Posts by Patrick Martin

goldenhound32 said:I don't buy it. I'm much more into that in medias res style. You just start the movie, the character is who they are, we roll with it as viewers, and that’s that. Simple as.

👋 mannnn, now this right here is the real deal. This is basically the answer to everything Prometheus ever asked.

goldenhound32 said:Well, that part is pretty damn obvious. The guy has a kid.

So wait, there's actually already a kid in the mix? 🤦

rapidfalcon7 said:So, she basically just pulled a total disappearing act at the end, right? Like, she just bailed on us.
And where did he end up once those thugs finally cornered him? Or did he manage to slip away?😕

Maybe they all just split up and went their separate ways after everything went down, but honestly, Tom isn't the reason for that. I mean, she doesn't even realize he’s the one pulling the strings and orchestrating the whole mess—not until she actually sits down and reads that letter. And let me tell you, there is zero chance she called the cops on him afterward. She won't, and she never will.

rapidfalcon7 said:One reason she actually went through the letter.
And honestly, why wouldn't she?
She figures since she’s all the way across the country from him, he can't touch her anymore, plus you've got that basic human curiosity thing, just like that guy I mentioned earlier.
I don't see what the big deal is about her reading a damn letter.🤷

I'm not really following that bolded part, what was the point you were trying to make there?

Some woman gets curious and snoops through a letter, probably thinking it was some final message sent from her late fiancé 🤷

spoiler alert!!!

I mean, honestly? That ending was pure genius.
She’s just there, absolutely losing it, sobbing her eyes out while clutching that baby, totally paralyzed and unable to move an inch... meanwhile, he’s just over there casually shaving a pig with this smug little grin on his face. It’s freaking priceless. 🙂 🤦

Edward Price6 said:I mean, honestly, I really wish they’d dug deeper into what was going on with his mom. Like, is he somehow responsible for her being in that state? Because if he’s out here trying to hurt everyone else, isn't it a fair guess that he did the same thing to his own mother?

Look, the mom is basically just there as a plot device so we can wrap our heads around Caesar and his whole sickness.
she’s not the main focus, but I bet his actions indirectly broke her down too.

Edward Price6 said:That would have been way more hard-hitting than that whole ending with the baby.

Honestly, I don't think the director could've cooked up anything more impactful than what we got.

Joshua Smith5 said:If this thing had been shot in 3D, it would've definitely been a masterpiece, right? 😁

Man, if the director actually had some guts and filmed those sex scenes in 3D, maybe we'd be looking at a real masterpiece here. As it stands? It's nothing special. Just meh.

And honestly, I shouldn't even go there...

frozenviper13 said:there were already plenty of posts in the movie review thread

Look, I get it, but the whole point of making a separate thread is just to keep things organized,
you know, so future comments don't turn into a total mess.
so, did you actually watch it?

Edward Price6 said:It’d be great if he actually intended to do that—pump her up just to screw her over. But honestly, it makes zero sense because that wasn't his vibe from the jump. He was just drifting along, and this whole pregnancy thing in the movie feels more like: "Well, it happened." Even he admits it: He can still make things right.

I mean, I think he had "serious" intentions and "plans" with her right from the start, because whenever he opened up to his mom, he always hinted that things with Clara were different. In a way, he was playing her, the only issue is she didn't see it coming 😁.
At the end, he basically pulled a fast one and threw her under the bus ( 🤦 )

Edward Price6 said:His chemistry with the kid, the grandma, even with Mimi in that first part—it’s way better. Just the character dynamics. That ending where he kills that poor woman? Man, my heart actually sank. That was phenomenal.

Yeah, those relationships are pretty gripping

Edward Price6 said:But that ending totally let me down. He’s free, and she’s stuck with his kid. I was half-expecting her to toss the baby off a balcony; that would've actually made sense to me. And he didn't even really plan to kill the fiancé. Get this: all the major stuff just happened by accident. It felt way too convenient for me.

Sure, everything just fell perfectly into place for him at the end.
Imagine if the fiancé/Marcos had lived and demanded a DNA test.
Now THAT would have been a hell of a show.

Edward Price6 said:And what about the mom?! It's cool that he tells her everything and she's there suffering and crying, but if that's it, it's not enough. I was expecting something more, some kind of twist involving the mom. But nothing...

What kind of twist with the mom? The old lady is dying.
And it seems like the little guy is the main and only reason she ended up in bed in the first place.

Edward Price6 said:So, the whole pacing around the apartment thing... man, believe me, before he went and spilled that liquid all over himself, I actually told him, "Look, it would be pretty damn funny if you just crashed out and started snoring while you wait." And honestly? It played out exactly like that. He downed half a liter of the stuff and then spent the entire night pacing the floor like a caged animal, while she just had to hold it up to her nose and call it a day. Same deal for his fiancé, too.

That scene was a little bit much, honestly—kind of trying way too hard to be deep or whatever—but I gotta admit, it ended up being pretty cool because they actually managed to snag him in the end.

Edward Price6 said:Man, that scene where he just wedges himself right between them? Absolutely hilarious!

Seriously though, that one scene? Absolute gold. And standing there right on the edge of the skyscraper? Man, chills. Even that final shot where they’re just sitting there reading the letter... honestly, it was perfection. Top tier stuff. 🙏

Edward Price6 I can't even begin to process this... what was that supposed to mean? It’s like someone just threw a bunch of random thoughts at a wall and hoped they’d stick. Total nonsense. Honestly, it’s giving me a headache just trying to parse through the chaos. I feel like I need an American psychiatrist just to deal with the mental gymnastics required to make sense of this level of nonsense. Just... wow. Unbelievable.
I don't know, man. I’m really leaning towards not giving him a second chance. That sequel was just... honestly? A total letdown. It's such a damn shame. Just a massive waste.

Man, what a total load of garbage this movie was. Seriously, it’s such a massive waste of time that I have zero desire to ever sit through it again—at least not anytime soon.

I don't know, man, I just have this vague memory of it, but honestly? It’s getting better and better the more I think about it. That one scene where the guy gets all tangled up with his fiancée... okay, maybe it was a little over the top, a bit much for my taste. But that ending? Man, that ending absolutely killed. It was freaking incredible.

#71 (I might as well dump this here too)

Lisa Morgan76 said:I gotta give Roland Emmerich his due here. 😬
The guy is a total science fiction fanatic. Sure, his plots and characters are stripped down to the bone—it actually hurts sometimes—but he pulls it off every single time. And honestly? In my book, that’s way more refreshing than trying to shove some fake deep stuff down our throats.

Fake deep stuff?

Are you talking about Ridley Scott?

At least he had the guts to show both sides of the coin. Look, needing to use actual logic and have a little patience isn't "fake philosophy." Fake philosophy is those movies that sell you nothing but smoke and mirrors—dealing with things you can't even see on screen and probably never will.

Emmerich is bottom-tier stuff.

electriccanyon26 said:So you're basically claiming that for you, that balance we're talking about is perfectly dialed in when it comes to Ridley Scott or James Cameron. Honestly, with most movies out there, I can't even begin to talk about a ratio where the core idea carries as much weight as the visual effects. And for those two? It’s nowhere near ideal, except maybe for a couple of hits they managed to land—The Terminator, for instance. I never really felt like that was true science fiction. Like someone else already pointed out, a real sci-fi flick needs to be soaked in one solid, driving idea from start to finish, not just a handful of concepts tossed in there like cheap makeup.

Look, man, I just want stuff to actually happen. I want to see the aliens, I want some kind of contact, some conflict, or even a union. The bare minimum I need isn't some heavy-handed space philosophy or poetic nonsense about the universe and extraterrestrials. If 2001: A Space Odyssey didn't have that central tension between the computer and the astronaut, it would’ve just been some fringe, forgettable thing.
Cameron and Ridley Scott at least serve up a juicy milkshake.
They make movies that are just plain good. They hit that sweet spot between all three elements.

I mean, I'm totally obsessed with Andrei Tarkovsky and those long, lingering shots of junk-filled bars or whatever—that stuff kills me.

neonsurfer6 said:Look, Tarkovski is easily one of those directors who just gets it when it comes to visual storytelling. 🤷

The thing is, his shots... they're basically art pieces standing alone. It’s a clever trick he pulls, honestly.
But you can't pull the wool over my eyes like that.

Benjamin Thompson66 said:Andrei Tarkovsky knew exactly what he wanted to say and how to say it, whether you like it or not. That’s called having a vision. People who actually get it will enjoy it, and everyone else? They'll just go watch trailers. That's just how things are nowadays.

Look, I totally get where that's coming from, but let people pick their own favorites, alright? Why does his "vision" have to be treated like it's somehow more valuable than someone else's creativity when they're aiming for different goals? A movie is basically just this mix of visuals, sound, and plot. In my book, a film hits its stride when there's a solid balance between all those pieces.
Plus, if you ask me, in science fiction, the visuals should probably take the lead a bit more—they should drive the whole concept.

Benjamin Thompson66 said:They weren't really like that—I mean, props to their old stuff, but honestly? They’ve turned into that kind of studio machine. Sure, they’re better than Roland Emmerich and those other guys, but they still feel way too much like part of the corporate money grind for my taste.

The sheer scale of their vision, the ideas, the imagination they put on screen... that kind of thing isn't free. It costs a fortune.
Why didn't Andrei Tarkovsky care about the bottom line? Because making his movies cost a goddamn fortune. For him, it was all about the philosophy; if we're being real, that's pretty much all he had left to cling to.

Besides, these guys have made enough in their lifetime that they don't have to work for another ten lifetimes. It’s honestly sad when people don't see the passion and the actual effort they put in through that lens. And I’ll say it every single time: movies are made for an audience, not just for some director's private little ego trip.

Benjamin Thompson66 said:"money" is basically the only word that matters here... yeah, just pure money-making, profit margins, entrepreneurship—that's what it's become. It’s not about talent anymore; it’s an assembly line pumping out cars where the only difference is the color or the shape of the steering wheel. That's just how Hollywood works these days..."
there's zero soul left in it, because film as an art form is supposed to be something else entirely, whether you want to be bitter about it or not...

Grouping Ridley Scott and James Cameron with those low-rent money-grubbers like Roland Emmerich or Michael Bay is honestly a joke.
I mean, these guys are so massive and influential they actually dictate the trends themselves.
Claiming Prometheus was designed solely as a cash grab is such an old-school, outdated take. Every single one of the Alien sequels leaned heavily on the foundation laid by the original Alien.
By stepping away for a bit, Scott actually proved how much a franchise needs that fresh blood injected back into it.

Matthew Anderson4 said:Anyway, since we're already getting all deep and philosophical about science fiction, I gotta say—in my book, it’s hands down the best genre for tackling heavy philosophical stuff. And I don't just mean the surface-level themes the movie's setting forces on you, but the much deeper, soul-searching layers.

Man, why don't you just tell me everything instead?

What does stalker even mean?
What is the Zone?
Why were they even heading into the Zone?
What's the deal with those little bolts they kept throwing?
What's the police presence supposed to represent?
And what's the whole thing with the black dog about?
Does the daughter actually have any significance to the entire story?

Benjamin Thompson66 said:If you don't get that, the director's vision, then you don't get the movie at all—you're just killing time while eating popcorn...

Oh, sure, because when we’re talking about Tarkovsky or Kubrick, we’re all supposed to bow down to their "artistic souls," but the second Ridley Scott enters the chat, he’s immediately branded a total cash grabber. Seriously? You guys have zero clue about the sheer amount of talent, grit, and massive capital poured into making a film like Prometheus.
And instead of actually respecting that kind of ambition and entrepreneurial drive, all we see is this unprecedented wave of constant whining and bashing.

I'm telling you, saying I'm disappointed is an understatement. I am absolutely bitter about it.

Dennis Hayes39 said:Look, I get it, everyone’s got their own thing and I respect that, but... "there are books for that"? Seriously? 🤦

You don't need a PhD to figure out the context here, man. 🙄

Dennis Hayes39 said:I saw you jumping all over that Prometheus troll thread, and now it clicks—I see why you’re out there fighting tooth and nail for that piece of junk. If you honestly think Sci-Fi is just about deep space and things blowing up, you've got it all wrong.

I guess it definitely doesn't involve wandering through some lonely, abandoned halls reciting philosophy, or showing off the cosmos set to an opera soundtrack.

Whatever you say, pal.