Posts by northerncrane4

So, Cusack:

- The movies of John Cusack
- The movies of John Cusack
- The movies of John Cusack
- The movies of John Cusack
- The movies of John Cusack😍 😍 😍
- The movies of John Cusack
- The movies of John Cusack
- The movies of John Cusack
- The movies of John Cusack
- The movies of John Cusack
- The movies of John Cusack
- The movies of John Cusack
- even America's Sweethearts - Identity
- Identity.

Based on what I've seen—though I'll leave room for five or six decent ones I might have missed.

And if Score, Primal Fear, and The Italian Job really are the peak of Norton's career, then I Rest My Case.

I can't think of even three roles from Edward Norton's filmography that actually matter.

placidowl24 said:Norton is better looking

When it’s a girl.

irongardener2 said:Norton is three times more talented than Cusack—and look, Cusack isn't even bad—but you just can't compare him to Norton.

Cusack has the charisma and the edge—Norton is just a total wimp.

Dammit, this is going straight into overtime.

Cusack should have been Nite Owl—but hey, that’s just your take.

Cusack is Martin Q. Blank! What's with this aristocratic nonsense of yours? 🙂

placidowl24 said:Pfft—this isn't even worth a debate, let alone a poll.

It’s always been obvious—there is only one true icon.

And anyone who doesn't agree he's *the* one, rather than just some guy, is an idiot who can take a hike.

Get lost, you troll! People like you are exactly why we throw the local trash out with the recycling during tourist season. 😍

The polls have gone a bit stale lately, so here’s one I’ve been itching to run for a while.

All I can say is—by the time the credits rolled—I still hadn't the slightest clue what the point of that movie actually was.

After digging through my memory like crazy:

- Syriana
- Pirates
- Caché
- Le Couperet
- Le Couperet.

I might remember a few more.

Joseph Lee3 said:Then there’s the concept of "underplaying"—I'm not quite sure how to translate that perfectly—but it's essentially a subtle dose from an invisible bottle. You can tell when an actor actually possesses technique versus when they're just relying on raw talent. It's like skiing or any other sport: talent is fine, but if you want elite results, honing your technique and having the right gear is non-negotiable.

Underplaying can be just as irritating as overacting—it slides into affectation far too easily.

Joseph Lee3 Asks:
There’s one exceptional film that perfectly illustrates how a group of giants operates on a single set—and the sheer impact of top-tier performers working in sync. Most of you probably haven't seen it—but if you can find it... it's called... Murder by Death.A perfect blend of powerhouse leads and character actors—zero friction, just flawless pacing and timing. Honestly, it’s masterfully executed.

I’ve seen it—and yes, it’s an excellent film. Modern parody writers really ought to study this one before they even think about attempting something similar.
There’s another one—a catalog of top-tier male acting—"Glengary Glen Ross."

bluebison8 said:Lol, what's even the difference? Both movies are lies and garbage—typical American propaganda.

Now we have some "V for Vendetta" purist crying about propaganda.

Is there an online list somewhere showing everything that hit American theaters back in 2006?

Chloe Reed37 said:there's that disastrous fourth chapter—it basically just keeps screaming "oh boy, here comes the constipation again...".

🤔 What exactly is your issue with constipation?

Anthony Davis6 said:btw... I haven't really seen a movie tackle the immigrant issue head-on before, but since you brought it up—it’s actually a smart move making the protagonist an immigrant. 😁

By some incredible stroke of luck, that happens to be the director as well.

Anthony Davis6 said:They’re pathetic because they’re stuck right where they are—in life, I mean, not just this specific "event." They blew their lives and now they're trying to fix everything in a single night. It's a cliché. The reality is they ruined things themselves—that was their choice—just like choosing to be part of this "event" was their choice.

You’ve laid it all out nicely, sure—but none of your logic actually matches what we're seeing on screen.

Anthony Davis6 said:Of course it was possible—but it's unlikely someone with a stable life and zero struggles would jump into such a shady setup. Immigrants are practically built for these bizarre "sports" played by bored wealthy elites—they have nothing left to lose. The other participants were either desperate or just plain crazy, though that’s really just a byproduct of how they live (addicts, alcoholics, gamblers... basically everything the main guy isn't).

Hold on a second. The guy the protagonist replaces is actually a white American—and based on the storytelling, he isn't some addict doing this for a fix; he's a professional doing a job so stressful that he ended up hooked on morphine.
You claim the others were all desperate. Fine. But my point remains: why are they desperate if they aren't immigrants? If being an immigrant is the sole reason for their hardship, then that's one of the movie's central themes.

clone said:Look, let's be real for a second—it’s not like immigrants are being rolled out on red carpets in America. It's more about survival; they have to make do with what they can. Naturally, an immigrant is going to take whatever job comes their way, whereas a local American who's already comfortable won't touch certain gritty roles.

And apparently, I missed the part where everyone else participating in the game is also considered an immigrant.

xavierkat said:...but Seraphim has (at least) a beautiful photo 😍 😍 😍

The Libertarian Party has great costume design, too. 😉