movies like this back then.

Crazy to remember a time when Tank Girl and Bio Dome ruled the world.