I'll try to make this as short as possible. Oh, and obvious spoiler warnings for anybody who cares. Let the Right One In - Basically, the main ambiguity comes from whether or not Eli actually did love Oskar or if she(or he) was just using him in a Dracula/Renfield sort of relationship. I've watched the film a bunch of times with both interpretations in mind, and I can't say that either option is more credible than the other. That said, I slightly prefer the idea that Eli actually did love Oskar if only because it works better with the film's themes of isolation and loneliness. The Fountain - If you've seen the film, then you know the mindscrew of the movie comes from the three different eras of the film. Personally, I think it's stated quite clearly in the context of the film that the 1500s storyline is fictional. It's Izzy's romantic medieval novel. The transitions in the film support this as Tom "goes into" the 1500s timeline whenever he starts to read Izzy's novel and "goes out" whenever he's interrupted or stops. Not only that, but this storyline is never referenced or mentioned in the 2000s storyline and it's never implied that the characters from the 1500s storyline are the same as the ones from the 2000s timeline. 1500s = fictional. No doubt. That leaves us with the 2000s and 2500s storylines. This part's a bit trickier, but I think that the 2500s storyline is also fictional. Though Tom 1 (2000s) and Tom 2(2500s) have the same name, tattoo, and memories, I think the 2500s storyline is the final chapter of the book that Izzy wanted Tom to finish. The reason that the tone and genre is so different is because Tom is a scientist and has no idea how to write medieval romance. So, he goes to the genre that his profession is closest to - science fiction. However, he doesn't know how to end the novel because he feels as if he's failed Izzy by letting her die. The reason Tom 2 seems like Tom is because the latter is injecting the character with some of his memories and experiences. Xaibalba was something that Izzy and Tom 1 talked about, the shaman and the tree story was something discussed in the 2000s story, etc. Also, we can assume that Tom 2 is part of the 1500s story because he has memories of Queen Isabella and physically appears in the 1500s story at one point. ^ Man, that turned into rambling, didn't it? Mulholland Drive - It's all about dreams. Because of the issue with names, I'll just use hair color to describe the two leads. =P The blonde dreams of being a successful actress and goes to Hollywood after winning a dance competition. That's probably the only "true" part of the first 2/3rd of the film. After we see the POV shot of the bed, the next hour and a half or so is the blonde's dream. As we learn near the end, the blonde dreamed of being big, but everything fell apart when the brunette left her. Her relationship's gone, it's implied that she's lost her part in the young director's upcoming film (watch the scene where the director instructs the brunette on "how to kiss"), she can't afford her rent, etc. She can't take it anymore. Her reality's too harsh to cope with. So, she hires a hitman to do the brunette in and gives him a key. It's never explicitly stated what the key unlocks, but we can assume that it's the blonde's apartment, the brunette's apartment, or something to that effect. Bam. The brunette's killed and the blonde's revenge is complete. She goes to bed and that's where the first 2/3rd of the film comes in. It's her fantasy of what she always wanted: the Hollywood dream. That explains her saint-like portrayal and the surreal setting and dialogue of the film. It's not perfect, though, as her guilt begins to build up in various ways. The old man that lives behind the dumpster, for instance, seems to be a physical manifestation of her sin and shame. I could go on and on about the movie, but I don't want to be too long-winded. Feel free to ask questions. Pan's Labyrinth - Was it real or was it Ofelia's fantasy? Both arguments have good points, but I think the magic and fantasy was real. Mostly because it's implied that adults can't grasp or understand magic and because there's no way that Ofelia could've gotten past the soldiers guarding her room near the ending. The only way she could've gotten to the general's room is if she used the magic chalk. Since my internet connection is acting up, I'll have to post about 2001 later. It's cool, though, since the film might deserve its own post. :P

Now I'm going to put in a list of movies that I believe should be in here, but hasn't come to anyone's minds yet. Worst movies: Waterworld The Star Wars Prequels Lemony Snicket: A Series of Unfortunate Events Spy Kids 3-D Shrek the Third Super Mario Bros. And let's not leave out that is known to be the worst movie ever made in existence: The Room

I love The Room.

I hope you do know what I'm talking about, because that movie has been rated to a lot of critics as the worst movie ever made in film history. Here's the movie that I am talking about: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yCj8sPCWfUw

You have to love The Room, in kind of the same way you might love Troll 2.

Yeah, javie, that's the one I'm talking about. :P Oh, and without getting long-winded again, 2001: A Space Odyssey is, to me, about the relationship between God, man, science, and their evolving relationship. Instead of having of one or two interpretations, though, I'd say that you could look at the film in a bunch of different ways. It could be seen as a criticism of man's relationship with technology, a view on filmmaking (monolith = vertical cinema screen?), thoughts on intelligent life in outer space, contemplations on life, death and re-birth, etc. It's probably the most conceptually complex film ever made.

Let's not forget about HAL-9000. That has got to be the coolest enemy in any movie. The Nostalgia Critic goes even far to saying that HAL-9000 had the most creepiest performance in any other movie. And I agree with him, because he has no human emotions, and the worst part about it is that we created him. So if we try to blame him, we are only blaming ourselves.

I like the Nostalgia Critic, but I personally think that calling Hal-9000 a great performance is not just disingenuous, but actually kind of insulting to actors who do real performances. You can call Hal a great [i]villain[/i], and you'd be right. As a malevolent force in the film HAL is formidable and creepy. However, there's no way a static shot of a button and a dubbed voice can equal the complex human quality of great performances by actors like Daniel Day-Lewis, Gary Oldman, Alan Rickman, Christopher Lee, etc. Heck, I think Darth Vader is arguably the greatest villain of all time, but is it a great performance? I would say not.

I used to like the Nostalgia Critic, but his sense of humor is so different now that I've kinda grown detached from him. Anyway, I'm with Reed. A dubbed performance can't match live-action. 'Nuff said. To keep this thread going, what do you guys think of Black Swan and True Grit? I'm thinking of seeing one of these sometime after Christmas and I can't decide which to see.

I'm in the same boat as you. I feel I want to see those two before finalizing my end-of-the-year list (and also Winter's Bone, which I have from Netflix). It's more likely I'll get out to see True Grit. I love the Coens, plus PG-13 means maybe some family of friends will go with me. Black Swan is a movie you go see by yourself. Also I've been iffy on Aronofsky's other stuff... I've seen Requiem for a Dream, The Fountain and The Wrestler... Requiem is my favorite of the batch but I don't love any of them.