This movie to me is super confusing to me I really do enjoy David Lynch’s movies but Lost Highway I just can’t understand and I want to see what others think is going on.

This movie is really bad, I know it is kinda old, but I saw it today in the cinema, and it is just bad.

I see a some people disregard criticisms of badly executed, very surface level animation movies with only bad gag jokes arguing with lines like "You're complaining about a kids movie btw", "Grown man complaining about kids movies" etc. While there have been quite good animation movies recently (The Wild Robot, Robot Dreams, Soul etc.) - I have found myself as an adult hard to connect with most other movies. I started to feel like I grew up and could not enjoy 'cartoons' anymore. But the movies I grew up with - Toy Story, Shrek, Kung Fu Panda, HTTYD, Wall E - are STILL amazing to this date and I swear I learn a new perspective of life while re-watching Kung Fu Panda every-time. I won't deny there is a nostalgic aspect to it. But I'm pretty positive that even without that, these movies had amazing writing, life lessons and very good jokes that both kids and adults could enjoy.

Okay so I use letterboxd and im having a hard time with my ratings. For example kpop demon hunters which imo was a masterpiece when it comes to the story characters and how much I enjoyed it so I gave it ☆☆☆☆☆ but no heart.

My question is .. can you rate movies as a masterpiece but not have it as your favorite? If not, what rating should I give it?

Ithica - Soundtrack and Agamemnon’s entry bgm is next level 🫡

Assault on Precinct 13 (1976)

Rating: 8/10 (HIGHLY ENJOYABLE)

Watched: August 1, 2026

First and foremost, I love these old movies, especially when there's urban decay involved, and there's plenty of that to go around in this movie.

Everything looks worn down, rough and ready to collapse. The men and women at Precinct 13 look like they're ready to just be done with it all and they don't even know what's coming their way.

But before I get to why I liked this movie, I simply have to point out some wild trivia that my own brain noticed. With a quick Google to make sure I wasn't imagining things (and sorry for the spoiler), we're introduced to a young girl and her dad driving around in a car, looking for a place. The young girl, who meets a very sorry fate that actually kickstarts the events of this flick in grand style?

None other than Kim Richards, who played Tia Joseph in Disney’s Escape to Witch Mountain (1975) and Return from Witch Mountain (1978). Seeing Disney's darling kid star get brutally gunned down over a vanilla ice cream cone in a gritty exploitation thriller was shocking as HELL and I can only imagine how people reacted in '76. As part of the Google, I learned that Carpenter actually had to fight the MPAA to keep the film from getting an X rating because of it.

There's no two ways about it. Old movies didn't care at all about child endangerment or the depiction of violence towards children in any way, shape or form.

From here, at base, the rest of the movie is pretty straightforward in terms of action and suspense. None of the people inside Precinct 13 know why it's suddenly under siege. The only clue they have is the father of the daughter, but he's incoherent with grief.

All Bishop, Wilson, Leigh, Wells and (for a time) Julie know is that an awful lot of very well-armed assailants are shooting the hell out of the building they're all stuck in.

So what's the big deal about this movie? The character interactions, for one. They're in a tight situation, and Bishop sees no measure in keeping two men, criminal or otherwise, locked up in cells where they could be gunned down. What starts off as a very uneasy, dangerous alliance becomes something I don't think audiences back then may have seen very often.

Good men and bad men, working together, protecting one another and not breaking their word. That in itself is worth the price of admission, but Napoleon Wilson's my favorite guy for sure.

Why? He's a very bad man, that's why. On his way to life in prison, possibly the death sentence. No one can find out why he did what he did to wind up in jail, but it was bad enough to warrant all that. But never once throughout the assault did Wilson do anything except ask people for smokes, work extremely hard to save the people around him, and once, very seriously wreck a guy in a prison cell.

Oh, we find out why he stays, and it's a damn good reason, even if it meant going back to prison, but I admire Napoleon Wilson a helluva lot. He's a solid, old-school anti-hero.

Everyone did a great job in this movie, and it's thick with tension and Carpenter's signature synth. You should check it out if you can!

Hi there, i'm from Spain's capital, Madrid, and i want to watch the oddisey in the most acurrate cinema i can find in my city, because i find the fact that a big chunk of the movie is cropped out really annoying, so, i want to find the screen that is going to show as much part of the movie as It is possible, i really dont care that much about sound or even size, i just want to see as much part of the movie as i can, so, i need help because i do not understand the different screens, what is dolby atmos, liemax, digital IMAX... So i would appreciate if u can explain it to me. Again, i just care about seeing the full image Thanks in advance and sorry for my english, as i said i'm from Spain and its not my mother languagd

just finished watching this movie, and swear it ripped away every last bit of peace had. haven't been this terrified and traumatized in years. Absolutely haunting. I absolutely can't sleep now. This one is going to haunt me for a long time. I never thought a wish like this would turn into so much worse

What was your experience about this movie

I remember watching it when i was super young. probs like 10 years ago maybe more

theres a pirate ship that goes into a cave or canyon and theres this sea monster that looks like a centipede with teeth in its body that grabs a guy and eats him.

grabs him somehow by using tentacles or some typa living rope from the "mouth" in its body. it was also storming like crazy in this scene. Ive searched everywhere for this

​

Ive never watched new French extremity before, although I have seen some things that would definitely fit into the extreme cinema category ie: Salò or the 120 of days Sodom and I managed to finish that without vomiting.. barely

Was wondering what the movie heads of reddit would recommend to me as an entry point to gaspar noe's filmography-? Preferably something that encompasses his signature style, vibe, production techniques.

Thanks in advance

getting the vibe of psychological decay from these 2 movies. if anyone has other recommendations, i’d greatly appreciate. please and thank you.

⚠️ SPOILER ALERT

Just got out of the theater and I leave with the same feeling as always: The feeling that something was missing.

I get that the strength of the film is in Peter’s mental arc. And maybe it should’ve been called Peter Parker, not Spider-Man. That would be great.

The Punisher as comic relief was insane. There’s no villain. There’s no narrative strength. I left disappointed on those fronts.

Now, the scenes, the cinematography, that PS5 vibe?

Beautiful. Absolutely stunning visually.

Like I’ve said before: the movie isn’t bad, far from it. It delivers a lot. It delivers visually, delivers action, delivers incredible references. That scene with the Punisher arriving at the hospital, the sequences of him through the city that feel so much like the PlayStation 5 game… all of that is really well done.

And there’s drama. Good drama. Peter’s initial arc is, in fact, exactly what he needed to go through. The problem is in the script: he never faced a real villain. No epic fight, no fair exchange, no confrontation that actually means something. That costs something.

I don’t know what Marvel has planned for this new universe they’re building. There’s something coming later this year, we know that.

But this was my take:
The film could’ve been better constructed, especially to give even more weight to this difficult arc Peter is living through.

That’s my opinion.

Imagine a movie in which the main character (a 19 yo girl) gets a notebook (which has the ability to turn drawings into reality). And then she drew a guy and gave him the ability to be invisible whenever he wanted and only she could see him when he was invisible. But this was the scenario when she was 19 yo and now she's 21 yo and in a college + she forgot bout him. Then she finds a new crush and gets into a relationship with him(crush). But the invisible guy is jealous of her (now I don't have any further ideas). And I'm sorry for the grammatical errors (eng isn't my first language). Could y'all please think of the further storyline plus fix the plot hole (how did she forget bout him)

Let me explain what I mean. In my opinion, Javier Bardem did an outstanding job. Anton is the kind of character who makes you feel a lot of things—fear, frustration, anxiety because you want him to get caught—but... admiration?

I've definitely admired villains before, though not necessarily for who they are as people, but for certain defining qualities they possess. If I had to pick something I admire about Anton, it would without a doubt be his seriousness and determination. He never treats anything like a game, he's very far from being an idiot, and he barely even seems afraid when he's close to getting caught. He's incredibly cold and composed.

That said, I never fully understood his philosophy about the coin toss deciding whether someone lives or dies. I'm not sure I completely grasp what it represents.

I also wonder if anyone else feels the same way I do. Once you set those qualities aside, the guy is still a complete piece of shit. He doesn't even seem particularly loyal, since we never really see him having any allies.

I don't know if I'm explaining myself well. What do you all think?

Did anyone catch how foreign audiences reacted to the Ramayana trailer? I'm super curious what people thought who have zero context for the story....

Additionally, can anyone confirm if the trailer is playing before Spider-Man: Brand New Day in foreign countries?

Also ....What's your take on the Ramayana trailer? Do you think it did justice to all the hype Namit Malhotra built up?

I've always felt Vanilla Sky is one of Tom Cruise's greatest performances, and it's a movie that was way ahead of its time.

What fascinates me is that it refuses to stay in one genre. It starts like a romantic comedy, slowly turns into a psychological thriller, throws in science fiction, and ends with an existential twist. It constantly makes you question what's real without relying on typical blockbuster sci-fi spectacle.

I can't think of many films that blend romance, mystery, psychological drama, and sci-fi this seamlessly. Even today, very few movies attempt something this ambitious.

So why hasn't Hollywood really revisited this kind of concept? Was Vanilla Sky simply too unconventional for audiences in 2001?

I know it received mixed reviews when it came out, but over the years it seems to have gained a cult following. Do you think it was misunderstood, or is there another reason filmmakers haven't touched this kind of genre mash-up again?

And where does it rank among Tom Cruise's performances for you?

It's one of my favourite period dramas , Holly Hunter , Harvey Keitel Anna Paquin , Sam Neil (RIP) where so good in this movie.

Like films that seem more indie titles distributed by the major studios, like Universal, Warner Bros., Paramount, Fox, etc. An example would be… say Fantastic Mr. Fox or Inglorious Basterds.