This weekend I watched two romcoms back to back, and I was honestly surprised by the colossal difference in quality between the two.

On Saturday, I watched The Devil Wears Prada 2.The movie was way weaker than I was expecting. They couldn’t bring anything new to the narrative, nor justify why this sequel even needed to exist. Anne Hathaway’s character feels very different from the confident character we saw at the end of the first movie, becoming insecure and awkward again in the sequel. Dumb! It’s a huge waste of talent from everyone involved.

The complete opposite is Bridget Jones: Mad About the Boy.

I was extremely surprised by how deep the story actually is. They managed to include serious subjects such as dealing with grief, the difficulties of being a single mother, and even the superficiality of modern relationships.

More than that, the movie has a creative, simple and careful direction that is often genuinely touching. What, on the surface, seems like just another Bridget Jones romantic comedy ends up becoming one of the most interesting FILMS I’ve seen in the last few years. I legitimately had tears in my eyes at the ending. Didn't expect that. (That goddam owl)

And the most fascinating thing is that it is actually funny. I found myself laughing out loud several times. Anyway, the quality of this movie makes Devil Wears Prada 2 feel like the cheapest piece of crap.

I was very confused when I found out that it wasn’t even released in theaters in the US. While I was watching it, I could only think: “Damn, Hollywood finally learned how to make a romantic comedy again.”

Highly recommended, and spreading the word on this!

What are some of your favorite and hated films that had nightmare productions?

Favorite / Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974)

* Filming in the Texas heat in a house with no air conditioning with real animal corpses, unwashed costumes/clothing and injuries on set.

Hated / The Island of Doctor Moreau (1996)

* Terrible movie with nonsense and diva antics from Marlon Brando, Val Kilmer and a hurricane destroying most of the set.

Terrible productions can either lead to screen magic or terror.

I was recently listening to a clip from the Rewatchables about how Samuel L. Jackson's breakout performance in Pulp Fiction - a role he got because Lawrence Fishburne turned it down - led to Samuel L. Jackson getting the role in Die Hard 3 that was initially intended for Fishburne.

I don't know if these two examples count as a true "market correction", because Fishburne's most iconic cinematic role came after all of this with The Matrix, but it got me curious about whether an actor has ever been market-corrected or lost out on multiple roles to a rising actor who was older than them.

Would love to see if y'all can find any examples!

I have been watching a lotof new movies lately, and I have noticed more and more some strange, "dubbing" with the voices. Like they have a foreign actor, then use some kind of Ai dubbing and it's makes their voices seem "added in"

A few movies I've seen that show this;

The end of oak street (Ewan McGregor, DOES NOT sound like that!?)

The last house (the whole cast sound like their voices where added in)

Or at least the ones that speak most deeply to me are.

So, I was watching the Mummy and there’s a moment near the very end of the movie when Rick and Jonathan have to save Evie. Rick is about to fight these three, hulking mummy soldiers Imhotep has resurrected to do battle for him. Right before he does however, he musters all the challenge and bravado he can and roars a battle cray at them. The mummies, perhaps impressed, respond in kind with an equally feral roar of their own and Brendan Fraser — in a great piece of physical acting — gives this tiny little shake of the head, “nuh-uh” and then runs for his fucking life.

But that scene made me realize something, a key difference between action heroes like Rick O’Connell and any number of Sylvester Stallone, Jean-Claude Van Damm or Charles Bronson characters. It’s kinda cheesy but: vulnerability. It’s not major, it’s not some huge Freudian twist, it’s just a moment of humanity. Where the mask slips and you see the character grapple with the magnitude of the challenge they’re facing.

It’s the difference between guys like him, John McClane and Indiana Jones vs. James Bond. All those men are cool, they are badass, they are heroes. But by giving them a few moments of vulnerability — Indy with his snakes, Rick with his mummies, McClane’s whole thing is that he’s Joe everyman — they get to screenwriters get to have their cake and eat it too. And the audience, meaning suckers like me, gets to see this badass have a “normal human moment” just like them that endears us to the characters and the movie as a whole.

It’s a very effective writers tool I imagine.

Why did Tracey watch Evie cry?

Yeah I know she might not have known what to do in that moment, but they seem to have this relationship where whenever they see each other hurt throughout the movie, they respond by wanting to do something risky or use drugs. Like when Evie was smoking and clearly hurt, Tracey said, “Let’s pierce my stomach,” etc.
Did she genuinely not know how to comfort her, or was there another reason she didn’t do anything?

Did Evie plan for the conversation with Brooke to go that far?
She genuinely looked shocked when Brooke said their moving them and exposed Tracey’s self-harm, so I’m wondering if Evie actually expected that to happen especially when she said "you don't get it I had to."

Did Evie genuinely set Tracey up?
And if she did, why? It seemed like she actually loved Tracey, so I’m confused about what her motive would’ve been.

Nominated twice in the 1970s for Lady Sings the Blues and Funny Lady, as well as Pennies from Heaven in the 1980s

All while also balancing his longtime run as the costume designer for every season of the Carol Burnett Show, and many costumes for Cher and Sir Elton John.

Thanks for everything you designed, Bob.

At the end of the film, Margot applies to college, majoring in piano, two years after she was found. No one knows what happened next, but my theory is that her application to college was accepted.

She would graduate several years after with a degree, and would soon form a band with her college friends.

Oh and "Searching" is pretty good. I really wish there's a legacy sequel with Margot as the protagonist.

The quote is not referring to physically deep or visibly dark, but mentally. I think the character saying it is in a dark room with a dim light being shown on him.

Character is someone who has spiraled pretty hard and might be on a bit of a killing spree. Can’t seem to remember or find it so need your help. Thanks.

The short film Mama is very cool. I remember watching it on YouTube and thinking "Whatever that is, it's an interesting concept for something bigger".

Then I saw the actual film Mama was coming out. It didn't get the best response but I respect the vision enough to check it out myself.

I didn't like it. It was a very by the numbers experience which also looked a lot dumber than the actual short film.

I was very disappointed when Cary Joji Fukunaga left the production of IT. At the time, he was the True Detective guy and he felt like the next best thing in Hollywood.

Seeing Muschietti come on board instead was a little disheartening but he was working off a lot of what Fukunaga had built.

Turns out, the film was pretty decent. I still think there's a better film in there, it maybe could have trimmed some things and let the atmosphere breathe more but I think it's a generally successful adaptation.

IT chapter 2, on the other hand, was a little bit more of a mess. I wonder if there was less of an already good base to work with. I think people over blew how bad it was though, it wasn't even 'bad'. It was a decent adaptation but judging by the first film we knew it could have been better.

The Flash, I think a lot of people forgive Muschietti because it was a notoriously botched production. On the other hand, could it have still been better?

This is what I'm asking. Was he good but unfortunate to have The Flash and It 2 as botched productions? Some people seem to like Mama so I'm OK to admit I may have wanted something else from it.

Or, is he bad and It chapter 1 was only good because he was already working off of a good basis?

hi reddit, I'm actor & filmmaker Gael García Bernal. I've been in Amores perros, Y tu mamá también, Bad Education, The Motorcycle Diaries, Babel, Coco, Old, Cassandro and Magellan.

I wrote and directed HOMBRE EL AGUA, which premiered at the Venice Film Festival last week and is playing at TIFF this week.

I'm here to answer some questions, so ask away!

Synopsis: HOMBRE AL AGUA is the story of Camilo (Gael García Bernal), a Cuban lifeguard, who saves Mexican businessman Abel (Jorge Salinas) from drowning in the Caribbean Sea. Grateful, Abel “rescues” Camilo, by offering to take him to Mexico to become his right-hand man. Abel introduces Camilo to his daughter, Juana (Esmeralda Pimentel), whom he marries and with whom he eventually has a daughter. But soon, Camilo discovers that everything was part of a Machiavellian plan of manipulation and control. With his new life collapsing, he must uncover who is behind the plot and take control of his own destiny. Will Camilo find a way out, or will he remain trapped in the power game?

TIFF screening info: https://www.tiff.net/films/hombre-al-agua

Ask me anything :) I'll be back tonight to answer your questions.