Posts by casualotter21

Sandra King86 said:🤣

http://www.transporter2movie.com/

You know, watching movies like this just makes me realize how much I've aged. Theoretically, there shouldn't be any reason for a film not to work for me: they have the fast cars, the sleek weapons, the high-end gadgets... yet somehow, the whole thing just feels incredibly hollow. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate the spectacle, but even in an action flick, a compelling character or a coherent script wouldn't go amiss. I suppose that’s why people still gravitate toward classics like *Die Hard* or *Lethal Weapon*, while most of those endless waves of B-movies from the 80s and 90s are rightfully forgotten.

I sat through *The Transporter* once, though if I'm being honest, I can barely recall anything about it. There was some sort of car chase, a guy acting cool, and then someone shows up with a bazooka and 🙂 🙂

crimsonmoose3 said:What’s actually wrong with the movie? I had a decent enough time, even if it was incredibly bland.

The reason I found it so remarkably lukewarm is that instead of an actual script, the film relies entirely on horror clichés about mad scientists that have been stale since the fifties. It wouldn't be so offensive if a studio like Warner Bros. played with those tropes ironically—the way they did in *Kill Bill* or *Young Frankenstein*—but here, they are dead serious:

"Hmm, who should we use to test this invisibility serum? I know! Let's pick the most unhinged individual in existence and give him the potion. Surely he won't abuse his new condition for petty acts of cruelty."

"Look, an invisible guy is chasing us down the hallway at full speed. What's our plan?
-Let's split up!"

"- Boom! I got the invisible man! I smacked him in the head with my wallet and now he's definitely dead! I am just so certain I finished him off that there's no need to swing wildly at the empty air another ten times just to be sure. In fact, I'm so confident he's gone that I'll just drop my wallet right next to him (since I clearly don't need it anymore) and walk away with my back turned."

Usually, when someone tries to mess with my head, I don't expect to have to pay twenty dollars for a movie ticket just to endure it.

Melancholy Beaver said:What a morbid concept... 😲 Are you actually suggesting we let non-Aryans compete against us? What’s next, letting Black athletes participate in the Olympics?

The same goes for that. Which countries would even bother showing up at the Olympics if that happened? And which one would actually dare to send athletes capable of outperforming the Germans?

quietdriver3 said:Americans—a Slavic people who once occupied southern German living space, whom we "humanely relocated" east of the Urals following recent breakthroughs in robotics and the realization that machines are significantly cheaper than free labor.

😂

northerncrane4 said:Why bother with old Disney cartoons when Disney himself could be vacationing in Miami.

Oh, wonderful. So instead of watching Disney animations, we’d just be staring at some moldy old geezer in swim trunks. How delightful. I bet he’d even insist on wearing those tacky little briefs instead of actual boxers, which is what elderly men are legally required to wear.

How can you say that? The Japanese are allies. It's just that the protagonist wouldn't be named Leslie Elridge, he'd be Gunther Schliefenacht.

Exactly, you see the charisma! Leslie was hyped up because he was a *ninja*, which is apparently the coolest thing ever. Gunther, on the other hand, would be hyped up simply because he is German. His ninja training would be completely overshadowed. In fact, I guarantee the Nazis would claim those Eastern martial arts are worthless anyway, insisting that a true hero masters the saber and the Luger. Absolute Euro-trash amateurs. A ninja's body is his greatest weapon!

Don't be ridiculous! Who else would be winning the FIFA World Cup?

Those genetically modified Aryans grown in a greenhouse.

northerncrane4 said:And what exactly would we be missing out on? 🙂

Jazz, Mendelssohn's music, and those classic Disney cartoons. Though, I’d bet my life they wouldn't let us print those ninja novels. 😬

northerncrane4 said:Honestly, once you realize that even after that film exposed him so skillfully, Bush still managed to win the election—and this time with even more dominance—you just want to give up on everything. It makes you feel like there's no point to any of it; every righteous action seems less than counterproductive and is ultimately destined to fail.

Good grief, Donald Duck, and here I thought I was being a bit weak-willed. If people like that had been serving in the military during the World Wars, we'd all be singing the Horst Wessel Lied today.

I have a soft spot for comic book adaptations and superhero flicks.
I enjoy watching Jessica Alba.
I didn't bother going to see this movie.

You do the math.

Lawrence Booth2 said:They’ve actually got quite a selection to choose from... I've watched a few myself and really enjoyed them. I'm sure there are some fans around here.
😁😁😁
Give me some recommendations.

Man, if I actually owned those films, I'd probably be spending all my time writing reviews for my blog. 😲

dmj said:You aren't imagining things. It was actually quite a blast.

Hell, yeah! I was right there in the theater watching it, and even without subtitles, I had a total blast. I felt compelled to document my impressions.

I turned on the TV just as the movie was starting. I sat through about 15 minutes before deciding to just head to bed. Honestly, I don't know what to tell you: that annoying repetitive gagging and touching horse manure stopped being funny to me a long time ago.

From what I can gather, Tom Green built his entire career on reality shows where he’d just go out, provoke people, shock them, and film the whole thing. Based on the little I saw of this movie, it seems he tried to replicate that exact same formula in a scripted feature. It felt completely pointless to me because when you play a character who is provoking others—while also being the director of the film!—you're the one dictating exactly how they have to react. I didn't get the impression at all that he was some unhinged, spontaneous guy acting out in front of a crowd; instead, he's just someone jerking off in front of actors who are forced to respond in a very specific way. It's stupid.

In reality, the only person Tom Green is actually shocking or provoking in a movie like this is me, the viewer. And I have a remote control that allows me to elegantly remove all Tom Green's TV screens from my sight.

It’s hardly surprising the movie aired at two in the morning; they clearly realized nobody would actually want to sit through this.

redowl90 said:Good God...! I really don't have the energy to explain myself anymore—you simply fail to grasp what I am saying or what I have been trying to convey all along...

It is just me and nobody else in this thread. Face the facts: it's a breeze. 😬

redowl90 said:I never actually claimed that movies from the '80s were superior to what we have today; I have no idea where you got that impression.

"Before the nineties. There was a time when filmmakers actually prioritized the narrative over spectacle, primarily because the technology simply wasn't there to support massive visual displays. As tech evolved, however, we saw a gradual shift where substance was tossed aside in favor of flashy effects and chasing cinematic prestige.

Are we focusing on the period from 1995 onwards?Hollywood has churned out a massive pile of more or less successful blockbusters that shattered box office records, while treating actual "quality" as an afterthought.

Because that is why they are. The eighties. Back in the nineties, we actually had genuine adventure films like Indiana Jones and The Green Diamond. Now, thanks to all this technological advancement, we're just stuck with endless Spider-Man reboots and other absolute garbage.

Besides, I fail to see why you’re coming after me. It's just movies. Ever since 1995. They’re in a complete tailspin, at least when it comes to the blockbuster scene; anyone who thinks otherwise can just go ahead and walk away. 🙂"

HTH! HAND! 👋

Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter don't belong in this category; if they were included, everyone would vote for them immediately, which is only logical.

And honestly, when we put together that list of the best blockbusters from the late '90s, the last thing we want is to let people vote on it.

Steven Williams5 said:I honestly have no clue how The Rock ended up on this list, considering he earned significantly less than everyone else here.😕

That’s because—and I’m increasingly convinced of this—redowl90’s definition of a blockbuster is essentially: "any high-budget movie from the last 30 years that I personally dislike." It explains why redowl90 can't seem to wrap their head around treating Rambo or commandos with the same weight as Spider-Man or The Rock.

It reminds me of those people who claim to hate sci-fi just because "it's all just space fantasies with light sabers and spaceship battles." Then, when you point out that "1984" is technically sci-fi, they invariably argue, "Oh, that's not sci-fi. That's a profound and intelligent book! How could it possibly be sci-fi?" Well, it is. Deal with it.

I get the impression that it isn't actually about the definition of a blockbuster for redowl90; rather, it's an unwillingness to admit liking certain blockbusters. They seem to be contriving this specific theory just to narrow the scope to only those big-budget Hollywood productions that happen to suit their tastes.

redowl90 said:It seems you haven't quite grasped the point I'm trying to make.

Why are you still surprised by this? First, you claim modern movies rely too heavily on special effects. When someone points out that practical effects existed long before computers, you pivot and argue that the eighties were more focused on storytelling than spectacle. If I remind you that Commandos has plenty of action but lacks a decent plot, you immediately start fantasizing about how producers back then supposedly thought differently than they do today—though, frankly, I have no idea how you could possibly know that.

The eighties were packed with genuine adventure classics like Indiana Jones and Romancing the Stone, whereas the nineties—once technology took over—just became a nonstop parade of Spider-Man reboots and other cinematic garbage.

Here we go again. One minute we’re discussing the evolution of special effects technology, and then suddenly there's this massive logical leap connecting that directly to the quality of a film's *script*. What on earth? Why would those two things have anything to do with one another?

It seems to me that you don't actually possess a coherent theory regarding blockbuster quality or how they stack up against 80s cinema; rather, you are simply being driven by pure nostalgia. The reason those 80s films feel superior is likely because you experienced them for the first time at ten years old, when every movie felt like a miracle and left you with fond memories. In contrast, you watched Armageddon for the first time at twenty, a time when you no longer had the patience for such nonsense. Instead of admitting that your tastes have simply evolved, you've resorted to inventing theories about how modern Hollywood differs from the era of your youth—an era where, apparently, everyone focused solely on quality storytelling and deep, intelligent characters... like in Commando. 😬

You still haven't explained to me how Lord of the Rings and Harry Potter can be excluded from the poll just because they're adaptations with massive, die-hard fanbases, while Spider-Man and X-Men are allowed in despite being the exact same thing.

redowl90 said:Sure, Rambo and Commandos exist... but they didn't blow millions on special effects.

I fail to see how that makes the story in Commandos any better or higher quality than a typical 90s blockbuster.

nimblemarlin17 said:You should really consider the actual definition of SPECIAL EFFECTS. That includes everything, not just CGI. Both Rambo and Commandos feature special effects like explosions and fight scenes.

Precisely so:

90s blockbusters: tons of effects, little plot.

80s blockbusters: tons of effects, little plot.

I don't see the distinction. Unless we insist on claiming that extras, explosions, miniatures, and similar practical special effects aren't actually special effects through some sort of alchemy.

redowl90 said:Back before the nineties, movies were actually different; they were films where people put more effort into the actual story itself.

In the 80s? Maybe on the planet Jupiter. During that era, the situation in Hollywood was more like this:
"Big sweaty men! Big noisy guns! Dozens of people getting beaten and slaughtered--per scene! Entire cities razed to the ground! Liberal wimps beware as simple handguns become judge, jury and executioner! And the only repercussion is that the Stupid Chief takes your badge and gun for the weekend... THE RUTHLESS GUIDE TO 80s ACTION

Maybe try reading a few comments. It might serve as a helpful reminder of what Hollywood movies were actually like during the 80s.

redowl90 said:The thing is, Harry Potter and Lord of the Rings are fundamentally different beasts. You can't really view them through the lens of, "Let's make a movie about oil drillers heading out to punch a hole in a meteor to save humanity." They lean more toward dedicated book enthusiasts and cinephiles rather than the general public—though even that distinction is debatable...

So, what, Spider-Man and X-Men aren't based on other sources that already have their own hardcore fanbases? Or am I missing something?

Give me a break.

Melissa Moore32 said:I simply can't group Spider-Man and X-Men with those other films, so I tend to skip them... even though they're quite good, especially X-Men.

Fair point. Now I'm actually regretting being a voter at all.😢

redowl90 said:P.S. Star Wars, Harry Potter, and Lord of the Rings were excluded from the poll for obvious reasons.

And what about you?

You could argue that Spider-Man and X2: X-Men United deserve a bit more credit than being dismissed as mere films where "people gradually abandoned the plot in favor of special effects and chasing cinematic prestige," but I suppose it's all just a matter of taste.

I voted for X2: X-Men United because, in my opinion, Singer did an excellent job balancing a massive ensemble cast, giving everyone at least a small chance to establish a personality, plus it has great action and is a sequel to a movie I actually enjoyed.

Spider-Man would have been a very close second for me. As for the rest, they were either alright or just mediocre. I wasn't a fan of The Rock either, though he was significantly carried by Ed Harris playing the villain.

Brian Edwards78 said:You completely overlooked the Ben Stiller comedy bits. 😁

It’s easy enough for Ben Stiller, but once I start thinking about Adam Sandler or those truly dark movies, I just feel a sense of profound gloom.

redowl90 said:I haven't seen any of the stuff you listed.

Then don't bother watching this either. It’s honestly incredible how quickly some problems can be solved sometimes.

aside from the second and third Jurassic Park movies, which are masterpieces compared to Fantastic Four... 🙂

What exactly have you even seen regarding Fantastic Four?