I'm just kidding. I was actually just watching Random Hero on FOX starring Dustin Hoffman, and honestly, he wouldn't be a bad choice for a role like that... Furthermore, I'd suggest Ian Holm in The Fifth Element...
Look, there are plenty of excellent options out there.
Man, it brings it all back—Leon is a total pro, a complete legend.👍
I have to say, I wasn't particularly impressed by this film.
To my mind, the plot felt far too vague, and the characters were essentially cardboard cutouts. Perhaps that's just my subjective take, but I walked away with much stronger memories of the original movie.
What bothered me most, however, was the complete lack of that signature Burtonesque style. It lacks that essential Gothic edge; while the factory might touch on it slightly, the film itself isn't dark at all. Instead, it feels like a bright, juvenile production—something you'd expect from Disney.
All things considered, it isn't a total disaster, but I certainly expected much more from this...
Adam Wright56 said:The scythe fight might actually be my favorite part of the whole thing. It’s executed so cleanly, too—unlike those house-building scenes where the sound design just becomes an overwhelming mess.
To be honest, those scenes didn't really move the needle for me, mostly because I was still reeling from watching Delicatessen right before this...
That said, I'll admit it's a clever concept, 👍
But here’s what’s actually bothering me about this movie. It isn't the unrealistic combat—I mean, when you read a synopsis about a blind samurai fighting injustice while working as a masseur, you go in expecting stylized fights. No, what truly kills me is that revolver. Can someone please explain where that revolver comes from? (In other words, what is the approximate time period we're dealing with here?)
I haven't the slightest clue whether Michael Bay is a "good" or "bad" director, but I do know that his movies are watchable. That distinction seems vital to me. I’ve sat through three of his works: The Rock, Armageddon, and Pearl Harbor. You shouldn't go hunting for deep meaning in films of that caliber; instead, you simply lean back and enjoy them for what they are—pure entertainment. It’s much like going to a club, reading the news, having sex, or watching a movie; people do these things primarily for pleasure. Furthermore, it isn't easy—at least, not in my estimation—to craft a film that manages to entertain such a massive audience. In short, Michael Bay is an entertainer, and a capable one at that (though, if I am being objective, I personally find him lacking), which isn't inherently a flaw. Think of klezmer music; it started out as mere entertainment, and look where it is now—it’s actually quite magnificent 🙂.
Regarding this endless debate over art-house versus blockbusters, the goal should be to create something that is both high quality and widely seen, much like Titanic. That is the job. There is no real point in making a film that only 20,000 people across the entire world will ever witness. What does it matter if you've produced a "masterpiece" if you can't share that experience with the rest of humanity? For instance: A couple of months ago, I watched an Iranian film called Paradise Child at a cinema, and it was nothing short of genius. Truly an excellent piece of filmmaking. But what is the utility of that if no one has actually seen it? We ought to find a way to make great work accessible to the masses...
Anthea said:a) no, it's spelled Depp (which would be a direct contradiction of my previous point, asserting that the spelling is indeed Depp) or b) it's not spelled Depp (meaning the correct spelling is actually Deep).
John Williams is hands down the greatest! While I won't go so far as to dismiss Danny Elfman, Williams is clearly the heavyweight here. Just look at his work on Star Wars, Indiana Jones, Superman, and so on...
And here I was under the impression that PlayStation was written as one word without a space?
Anyway, let me get to the point: In my view, The Matrix is a solid film—nothing groundbreaking or absolutely transcendent, but certainly a strong piece of cinema, even if many people disagree with my assessment of it. However, the other two installments are absolute garbage, at the very least.
You simply cannot label those two sequels as good; they just don't hold up, you know what I mean?
As for you, if you think those films are masterpieces, fine by me—believe whatever you want, see if I care.😛
Sophia Evans76 said:This is a list of contemporary directors—filmmakers who might not have a massive filmography yet (like the Coen brothers) but possess significant potential. That’s why Orson Welles doesn't belong here.
Perhaps. They certainly showed promise after their debut, but by their second or third outing, that spark seemed to vanish somewhere along the line (in my humble opinion, they got too caught up in special effects, though that's just my take).
Richard Hernandez13 said:The only ones I can't stand are the Coen brothers—they've really rubbed me the wrong way lately with their recent work, and now that resentment is bleeding into how I view their older films.
I found Martin Scorsese's placement at number two a bit grating, primarily because of that absolute disaster titled "Gang of New York."
Honestly, this list is a bit of a joke. How can you include the Wachowski siblings while leaving out names like Orson Welles, Steven Spielberg, or Sedlar? It just doesn't hold water.
In my view, those two siblings managed to pull off one decent film—though I'll concede it was revolutionary to some, even if most would agree 😁—and then followed it up with two pieces of garbage. Sure, some might call them "solid efforts," but let's be real: there are directors out there who have produced far more work, and significantly better films, than they ever could.
cro Fag said:Who’s to say that in 200 or 300 years, humanity won't be advanced enough to simply wipe out any individual exhibiting warlike tendencies—extreme anger or aggression— by just curing them. 🙂
Why don't you go see a specialist at the Mayo Clinic and let them "cure" you. Or maybe that’s not quite what you have in mind? And wouldn't you probably put up a fight if they actually tried to "treat" you? Notice I said—> fight.
Bryan Barrett said:Exactly! I find it hard to believe that his most notable performance—aside from anything in Star Trek—is basically just him playing "Hey man, who swiped my car?" 😕
Don't be so dismissive. He shows up in Independence Day, and he's even featured in South Park's Bigger, Longer & Uncut.😛
Look, I have to concede your point to an extent. If we are talking about the best Star Trek: The Next Generation era film, it has to be First Contact. Honestly, aside from Nemesis, there isn't much competition. I suspect Generations would have been even more of a disaster than Insurrection if Kirk hadn't been involved, though at the end of the day, Insurrection is really just a mediocre TNG episode stretched out to two hours left over. Do you want to see what a real Star Trek movie looks like? Why don't you go watch Wrath of Khan?