Press J to jump to the feed. Press question mark to learn the rest of the keyboard shortcuts
Coming soon
22 points · 1 day ago

I've gotten into the debate here before with you a year ago, resulting in my participation in this sub to drop dramatically (Not that I matter... I'm only one person).

My issue here is the overall rule, in general. It was made after a feedback thread four years ago with only 164 replies on it. That's not a proper subset to make a decision like that from, and this sub has grown significantly since then, with the added "benefit" of being a default sub.

On one hand, I understand that you don't want the sub to get overrun by genre-posts. On the other hand though, the upvote/downvote mechanic takes care of posts that would be considered too "trivial", while also allowing for discussion to occur.

The reason why I return to this debate after a year is that this sub has a significantly different audience than r/StarWars, /r/marvelstudios, and /r/DCcinematic. People here talk about different aspects of these movies, sometimes from the perspective of a non-fan, which is interesting to see.

Concerning this week, specifically: This is "Black Friday" for mainstream movies. You guys should expect to be busy as hell, but being a default sub, I believe it should be to foster broad discussion, not to bottle it away in one thread where specific points get lost in the thousands of comments.

Now, I do apologize if my earlier deleted comments were too mean-spirited in their sarcasm. At the very least though, I think the thread containing the SDCC rules should have remained open for discussion such as this. I think the Star Wars comic book movie rules are detrimental to this sub and the idea that it should be about all movies, not pruning out whole genres. It reminds me of the Parks & Rec episode where the video store closed down because they only showed obscure indy movies, although in this case, instead of porn, we'll be getting more discussion on movies that the majority of the population actually watches.

see more

You're missing large parts of what I had to say yesterday.

We don't pick on these genres. The genres pick on us. They're the only ones that saturate us with this much marketing. We hold these rules across the board, they only tend to affect major franchise movies because those are the ones that cause problems.

As for the upvote/downvotes doing all the work, can we just put this to rest? It's been tested and failed. The avergae user doesn't check sources or legitimacy, they upvote titles. Leaving the votes to handle everything would cause the most trivial posts to rise. This is shown every morning when I wake up and see all the upvoted posts that gained traction while we slept.

As for the rules being based on a four year old discussion, that's simply not true. These rules were cultivated over many years, they didn't all come at once. Every time we introduced one we test ran it for a month and asked for feedback and every single time we get the same answer from our daily users. More moderation, less saturation. We listen to the users more than you think.

Also I do expect to be busy this weekend. I'm literally at work right now discussing this with you. I typed up a whole post yesterday explaining everything in great detail. I got several PMs saying it made things clear and even asked for it to be linked in the sidebar. I got no modmails arguing against the rules even though I encouraged that in the post.

At the end of the day the only time people care about these rules are this weekend. Just like the only time anyone cares about when our official discussions drop is when they're favorite movie is coming out and it doesn't favor their schedule. We aren't going to change our totally realistic rules for one weekend. You act like we won't allow anything but if there's big news it will be allowed. You're making a wall of text out of a non issue.

But at the end of the day the best way I can put it is that we as a team have put years into making this a place where all movies can be discussed and the news can be trusted. We do it every day. You come here once a year to try and change us and we listen to the users every day. We value all feedback but this is actually what the sub wants, not just what the comic fans who feel oppressed want. The kinds of posts we don't allow is all small stuff or rumors or out of context quotes. Those things won't make this place better and it won't stop people from complaining.

I don't know what more to say. These are the rules, they have lots of thought and feedback behind them, and if you don't agree with them then you might be less of a majority than you think.

Being a mod sounds awful. I can't imagine working somewhere where basic guidelines for the sake of organization result in karma-happy nerds going "I'm pretty sure I pointed out the problem with your guidelines whenst we last debated good sir" every single year.

see more

Yeah on one hand you don't want people to feel unheard or give them ammunition to say they are being ignored or censored. On the other hand... Oi.

Load more comments

Original Poster2 points · 1 day ago

You're the guy that's all about Paddington 2 right?

see more

Who's askin

Original Poster2 points · 1 day ago

Just tell me your opinion of the original Point Break in 2 sentences.

see more

One of, if not the, best Patrick Swayze films. Classic bro action with solid direction and a foot chase that should be studied in film school.

Load more comments

Comments are locked

I wish I could get really excited about SDCC. I wish I could revel in the torrent of information that comes out and all of the star panels and new movie posters. It's all right up my alley, but the problem is that every year I have to spend this entire weekend arguing with fans. People who hear about something going on at Comic Con and choose to take this time to become personally offended by our rules, or hit me with walls of text about why we should change our rules for this weekend.

It's just not going to happen. We don't change our rules every time a new Star Wars movie comes out, and we aren't going to change how we define news so that every answer at a comic con panel can take up our entire front page. Believe it or not, there is still movie news happening outside of SDCC that fits under our definitions of news. There is no shortage of news, only a major uptick in rumor and speculation as everyone at SDCC tries to entice us and tease us.

In this subreddit we define movie news as information that has been confirmed by a studio and is specific to a movie with major distribution. Sometimes we allow news that is confirmed by a major actor or director involved with the project, but we have to be careful with these because actors and directors actually have a lot less say in what does and doesn't get made than you may think. With this definition we have no bias against comic book movies, or any specific comic book property. These rules were originally made to combat the amount of fluff news we got from popular properties, but we mostly hold to it across the board. Here's some examples of things that count as news:

  • Studio announces new Green Lantern film. X actor and Y director are attached.

  • X director has exited Y film during production, neither the studio nor the director has commented.

  • X Actor says the papers are signed and he is playing DC's Hitman in an upcoming film.

  • A full trailer for upcoming film.

  • A significant poster for an upcoming film, if it is one of many posters released over a long period of time, it needs to have a first look at something. A character we haven't seen in a trailer or another poster is usually what we look for.

Things that we don't consider hardline news are a little more vague, and sometimes they don't actually affect anything. Here's some examples.

  • X Actor says he would love to play DC's Hitman.

  • X Director says they've written a script for Green Lantern at the request of DC.

  • Has X Director exited Y production? Sources are saying they have.

  • A teaser trailer (usually less than a minute with very little information, sometimes we allow these as initial announcements. Like, if a movie is announced by way of a short visual that's considered news. If a movie has been announced for a long time and they drop a short visual on us then we probably won't allow it.) or a TV Spot (usually just a shorter recut of other official trailers. 3-5 seconds of new footage not found in other trailers is not reason enough to be allowed.)

  • A poster for an upcoming film, the third one released this week and has all of the same characters we have already seen, but in a different art style.

  • X actor on Disney "They are literally Satan."

  • A sequel to Shrek 5 is being written, as a comic/musical.

  • LEAKS. This is a big one and I get it. The internet seems like the obvious place to spread leaks. The problem is that they are always awful quality, and when it comes to Comic Con they are usually either things we wouldn't allow anyways (like short visual teasers or a logo) or things that will get released on YouTube soon anyways. When you post a video of a trailer you took in a dark room with bad sound and people around you screaming, then an hour later the legit trailer gets posted by the studio, you're making things very difficult for us. We either have to allow both (nope), remove one once the other is posted (but muh discussion and upvotes!), or only keep the first one, which is the poor quality one. Easy fix here, no leaks allowed.

It may seem like I'm targeting comic movies with those examples, but the fact is that we only have this saturation in marketing with popular franchises. It's not about keeping popular movies down, it's about sending a message making sure all kind of movies get a fair chance to be represented on this sub. There are huge subs for franchise films, this is a general movies sub. Our users would like to talk about all movies, not just the ones that already have huge followings. If this list of rules seems really unfair to you, I only ask that you remember that these are our daily rules and we didn't make them up to punish certain IPs at comic con, and also that to most of our users, this is actually a very fair list of rules.

At the end of the day, we want to ensure that the stories found on this subreddit are trustworthy and tangible and that all majorly distributed films get a chance to be discussed. That is our main goal. If you believe we are being paid to keep certain stories down or that we just really hate your favorite comic, that's fine and we know we can't convince you otherwise. Let's just cut down the threats, doxxing, and witch hunting this year. Please? Speaking of which, comments will be disabled for this post. We've heard all the arguments and we've been called shills enough times. If you have questions, bring them to modmail.

As a general note, whenever something big happens that we wouldn't usually allow (for example when Superbowl comes around and we know we're about to be hit with lots of TV spots), sometimes we decide to make a megathread. That way users still have access to the information but it's not taking up a spot on our front page, it's using a sticky spot that we had free anyways. We honestly consider this a win/win and we don't understand why people report those threads. The only catch is that we are normal people who have jobs. We may not get to it right away, and I guess all I can ask here is that you understand that. Seems pretty simple but you'd be surprised.

1.0k points · 4 days ago

Whoever is managing Chalamet's career needs a raise.

see more

That's the great thing about managing talent. The better of a job you do, the more raises you get. It's called taking a percentage.

48 points · 4 days ago

It ain't that easy. A lot of A-listers have duds. This guy is going from one win to another.

see more

My point is if you're managing talent and you deserve a raise you've likely already gotten it.

Hey y'all, I just wanted to say I love your version of Happiness is a Warm Gun and all of the visuals in that scene. It was really something, so many scenes in this movie blew my mind wide open when I was younger.

How hard is it to make trippy visuals a reality? Do you find it difficult to translate acid-induced thoughts and images to the screen? Thanks for this movie, it's really special.

There's a lot to love in this movie, and I'm happy to say that if you felt like the trailer gave the whole movie away, rest assured there's lots of surprises in store for you. The acting, the soundtrack, the fantastical realism, the voice dubbing, it was all really well done. But what I think is most interesting to discuss here are the themes. Let me hit some points I noticed.

The movie starts out pretty blunt. Capitalism, race, class, freedom, art, survival. Sell more, make more money. Make more money than those around you and care less about their problems. But as it went on it gets more and more interesting and while I wouldn't use the word subtle, the themes are never lost.

I find a lot of times that movies that tackle these huge themes tend to fizzle out once they've said all the obvious stuff. This movie never fizzled. The fantasy aspects kept me guessing the entire movie while the story moved at a really good pace. I loved how Cassius tried to justify slavery by saying what isn't slavery. Loved how Tessa was also using a phony voice at her art show, so even though she's doing something more "rebellious" she's still using the same tactics as Cassius was. And that scene only gets more interesting when he is forced to rap for Armie Hammer's guests. He wondered why Tessa would subject herself to her art show, but she had control. She told the audience what to do, and in the next scene the audience is telling him what to do and he does it. He is dancing while she makes her audience dance. It's a small difference and I could see an argument for hers being more demeaning, but to me it was all about the power. And that's just the dynamic in one scene. Every scene had so much going on and we haven't even gotten to the fucking equisapiens yet. What a great twist that made the movie so much more compelling, whereas that's the point in these high concept indie films with revealing trailers start to fizzle.

Overall I could easily see this sneaking into my top 10 this year. It's just so great to see issues that are beaten to death by media and art from a new and surprising perspective. Plus the performances are just fun to watch. Armie Hammer is having a great time and I loved hearing David Cross and Patton Oswalt have fun. And even though the movie has this light comedy to it, the real moments still hit hard because even though this world is someone fantastical, the characters are real enough that I am invested what happens to them. I was legitimately bummed when he goes through that picket crowd after Tessa said she would leave him if he did. Their relationship was so well done, I just wanted them to be happy because when they were they brought out the best in each other. Feeling a solid 8/10 on this one. Hard to even have complaints about a movie like this because anything I had a hard time believing is standing next to mutant horses and white voices sooooo to me this is more about how strongly the themes were represented and they were very strong.

Just wish I knew how they got him to turn at the end. I was kind of waiting for this reveal that Hammer had engineered the whole situation so that Cassius became the equisapien MLK even without taking the job or the money. Since they ended up respecting him and he became a voice for the movement, I was hoping the twist would be he realized that he was still doing what they wanted him to. But the ending where they break into the house negated that thought, although it's still interesting to ponder. Maybe it would have been immoral to take the job, but then again if everyones going to call Hammer a genius and you become this iconic leader anyways, might as well take 100mil with it, right? I dunno.

My favorite line was probably, "When people are faced with a problem they can't control, they learn to live with it." or something along those lines.

I think the MLK line was more a commentary on how corporations misuse his image. Being an MLK in league with a corporation is against everything King stood for.

see more

Yeah I guess I just clung to the idea a bit and kept expecting it to come back. It was a really brilliant turn that that's what they had in mind for Cash. They were not only going to create a new race, but control its journey to civil rights. Just, wow.

Yeah, called the ending within 5 minutes. They went way over the top there.

see more

Wait, what? Are you saying that after seeing the scene where the rock gets his leg blown off and perhaps a bit of him talking to himself in the mirror you guessed the movie would end with someone rebooting a cell phone? Are you a wizard?

79 points · 8 days ago · edited 8 days ago

First and foremost, I demand to know what happened to the pandas.

Going into this movie I kind of hoped it would be like Geostorm. Just a big schlocky mess that's as hilarious to watch as it is to mock. And while parts of it tried to get to that cheese level, overall the movie took itself a little too seriously to be truly enjoyable for how stupid it was.

Case in point, Neve Campbell is a great actress who does drama really well. So what was she doing here karate kicking bad guys in the face? Her and The Rock had so little chemistry and on top of that she seemed to be the only person actually trying to make sense out of the dialogue. It just didn't seem like a great casting choice even though she was the best actor in it.

The plot is wildly convoluted. The plan to set the building on fire still didn't make sense to me even after it was explained. And it all seemed so fruitless from Zhao's perspective. Build the skyscraper, pay the syndicates, blackmail the syndicates so they leave the skyscraper alone, the syndicates burn down the skyscraper to stop the blackmailing. Like maybe he should have just paid them tbh. Then he'd still have this building which, by the way, was majorly uninsured.

The Rock's character was a head scratcher. This movie wanted so bad to be high tech Die Hard. You've got your foreign terrorists, your rich CEO at the center of the plot, your building heist, and your every man saving the day with duct tape. But the every man in this case is a 350 lb tank. Did they really think this guy would be the perfect pushover? He looks like he eats chains for breakfast. Oh wait, it's cool he has a fake leg. Such everyman.

When this movie embraced its cheese was when it was the best. "Got any duct tape?" Was the best line and one of the better moments is when he uses his leg to stall a closing door. But I was disappointed that they stopped themselves from going full amputee hero. Like you're really gonna give The Rock a fake leg and have every enemy use it against him but you're never gonna give me the satisfaction of seeing him beat a guy to death with it. Okay. But then you have The Rock just busting into a scene and pushing a small british man into a burning pit and I'm like this is acceptable. So tonally it couldn't decide.

I hate to accuse movies of this but this feels like a "fuck the American market, set it in Shanghai and watch it make overseas money." It just seemed like the writing was the last thing on anyone's mind. Super obvious in moments like the one where Neve Campbell reveals to the cops she understands Chinese by speaking it fluently, then they continue to ponder on whether or not she's in on the plot in Chinese to each other right in front of her. While her husband is climbing a skyscraper to save their daughter. Just felt like the tension was all faked. Like sure, I'd love to believe this is the kind of movie that would let Neve Campbell and a small child fall into a burning pit but I know it's not so that scene had no tension.

Probably what irked me most was that the entire premise of the movie is look at this great set piece for this towering inferno type film. But during the setup we never get a good look at the layout of the set piece. Once the shit starts going down I have no idea what is happening where in relation to where the characters are. No idea where the pandas were, no idea what the skyscraper even was. A mall? A hotel? A commune? It was just a big thing with everything in it but all we ever see is a hotel room, some hallways, and one area with trees. Frustrating. The closest we got to that was when the CEO was showing off what the Pearl can do but that whole scene is basically like, "Man wouldn't it be crazy to have a shootout in here? Freaky right? Anyways more on this later."

I wish I could have hated this movie more so I could have loved it more but it ended up kind of mediocre. I guess if you wanna see The Rock scale a building in bad CGI using duct tape as gloves then go for it. 4/10.

I'm a survivor, I'm not gonna give up, I'm a survivor, keep on survivin'

11 points · 11 days ago

We’re in the endgame now

see more

It was the only way.

177 points · 11 days ago


see more

This is getting out of hand. Now there's two of them!



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.


Click here to see rankings for 2018 films

Click here to see rankings for every poll done


The film will be a prequel that will focus on the events that lead up to the very first Purge event.


Gerard McMurray


screenplay by James DeMonaco


  • Y'lan Noel as Dmitri
  • Lex Scott Davis as Nya
  • Joivan Wade as Isaiah
  • Mugga as Dolores
  • Marisa Tomei as Dr. Updale/ The Architect
  • Luna Lauren Velez as Luisa
  • Kristen Solis as Selina
  • Rotimi Paul as Skeletor
  • Mo McRae as 7 & 7
  • Jermel Howard as Lorenzo
  • Siya as Blaise
  • Christian Robinson as Capital A

Rotten Tomatoes: 45%

Metacritic: 54/100

After Credits Scene? Yes (It's a freakin' commercial for the coming Purge miniseries on USA.)


You ever thought about making a podcast?

see more
Original Poster6 points · 16 days ago · edited 16 days ago

Sure but I really have no idea where to even start with that.

When you do, keep your username.
"Hi, this is Literary Boner, and you're listening to Hard On Movies".

see more
Original Poster16 points · 16 days ago

Wow I love that title.

Load more comments

How can I see your full flair on mobile very curious also great rant

see more

It says Paddington 2 for best picture.

Remember in Jurassic World where the caretaker woman dies a gruesome death and everyone was like, "That was a bit much." It was, but it kind of kept you on the edge of your seat as far as who might die during the movie. Sure, no kids or main characters, but if the secretary gets tossed in the air and snapped in half by a water dino then maybe anything can happen.

Nope, never did. Not one moment after that scene did I doubt how the rest of the movie would go. I think that's the reason I hated it so: it was a spot of carnage in the middle of unimaginative milquetoast specifically to hide the milquetoast.

see more

I mean I'm not saying the movie broke new ground and is now better, but that moment was a moment that stood out and surprised people. The rest of the movie was bland but here in the new one we have a movie that's ALL bland and the difference is stark.

Load more comments

141 points · 22 days ago · edited 22 days ago

While it's not as sublte or thoughtful as the first one, I really enjoyed this flick. It was kind of hard for me to wrap my head around why they even went the route of a sequel without the main character or the visionary director that made the first one so special even though it didn't smash the box office, but while this one is different in a lot of ways I have to say I had a great time watching it.

The action scenes are very true to the style of the first one. They are quiet and suspense-filled until they get loud and out of control. Felt like there was a lot more action here than in the original but that seemed to be the direction they wanted to go. This isn't Die Hard or Bad Boys 2, but it's great action from a new viewpoint. It's morally reprehensible and it's precise and tactical. It kinda makes sense now, they saw a new kind of action in the first one that could be amped up in a sequel and maybe even franchised. It's not like there's a lack of things to say or envelopes to push when it comes to terrorism and the drug trade.

I'm not even mad Blunt missed this one. While I love her as an actress and love her contributions to the first, I liked that we moved away from the morally struggling character and just followed Brolin and Del Toro having what was obviously a great time to them and instead of focusing on the morals of what they're doing, they focused on how awesomely they do it. Brolin is so fun to watch and I love his character in these. Doesn't even think twice about the morals, just does what he does. It's like his super power is diplomatic immunity.

The plot is solid but messy. I was kind of worried when I saw there was a kid involved, but honestly she was a wonderful actress. From the very first scene where she's in the fight at school I had a feeling she wasn't going to drag the movie down. I enjoyed her and Del Toro's relationship. Even though she is the daughter of a drug lord, Del Toro not only protects her but almost has a need to not do to the drug lord what was done to him. Like he had an impulse to stop the cycle of it all. The border kid was good, too. When he drops off the truck at the end right before they all get decimated I definitely felt like he was more of a rogue so I kind of loved the surprise ending where Del Toro tracks him down, even though it did feel super cliche for a movie like this. But I dunno I guess I just like the idea of Del Toro doing his own Leon: The Professional. I actually initially assumed that's where him and the Reyes girl were going.

While the movie wasn't as message driven or morally challenging as the first, I did like that they didn't drop that angle entirely. When Brolin is arguing with Keener, another great addition to the sequel, and he says this is why nothing ever changes and she says please, you've been doing this long enough to know that's not the goal. Not a new concept but it was great to see Brolin who was literally a you point and I torture guy get caught up thinking he could change things. I really loved how the whole thing fell apart because the Mexican cops attacked them. Seemed like the Secretary of Defense would have preferred they just died instead of doing what they were asked to do and his refusal to let it continue because of one little shootout really said something about the nature of politics.

It's much more blunt than the previous one and a little less stylish, although there's homages to Vil's style all over it, but as far as bad ass characters and action that keeps me guessing going this was tops. I really didn't expect to have so much fun watching it. It feels like they set up a third one and honestly if this new lane of action can grab hold of an audience I would love to see more.

7/10. Didn't change my life but I enjoyed watching it and probably would see it again.

It does make sense though about why the Secretary would call it off. It was a highly dangerous mission to begin with and if anything went wrong like it did it could wind up being cataclysmic for relations between US and Mexico. I’m happy though that Matt honored Alejandro by saving the girl and getting her out of there when he just said “fuck it” to it all

see more

Yeah it makes sense, because even though the Mexican cops are the ones that are corrupt it makes us look worse to go to their land and shoot them up and even worse when we win. I just thought it was an interesting twist. Like, sure kidnap a kid, yeah kill everyone you find, cool, cool, cool. Wait, you killed some crooked cops? WRAP IT UP.

Load more comments

Some ballsy pickup lines.

"You are mine babe. Love you."

Can't even imagine what's going through a bloke's head when he's just banging those out there.

This kid is like 9

see more


Thirty bucks, wow. And he said her outfit was cute? Save some wedding bells for the rest of us, geeze.

I've never heard that M:I3 is considered a reboot of any kind.

see more

A reboot and a sequel aren't defined by quality they're defined by where they fit in the film universe timeline. So yeah, MI:3 is a sequel because it takes place after the events of 1 and 2. I mean technically the movies don't reference past movies very much and the events of the films become more referenced once Ethan gets married, but it's still definitely not a reboot of any kind.

109 points · 1 month ago

The struggle

see more

What's kinda funny is I saw him at Roo a couple weeks ago and I'm pretty sure they didn't play this disclaimer and the next day some people in the bonnaroo subreddit were legit shook that he used gun blast sound effects to end songs a couple times.

Moderator of r/movies, speaking officiallyScore hidden · 1 month ago · Stickied comment · edited 1 month ago

Since this was posted first and blew up the most, here's a link to all images released by Entertainment Weekly today including an image of Patrick Wilson as Ocean Master and a peek of Nicole Kidman on the cover of the issue.

What about Christoph Waltz? One of the all time best villains in Inglourious. Cold, fueled by personal achievement, murderous, takes pleasure in others pain and outsmarting people using everything they have to survive. Next he's Dr. Schultz in Django. A moral, good man who cares about those around him and gives his life to die on a hill or morality. Really all they had in common is they're both intelligent.

I feel like it has to be intentional. This characters role in the movie must not e what we are expecting

see more

There's a lot of talk in dc_cinematic about time travel and underworld stuff. Idk how valid all that is but I feel like if Jenkins is just banging this out there then it means it's prolly a big enough part of the movie that it will be in the trailers.

Either way, not something I was expecting.

Moderator of r/movies, speaking officiallyScore hidden · 1 month ago · Stickied comment

Patty Jenkins also released another image from WW84 today, but because it involves what seems to be a major spoiler and because this one is already at the top of the sub we aren't allowing it since it's getting reported like mad for spoilers.

Anyways, if you want to see the image and possible spoilers, here ya go.

993 points · 1 month ago

If Tim Burton does it like his 90s stuff, it's gonna be weird as fuck.
If it's more like his modern stuff, it probably won't be as good.

see more

First class analysis there.

205 points · 1 month ago

Shooter McGavin

see more

People gloss over how well written early Sandler films were but his protags were always likeable and we wanted them to succeed and he wrote such good villains. They didn't kill children they were just major assholes. Eric in Billy Madison is so well developed and we end up hating him so much.

Cake day
April 23, 2011
Moderator of these communities

17,945,511 subscribers


13,340,927 subscribers


44,938 subscribers

Trophy Case (10)
Seven-Year Club


Alpha Tester

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.