I have to disagree, Spielberg was always as inconsistent as he is now. It's just that the highs were higher and those movies stood the test of time.

He made 1941 between Close Encounters and Raiders, he made Always the same year as Last Crusade, The Lost World the year before Saving Private Ryan, etc. And he's still making great movies now, it's just easier to dwell on crap like The BFG or Ready Player One because we're in the middle of it and not looking back 30-40 years.

There aren't many filmmakers who make groundbreaking films in the first place, let alone someone who's in their 70s and is already one of the most transformative figures in the history of the industry. It's not so much a question of whether he can, it's a question of whether it's reasonable to expect him to do it again. It's probably asking too much.

That being said, though, I do think West Side Story and The Fabelmans are groundbreaking in the context of his own career. He had never made a musical before WSS and remaking an American classic is a tall order for anyone, and not only had he had never done a domestic drama as intimate as The Fabelmans but he had never made anything so nakedly personal.

So even if he isn't changing the industry he's finding new ways to make more personal films and that's exciting enough for me! And the fact that he's still making movies as good as WSS or Fabelmans is a blessing in and of itself.

Cube is set in a gigantic maze-like cube with thousands of different rooms that have various obstacles the characters have to deal with as they explore, but the movie had a tiny budget so they only built one room.

So what they did was build the room with removable panel walls that were different coloured gels. They simply swapped the panels from scene to scene so some rooms were red, some were blue, etc, and simple camera angles were enough to convince you the characters were travelling through this giant structure. Very cleverly done!

When Depp had the opportunity to transition into leading roles in movies he decided to work with people like John Waters, Tim Burton and Emir Kusturica. No one would have faulted him if he wanted to do dumb comedies or cop movies or whatever else, but he wanted to do work that he found interesting and challenged him as an actor.

So even putting talent aside Depp was particularly adventurous and was able to brand himself as a versatile and capable actor early in his film career. No disrespect to Luke Perry but he was no Johnny Depp.

They're both great movies but the question should be what kind of thing you're in the mood for. They're insanely different experiences and everyone who answers is just going to say which one they prefer, which doesn't tell you much.

Like, would you rather spend this time watching a hard-R psychedelic body horror movie about evil rich people on vacation or an ensemble drama about mennonite women in a barn discussing what future they want after having been abused by the men in their colony?

Women Talking is the better film if you ask me but what a weird comparison

Many idolize her purely for aesthetic reasons (ie her beauty and style), but many also idolize her for persevering and creating a remarkable career for herself despite the many abuses and personal problems she suffered.

Like this person said she was more intelligent and proactive than she's given credit for. She wasn't a piece of clay that was molded into the Marilyn Monroe we know, she was a hard-working businesswoman who developed a persona that had mass appeal and had the talent to back it up. It takes an incredible amount of resilience and strength to accomplish that despite the aforementioned abuse and addiction, and there's plenty to admire or idolize in her personal character even if you put her appearance aside.

My Dinner with Andre is a Terminator movie and no, I will not elaborate further

That movie has bomb written all over it

I don't know if it counts because it's not technically a dream but I want to shout out I'm Thinking of Ending Things. That movie feels like you're in someone's head, like you're watching someone's subconscious in free time. Characters talk over the ends of each other's sentences, the dialogue and performances are stylized in an inconsistent way (as if someone keeps changing their mind about how these people talk), character names and layouts of rooms change randomly, shots linger longer than they need to or cut abruptly in an uncomfortable way, even the sound design feels unnatural.

Everyone knows Kaufman is an accomplished writer but he really impressed me with his directing choices in this movie.

>If Bay had (for example) directed Titanic, it probably would have been a lot more CGI, and probably some slightly worse acting. But the script and the wide-appeal story (that one-night stand remembered 84 years later because "true love") would remain the same.

I don't get the point you're making here. Cameron wrote Titanic, so that story and heart in the script is coming from him, and Titanic is absolutely packed with CGI as it is.

A Bay-directed Titanic would probably look like Pearl Harbor, because that's what Pearl Harbor was trying to be. And that movie made a fraction of the money and got much, much worse reviews.

​

>Maybe 20 minutes in, I commented how bad of an acting job Millie Bobbie Brown was doing, and she (my partner) replied, “Is this a kid’s movie? It feels like one.”

It IS a kids movie. I'm really not sure what you were expecting.

Why isn't it enough for Kojima to be considered a world-class video game director? That's the field he's devoted his life to, so if you're going to praise him it doesn't make much sense to lump him into another category that he has nothing to do with.

Honestly having this conversation only cheapens the artform of video game development, as if you have to borrow some prestige from cinema in order to praise video game directors.

A big reason for the Oscars to exist in the first place is to promote the nominated films and boost the careers of the cast and crew who made them. It doesn't make business sense to go back and re-promote films that are 5-10 years old.

Also this would be tantamount to the academy publicly admitting that they made bad choices, and if they're trying to promote the Oscars as something prestigious and meaningful why the hell would they do that? And what would be the point of having the current-year Oscars if there's a chance they'd just write over the winners in 5-10 years time?

Just look at it with the healthy and realistic attitude that the Oscars are a snapshot of industry sentiment at a specific point in time and not some eternal indicator of the objectively best films of that year. These things are evaluated subjectively and no one is ever going to agree anyway, so it's a fool's errand to try and make them more objective or "right" or whatever.