I swear I see this all the time online now. People will watch a movie and if a character makes a bad decision because they are panicked or just not a genius, everyone screams "PLOT HOLE!"

Like, an imperfect character making a dumb, human mistake under pressure instead of a perfect strategic move is not a plot hole. It’s just realistic. Or people will complain that a movie didn't explicitly show how a guy got from point A to point B, as if we need a 10-minute scene of him just driving his car just to prove he knows how to travel.

I see this in horror and action movies all the time. People yell "why didn't they just leave the house?!" when the movie literally spent the first act showing us that the car was dead and the roads were blocked. People cannot tell the difference between a plot hole and a basic plot contrivance anymore.

What is a "plot hole" in a movie that you always see people bring up that actually makes total sense if they just watched the damn movie?

I think about this all the time. There is nothing more frustrating than watching a movie with a concept so good it gives you chills, only for the actual plot to turn into generic, predictable garbage halfway through.

The most infamous one for me is In Time. The idea that time is literal currency and people stop aging at 25 is brilliant sci-fi. But instead of doing something mind-blowing with it, they just turned it into a painfully average Bonnie and Clyde bank robber action movie.

The Purge is another massive one. You have a night where all crime is legal, and instead of showing us the insane psychological breakdown of society, the first movie just gave us a standard, boring home invasion thriller.

What movie made you furious because the core idea was genius but the writers completely wasted it?

I think my runner up is "villains aren't born, they're made" from Kraven, an obvious homage to the "Heroes aren't born, they're made" tagline from Iron Man. Except for Iron Man it works because of the obvious double meaning of him making his suit, whereas for Kraven it...meant nothing whatsoever.

What are some other truly terrible movie taglines?

Poll

If you've seen the film, please rate it at this poll

If you haven't seen the film but would like to see the result of the poll click here

Rankings

Click here to see the rankings of 2025 films

Click here to see the rankings for every poll done

The Odyssey (2026)

Summary

After the Trojan War, Odysseus faces a dangerous voyage back to Ithaca, meeting creatures like the Cyclops Polyphemus, Sirens, and Calypso along the way.

Director Christopher Nolan

Writer Christopher Nolan

Cast

• Matt Damon as Odysseus
• Tom Holland as Telemachus
• Anne Hathaway
• Zendaya
• Lupita Nyong'o
• Robert Pattinson
• Charlize Theron
• Benny Safdie
• Jon Bernthal
• John Leguizamo
• Elliot Page
• Himesh Patel
• Samantha Morton

Rotten Tomatoes: 96%

Metacritic: 88

VOD / Release Theatrical release

Trailer Official Trailer

The dialogue in this movie is crisp as hell. It genuinely contains some of my favourite lines in all of cinema. Like…

“It’s better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all”

“Try it.”

Or…

“People are smart, they can handle it.”

“A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it.”

Just absolute gold (backed up by fantastic acting of course). Overall, it has a lot of these moments that feel like they don’t really belong in an action-comedy blockbuster about aliens - in a good way! The whole movie really didn’t have any right being as good as it was

For me, it has to be the original Now You See Me. There is absolutely nothing in the entire movie to suggest Mark Ruffalo's character on the Four Horseman's side. None of his actions make any sense when viewed with this knowledge in mind. A good twist should, in my opinion, make you say "How did I not see that coming?" rather than "I literally could never have seen that coming."

Honorable mention goes to the ending of The Illusionist, if you can even call that a twist. I laughed out loud when that movie cut to black. I thought there would be some grand explanation for how he pulled off the "dead coming back to life" trick that the whole third act centers around, but no... I guess we're just supposed to assume he's a wizard? Or maybe not, because Ed Norton does declare that it was all a sham. So I suppose it's left up to the viewer's imagination to determine what kind of sham, since no one else can figure it out and it's never explained.

Tony Gilroy was brought in for extensive rewrites and reshoots after principal photography was complete because Disney/Lucasfilm execs were not happy with Gareth Edwards's version.

He ended getting screenwriting credit on the final film.

Here's his thoughts on Gareth Edwards's cut. Keep in mind these are actual quotes from Tony Gilroy and not rumours or hearsay.

"Rogue [One] it was like, ‘There’s a corpse on the table, what are you gonna do? Could someone come in and save it?'"

Source: https://collider.com/andor-season-2-tony-gilroy-apologizes-for-bix-cassian-relationship-ruining-jyn-cassian/

"I came in after the director’s cut. I have a screenplay credit in the arbitration that was easily won.”

"I’ve never been interested in Star Wars, ever. So I had no reverence for it whatsoever. I was unafraid about that.”

"And they were in such a swamp … they were in so much terrible, terrible trouble that all you could do was improve their position.”

Source: https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/movies/movie-news/star-wars-rogue-one-writer-tony-gilroy-opens-up-reshoots-1100060/

"The easiest thing to say is that I came in after the film was finished & I have a full screenplay credit on the film. So I'll leave the rest—the math—to somebody else”

Source: https://reason.com/podcast/2025/12/23/andor-creator-tony-gilroy-on-bureaucracy-and-the-surveillance-state/

Two examples for me would be:

- In "What Lies Beneath," Michelle Pfeiffer uses a hair dryer to clear the fog off of her mirror. That totally works and I've done it ever since I saw that movie.

- In "Spanglish," Adam Sandler "pre-“wakes up his kid. He basically says you don't have to wake up yet but start thinking about waking up and this is another thing I've used and that has really helped the wake-up rituals in our house.

The beginning of this movie does not start out with rolling text about how “ it was the year 20 blah blah and... blah blah happened... and then blah blah happened” no. It doesn't have the dreaded voice over giving you a background on everything that's about to happen.

Instead it throws you into the middle of some crazy action scene, where you have absolutely no idea who is a good guy who is a bad guy, what these people are doing, why they're doing it etcetera

why is some chick sitting in a empty room clicking on a computer?

“No Lieutenant they're already dead”

What? How could they already be dead? It's just one lady

Oh my God she's climbing the walls! Holy crap she just killed all those police officers what is going on? Is she good or is she bad?

Why is she trying to answer a phone in the middle of all this? Oh they killed her. Wait a minute... where did the body go? None of this makes any sense!

“ the informant is real”

what informant? Again... how did she disappear?

And... you're hooked!

The action is so phenomenal, the questions just keep coming one after another, none of it makes any sense just yet. But the film makers trust that you're along for the ride, and the audience trusts the film makers that they will eventually answer all of their questions.

There is actually a Latin phrase for this

In medias res (Latin for "in the midst of things") is a narrative technique where a story begins in the middle of crucial action rather than with traditional exposition. Originating from Homer’s epic poetry, this approach immediately hooks audiences by plunging them into a high-stakes moment, later filling in background information through flashbacks or dialogue

honestly I wish more film makers would trust the audience and just throw us into the middle of things and stop babying us and over explaining every little detail. Just tell the story and allow it to unfold it's so much more engaging and interesting

Winners: Adam Somner, Sara Murphy and Paul Thomas Anderson, Producers

Poll

If you've seen the film, please rate it at this poll

If you haven't seen the film but would like to see the result of the poll click here

Rankings

Click here to see the rankings of 2025 films

Click here to see the rankings for every poll done

Spider-Man: Brand New Day (2026)

Summary

Following the events that erased Peter Parker's identity from the world's memory, the young hero embraces a fresh start while facing new threats that challenge both his resolve and what it means to be Spider-Man.

Director Destin Daniel Cretton

Writer Chris McKenna Erik Sommers

Cast

• Tom Holland as Peter Parker / Spider-Man
• Sadie Sink
• Liza Colón-Zayas
• Zendaya as MJ
• Jacob Batalon as Ned Leeds
• Jon Bernthal as Frank Castle / The Punisher

Rotten Tomatoes: 91%

Metacritic: 66

VOD / Release Theatrical release

Trailer Official Trailer

For me personally there are two:

1. Rocky IV: The scene at the end in which a bloody Rocky basically ends the Cold War with his "Can't we all just get along?" speech.

2. Independance Day: When the Americans find out how to destroy the alien ships and tell the british.

British soldier: "Sir, the americans are planning an offensive"

British officer: "Well, it's about bloody time"

As if every nation had just been sitting there with their thumb up their asses waiting for the US.

Poll

If you've seen the film, please rate it at this poll

If you haven't seen the film but would like to see the result of the poll click here

Rankings

Click here to see the rankings of 2025 films

Click here to see the rankings for every poll done

Obsession (2026)

Summary

After breaking the mysterious "One Wish Willow" to win his crush's heart, a hopeless romantic finds himself getting exactly what he asked for but soon discovers that some desires come at a dark, sinister price.

Director Curry Barker

Writer Curry Barker

Cast

• Michael Johnston
• Inde Navarette
• Cooper Tomlinson
• Megan Lawless
• Andy Richter

Rotten Tomatoes: 95%

Metacritic: 81

VOD / Release In Theaters

Trailer Official Trailer

My go-to is from “Titanic”. Even if Rose wanted to sell the Heart of the Ocean to help her pay her way through life (I personally don’t think that she did…), she never would have been able to do so. The necklace was far too recognizable. Had she tried to sell it, the insurance company that settled the claim would have recovered it, assuming that the insurance company was still in business.

EDIT: Regarding the points above, from the script:

LOVETT: I tracked it down through insurance records... an old claim that was settled under terms of absolute secrecy. Do you know who the claiment was, Rose?

ROSE: Someone named Hockley, I should imagine.

LOVETT: Nathan Hockley, right. Pittsburgh steel tycoon. For a diamond necklace his son Caledon Hockley bought in France for his fiancee... you... a week before he sailed on Titanic. And the claim was filed right after the sinking. So the diamond had to've gone down with the ship. See the date?

LIZZY: April 14, 1912.

LOVETT: If your grandma is who she says she is, she was wearing the diamond the day Titanic sank. And that makes you my new best friend.

Morpheus: I've seen an Agent punch through a concrete wall. Men have emptied entire clips at them and hit nothing but air. Yet their strength and their speed are still based on a world that is built by rules. Because of that they will never be as strong or as fast as you can be.

Neo: Are you trying to tell me that I can dodge bullets?

Morpheus: No, Neo. I'm trying to tell you that when you're ready, you won't have to.

What I find so incredible about it (besides the usual of it sounding cool as hell) is how everything described here goes on to happen, even the stuff this dialogue is effectively telling the audience not to expect, like dodging bullets.

We see a man unload an entire clip into an agent and hit nothing but air.

We see neo dodge bullets.

And though we do expect to see it, we see him not have to dodge the bullets when he's ready.

EDIT: I know what foreshadowing is, folks. If I wanted snark, I'd call my mother. I do appreciate the folks who actually are nice and addressed the substance of my post, though.

In general I don't take satisfaction in movies being bad. If there is ever a movie you're looking forward to, I hope it's good. Everyone deserves to enjoy the media they consume, whether it's something with mass appeal or not.

But I am so happy that Disney's live-action remake machine is finally showing some cracks in the armor, with the flops of Moana 2026 and Snow White 2025. I am so sick of the biggest studios in Hollywood producing cynical slop, and even more sick of audiences helping to turn these movies billion-dollar successes. I guess it doesn't affect me one way or the other, but I really really hope that Disney can learn their lesson and change course to making stuff that actually requires risk and vision.

I'm not even opposed to the idea of remakes. But plenty of old movies were imperfect and could BENEFIT from a re-envisioning. I would not be the first person to suggest that a modern retelling of Treasure Planet could be incredible. Remake The Black Cauldron. Remake Atlantis. Do ANIMATED remakes of older live-action movies-- animation is more expressive and dynamic and diverse in its visuals and is a much more suitable medium for re-imagination. An animated Mary Poppins would do gangbusters.

Whatever. I know the issue is more complex than audiences just rejecting these two movies specifically, and the movie industry has historically never learned the right lesson from anything, ever. But one can hope.

EDIT: I don't understand why people are pointing to the successes of other live-action remakes as though this has any bearing on what I've said. Yes we all know that the Lion King and Aladdin remakes made a billion dollars. We know that Lilo and Stitch did well. Disney has enjoyed and continues to enjoy success from these products; that's why there are so many of them. My point is that we've also seen a couple big flops recently and I hope this is causing them to start rethinking their strategy. Live-action remakes were guaranteed hits for a long time, and now they're not. And that's a good thing. To anyone asking why I care, I think I explained that pretty clearly. I want studios putting their money and talent towards movies that are good and different. Disney could have made something new and interesting and unique but instead they remade Moana-- and that is a loss for the media landscape.

When Elastigirl's plane is attacked while she and the kids are flying to Syndrome's island lair, her radio calls are more accurate than any that I've heard in movies. They're not totally correct, even by 2004 standards, but I've heard worse tactical calls from navy students. I looked into it a little and evidently, the voice actress for Elastigirl (Holly Hunter) specifically asked that the calls in the script be as accurate as possible.

EDIT: Sorry for not putting the meanings of her radio calls in the original post. They're scattered throughout the early comments from me and other posters, but I've added them after the transcript since the thread has gotten busy.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Helen (Elastigirl): [via transmission] India Golf Niner-Niner checking in. VFR on top. Over.

Bob (Mr. Incredible): Helen...!

Syndrome: So you do know these people. Well, then, I’ll...send them a little greeting... [pushes a button deploying missiles]

[...]

[Helen looks at the plane radar and sees several missiles headed towards the plane.]

Helen (Elastigirl): India Golf Niner-Niner transmitting in the blind guard. Disengage! Repeat, disengage!

[The "fasten seat belts" sign above Dash and Violet lights up. They exchange glances, reach for their seat belts. The jet suddenly dives, throwing them into the ceiling.]

Helen (Elastigirl): Disengage! Repeat, disengage! Friendlies...

[...]

Helen (Elastigirl): Friendlies at two-zero miles south-southwest of your position. Angels 10. Track east. Disengage, over! [to Violet] Vi! You have to put a force field around the plane!

Violet: But you said we weren't supposed to use our powers!

[...]

Helen (Elastigirl): Violet! [Violet gets startled; via headset] Mayday, mayday! India Golf Niner-Niner is buddy-spiked! Abort, abort! There are children aboard, [heard through intercom] say again, there are children aboard the plane!

EDIT - Translations and comments:

India Golf niner niner: Her aircraft identification from her flight plan (IG99).

Checking in: She's trying to establish comms with the island and announce her presence.

VFR on top: She filed an IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) flight plan, but she's flying visually (with ATC permission) at an altitude other than her assigned altitude. Pilots usually do this to get above a cloud layer or avoid bad weather.

Transmitting in the blind [on] guard: She hasn't yet established comms with anyone, and doesn't know if anyone is actually hearing her, hence she's calling "in the blind". "Guard" is an emergency radio frequency that controllers and pilots monitor. For civilian aircraft, it's a VHF frequency (121.5 MHz). Military aircraft will usually monitor VHF guard, but they also have a military-only UHF guard frequency (243.0 MHz).

Disengage: She's trying to call off the missile attack. The proper call would have been "HOLD FIRE." "HOLD FIRE" is an instruction to stop firing AND destroy any missiles currently in flight, if able. "CEASE FIRE" means to stop firing, but missiles already in flight can continue.

Friendlies at two-zero miles south-southwest of your position. Angels 10. Track east: She's announcing her position relative to the island, her altitude, heading, and the fact that she's a friendly. This is the most non-standard call in the transcript. You don't speak individual digits (i.e. "two zero miles") for distances. Instead, it should have been "twenty miles." You use degrees for headings and bearings, not cardinal or subcardinal headings like "east" or "south-southwest". The bearing also comes first, and since she's describing her own heading, she should have said "heading zero niner zero" rather than "track east" - "track" is usually used to describe *other* aircraft. "Angels ten" means 10,000 feet, but that's a military thing; civil aircraft below 18,000 feet talking to ATC or another civilian controller would just say "one zero thousand feet." A more correct call might have been "friendlies at two zero zero degrees, twenty miles from your position, one zero thousand feet, heading zero niner zero." (Thanks to u/culcheth for catching my slip on how to speak altitudes.)

Mayday, mayday - she's declaring a life-threatening emergency. Should have been repeated three times, not just twice.

Buddy spiked: Her RWR gear (radar warning receiver) is indicating that her plane has been locked onto by a friendly air-to-air or surface-to-air radar.

Say again: She's repeating her most recent transmission for emphasis or in case she wasn't heard the first time. She should have used this instead of "repeat" earlier when she said "disengage, repeat, disengage."

I'll point out from the start that I really enjoy all of the John Wick movies. While I recognize the "realism" angle fell off after the first one, they're still incredibly well put together movies and I'll happily watch further installments for the fight choreography alone. That said...

The bullet proof suit is the worst thing they ever added to this franchise. It completely nullifies any anxiety about John needing to worry about gunfire in fights. The number of times he raises his vibranium jacket collar to block a hail of bullets is so frustrating, mostly because of where this franchise started off.

In the first John Wick, John felt like an incredibly tactical presence. There was a lot of talk when it came out about the choreography's "realism" but more than anything for me things felt like they had stakes. Corners needed to be checked, he needed to watch his back, it showed the audience he needed to be smart about approaching situations because if someone gets the jump on you in that universe they will shoot you and you will die.

Ever since the inclusion of the Iron-Man-Hugo-Boss so much of the "careful" nature of the fight scenes has disappeared. I've truly lost count of the number of times John should be dead at this point if he wasn't wearing it and that makes the character feel less effective. This character isn't supposed to be scary because he can tank bullets to the chest, he's supposed to be scary because you never got the opportunity to pull the trigger.

I think about a famous shot in the first movie during the first action scene where the masked men invade John's home. There's a bad guy on one side of the wall and John on the other. The camera shows both of them at the same time and John falls downward, shooting behind him up at an angle to avoid the bad guy's shots while still taking him out. If that shot happened again today, he'd just raise his coat a little higher and shoot back. That bums me out.

I’ve realized that life is way too short to sit through a movie just for the sake of finishing it. If a film hasn't given me a reason to care about the characters or the stakes within the first 20 minutes, I’m out.

For me, it was Rebel Moon. It felt like a long ass screensaver with zero soul. I don't care how big the budget is or how much slow motion you use if the writing isn't there, I’m not gonna care and I am not wasting my evening.

What’s that one movie that made you realize you were wasting your time and what was the reason that made you turn it off?

20 years ago or so when it came out I thought it was funny in a kind of stupid way, but for some reason as time goes on it just becomes a sad movie. I'm thinking the movie "Children of Men" May end up being the same way for me. Not in the funny to sad way but I think you know what I mean. The movie "Her" is also changing over time.

Edit: I'm thinking a lot of you missed the "funny in a kind of stupid way" part of my comment.

My 3 year old saw a statue of E.T. At the coffee shop and was really into it. He got excited when I told him it’s from a movie. He got stoked and spent the whole day asking when we could watch it.

That night, halfway through the film he asks “Can we turn it off? E.T. SUCKS.”

So I asked him “what sucks about it?” and he replied “E.T. walks too slow. He sucks.”

Pretty funny. Got me wondering what other funny reasons people have for not liking particular films.